APPENDIX B

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Program Solicitation: NSF 97-64 Closing Date: June 12, 1997

SBIR Phase II-- Proposal Cover PageTOPIC NO.

 000000-11111-1111-22222

SUBTOPIC NO. (if any)

 N/A

TOPIC TITLE

Development of Matchmaker Project’s Phase II SBIR

PROPOSAL TITLE

NAME OF COMPANYThe Matchmaker Project

EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN) 111-222-3333

ADDRESS (including address of Company Headquarters and zip code plus four digit extension)

The Matchmaker Project

Old Dominion Computer Science Department

Hampton Blvd

Norfolk, Virginia, 23529

 REQUESTED AMOUNT

$261,333

PROPOSED DURATION

6 months

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

  May 1st 2004 to October 1st 2004

THE SMALL BUSINESS CERTIFIES THAT:  Y/N1. It is a small business as defined in this solicitation (Section 2.12) Y2. It qualifies as a socially and economically disadvantaged business as defined in this solicitation. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. N 

3. It qualifies as a woman-owned business as defined in this solicitation. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.  N4. NSF is the only Federal agency that has received this proposal (or an overlapping or equivalent proposal) from the small business concern. If No, you must disclose overlapping or equivalent proposals and awards as required by this solicitation. (See Section 3.3.m)

 Y

5. A minimum of two-thirds of the research will be performed by this firm in Phase II  Y6. The primary employment of the principal investigator will be with this firm at the time of award and during the conduct of the research.  Y

7. It will permit the government to disclose the title and technical abstract page, plus the name, address and telephone number of a corporate official if the proposal does not result in an award to parties that may be interested in contacting you for further information or possible investment.

 Y

8. It will comply with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( P. L. 88-352) and the regulations pursuant thereto.  Y9. It has previously submitted proposals to NSF (EXCLUDING PHASE I SBIR). N10. It previously submitted this proposal (which was declined previously) and significant modifications have been made as described in Section 4.5 of this solicitation.  N

 PRINCIPAL INVESIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME TRENT BUSCH  TITLE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SOCIAL SECURITY NO.

 111-22-3333

 HIGHEST DEGREE / YEAR

 B.S. Ceramics Engineering, 1996

 E-MAIL ADDRESS

 tbusch@cs.odu.edu TELEPHONE NO.

 555-1212

 FAX NO.

 555-1213

 WEB ADDRESS

 http://www.cs.odu.edu/~cs411w/Spring04/MM/index.html

1

 COMPANY OFFICER (FOR BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL MATTERS) NAME

 (SAME AS PRINCIPAL) INVESTIGATOR)

 TITLE

 

 TELEPHONE NO.

 

 OTHER INFORMATION PRESIDENT'S NAME

 DENNIS RAY

 YEAR FIRM FOUNDED

 2003

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AVERAGEPREVIOUS 12 MO.:6 CURRENTLY: 6

PROPRIETARY NOTICE: See Section 5.4 for instructions concerning proprietary information. (Check Here if proposal contains proprietary information.)

NOTE: The signed Certification Page MUST be included immediately following this Cover Page with the original copy of the proposal only.

NSF FORM 1207 (SBIR 12/96)

 

2

Certification Page

Certification for Principal Investigators I certify to the best of my knowledge that:

(1) the statements herein (excluding scientific hypotheses and scientific opinions) are true and complete, and (2) the text and graphics herein are as well as any accompanying publications or other documents, unless otherwise indicated, are the original work of the signaatories or individuals working under their supervision. I agree to accept responsibility for the scientific conduct of the project and to provide the required progress reports if an award is made as a result of this application.

I understand that the willful provision of false information or concealing a material fact in this proposal or any other communication submitted to NSF is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).

 Name (Typed)  Signature  Date PI/PD TRENT BUSCH   May 2nd, 2004

Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual ApplicantBy signing and submitting this proposal, the individual applicant or the authorized official of the applicant institution is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is hereby providing certification regarding Federal debt status, debarment and suspension, drugfree workplace, and lobbying activities (see below), as set forth in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 95-27. Willful provision of false information in this application and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuring award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).

In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, the authorized official of the applicant institution is certifying that the institution has implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of Grant Policy Manual Section 510; that to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have been made; and that all identified conflicts of interest will have conflict of interest policy. Conflicts which cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.

Debt and Debarment Certifications (If answer "yes" to either, please provide explanation.)

Is organization delinquent on any Federal debt?  YES  NO XIs the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by a Federal Department or agency?  YES  NO X

Certification Regarding LobbyingThis certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative AgreementsThe undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer of employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal Contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

3

 Authorized Organizational Representative  Signature  DateName /Title (Typed) 

 CRAIG GILKEY/ OPERATIONS DIRECTOR  May 2nd, 2004

 Telephone Number

 555-1212

 Electronic Mail Address

 cgilkey@cs.odu.edu

 Fax Number

 555-1213

4

APPENDIX C

National Science Foundation Small Business Innovation Research Program

Program Solicitation No: NSF 97-64

Project SummaryFOR NSF USE ONLY

NSF PROPOSAL NO.

NAME OF FIRM The Matchmaker ProjectADDRESS

Old Dominion UniversityHampton BoulevardNorfolk, Virginia 23529

 

 

PRINICPAL INVESTIGATOR (NAME AND TITLE): Trent Busch, Project ManagerTITLE OF PROJECT: The Matchmaker Project

TOPIC TITLE The Development of the Matchmaker Project’s Phase II SBIR

TOPIC NUMBER AND SUBTOPIC LETTER 000000-11111-1111-22222

PROJECT SUMMARY(200 words or less)

This Small Business Innovation Research Phase II project intends to enhance initial communication between singles by incorporating compatibility, portability, and fast data transfer into their dating lives.

Both independent and government research state that compatibility is critical for the development of long-lasting, romantic relationships between adults. Single adults who attend social gatherings lack a means of determining whom they are compatible with. The majority (79%) of relationships developed at social gatherings fail because the initial encounter failed to reveal critical compatibility differences between two adults.

Based on these facts, the project has three critical research objectives for Phase II: (1) to introduce a portable and confidential means of determining compatibility between singles, utilizing a wireless, self-sustaining network, (2) to determine the ideal size of a file/ bit stream between nodes in a self-sustaining, wireless network, and (3) research existing compatibility-based Internet dating services to determine the most critical areas of compatibility.

This research will be composed of the following Phase II milestones: 1) examining user surveys from existing dating services, 2) development of a Service Discovery Protocol for a Bluetooth ™ network, and 3) a test trial of 350 such wireless devices on a 7-day cruise on board the Carnival Sensation.

The first commercial application of this project is to implement the software into an existing PDA for sale to the consumer or to a Cruise Line. A second commercial application(s) would be from the overall industrial improvement of data transfer between wireless PDAs.

 Potential Commercial Applications of the Research

5

The product being developed can be used by cruise ships so they can distribute them to singles on single’s cruises. By using the MatchMaker, the single patrons will be able to meet other single people on the ship with whom they share common interest. Later in the life of the MatchMaker, it will be made available to the general public and they will be able to use it to meet people as well. 

 Key Words to Identify Research or Technology (8 maximum)

 PDA, COTS, compatibility, Matchmaker, fast data transfer, SDP, service discovery protocol

 

NSF Form 1304 (SBIR 12/96)

6

Table of Contents

SBIR Phase II-- Proposal Cover Page..................................................................1Certification Page..................................................................................................3Project Summary...................................................................................................5SBIR PART 1: Results of the Phase I Project.......................................................8

Section 1.1: Social Impact of the Problem.........................................................8Section 1.2: Prototype Development...............................................................10

SBIR PART 2: Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work Plan:..........13Section 2.1: Phase II Technical Objectives......................................................14Section 2.2: Required Hardware......................................................................14

Section 2.4: Compatibility Research............................................................16Section 2.5: Market Research......................................................................17

SBIR Part 3. Organizational Information.............................................................18Section 3.1: Phase II Staffing Overview...........................................................18Section 3.1.1: Project Manager........................................................................19Section 3.1.2: Program Team – Phase II.........................................................19Section 3.2: Future Staffing (Phase III)............................................................20

References..........................................................................................................21Biographical Sketches.........................................................................................24Summary Proposal Budget for Overall Project....................................................25Appendix I: Project Milestone Chart and Payment Schedule..............................28

Project Milestone Chart....................................................................................28Payment Schedule...........................................................................................29

Appendix II: Indicators of Commercial Potential and Commercialization Plan....30Introduction of SBIR Project, Expected Outcomes, and Impact.......................30The Company..................................................................................................30Market, Customer, and Competition................................................................31Intellectual Property Protection........................................................................34Financing and Revenue Stream......................................................................34

Appendix III: Evaluation Plan...............................................................................35Information about Principal Investigator/Project Directors...................................37Certificate Of Current Cost Or Pricing Data.........................................................39

7

SBIR PART 1: Results of the Phase I Project

During Phase I, the Matchmaker project was split into two distinct sections of research: (1) social impact of the problem, and (2) prototype development. The latter of the two was obviously critical for the future design of the product. The first, the social research, was included based on the gross social impact of the problem definition (see Summary).

Section 1.1: Social Impact of the Problem

The Matchmaker project wanted to ensure that the most extensive possible research of the Problem Definition was accomplished prior to Phase II. Therefore, the Matchmaker project continued its research efforts from Phase I in hopes of achieving this goal. This research was conducted with direct aim at validating the Problem Definition, the project’s Societal Goal, and to support our Research Objectives (listed below):

(1) Definition of the Problem: Both independent and government research state that compatibility is critical for the development of

long- lasting, romantic relationships between adults. Single adults who attend social gatherings lack a means of determining whom they are compatible with. The majority (79%) of relationships developed at social gatherings fail because the initial encounter failed to reveal critical compatibility differences between two adults.

(2) Societal Goal: This Small Business Innovation Research Phase II project intends to enhance initial communication between singles by incorporating compatibility, portability, and fast data transfer into their dating lives.

(3) Research Objectives: The Matchmaker project seeks to develop a Phase II product that will:

a) Introduce a portable and confidential means of determining compatibility between singles, utilizing a wireless, self-sustaining network

b) Determine the ideal size of a file/ bit stream between nodes in a self-sustaining, wireless network

c) Research existing compatibility-based Internet dating services to determine the most critical areas of compatibility.

Matchmaker project developed its research though multiple sources. Examples include references like online news articles and U.S. Census documentation. After compiling these references, the Matchmaker project discovered the likely need for further social development of this project: incompatibility.

8

The U.S. Census of 2000 states that ‘incompatibility between former partners’ is the primary factor behind the increase in the percentage of divorced men and women in the United States between 1970 and 2000 (U.S. Census, 2003). The Census of 2000 also contends that the percentage of unmarried adults in the United States increased between 1970 and 2000, while the number of married adults in the U.S. declined (see Figure 1; U.S. Census, 2000). Dating experts attribute numerous societal factors as the cause for these occurrences. These factors include media influence, a lack of stigma associated with single parent homes, an increased number of children being raised by single parent homes, and/or a lack of compatibility between married couples (U.S. Census, 2003). Of these four factors, dating experts agree whole-heartedly with the findings of the U.S. Census. They insist that for long lasting relationships to succeed, compatibility needs to be the primary component (Mason, Sullivan, 2003).

Nowhere is the need to utilize compatibility for singles more evident than at social gatherings. Recent data states that 82% of singles social gatherings provide singles no means of meeting others with whom they are compatible (Mason, 2003). Those singles without a means of other compatible singles are left to utilize a process that could be described as anything but ‘timely.’ On average, singles interviewed by MSNBC reported that on a typical night at a bar or club, they spend 3.3 hours trying to ‘meet someone.’ And by no means does this infer that they are truly compatible with this person; this is just to ‘acquaint him or herself where there may or may not be some basic attraction’ (Mason, 2003). Furthermore, the majority of singles’ events that utilize match-up methods are described as either ‘poor’ or ‘less than adequate’ (Frommers, 2003). The singles’ events that do utilize ‘compatibility’ usually determine it based on one category of an individual’s lifestyle. While singles gather at these functions with a single common interest, there is no way to bridge multiple interests together for large numbers of individuals. For example, a member of the Wasamutten Ski Club will have no way of identifying which members are Jewish, much less which are married.

Such limits on existing match-up methods create our objective for pushing the Matchmaker Project into production (and beyond).

9

Figure 1

Section 1.2: Prototype Development

This semester, the Matchmaker Project worked extensively to produce a prototype capable of meeting basic functionality requirements of our proposed future product. The future product, it was deemed, would need to meet the following set of functionality requirements:

10

Figure 1 details the increase in the percentage of Divorced/Separated (Men and Women) since 1970, along with a decrease in the percentage of Married Men and Women since 1970 (taken from U.S. Census.org). The Census terms ‘unmarried’ as individuals who are either divorced, have never been married, or are widowed.

1) Utilize a pre-manufactured, COTS (Cost Off The Shelf) hardware component of similar construction to a typical pocket PC device. The following components were to be present on the device (typical of Pocket PCs in use):

a. Be of small size (no greater than 6” by 3” by 1/2”)b. Have a 2-way navigational keypadc. Require no external source of power, and utilize a BATTERY

OF SUCH AND SUCH POWER REQUIREMENTSd. Incorporate a color screen

2) Be capable of incorporating a self-sustaining, wireless, Bluetooth ™ network between itself and other Matchmaker devices in the area. This network would serve to transfer user profiles between each device linked to the network. Such a network would utilize Class 2 Bluetooth ™ transmission standards.

3) Incorporate a software algorithm capable of determining compatibility between two user profiles

4) Constructing and implementing a basic graphical user interface for use in the future (Phase III) product.

5) Harvest interviews/surveys from existing compatibility based Internet dating services.

6) Construct an item survey based on the results of analysis performed in requirement (5).

Based on the following objectives, we noted that only a portion of the functionality would need to be proven. Some requirements had been previously established, tested and proven. These included the (1) development of the hardware, i.e. the Pocket PC, and (6) the development of a complex, multi-question user survey based on the results of step (5).

The majority of Pocket PCs on the market today meet the projects four (Item (1), parts a. through d.) specifications (Wireless.com, 2003). Furthermore, the costs of designing, building, and manufacturing these devices are absorbed by a supplier (i.e. through a COTS purchase contact with a manufacturer of Pocket PCs). Further explanation for utilizing this method for acquiring hardware is detailed in Part Two, Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work Plan.

At the beginning of Phase I, the members of the Matchmaker project quickly acknowledged the futility of trying to exceed industry standards for compatibility matching. Most existing Internet based dating services utilized at least one PhD in psychology (Warren, Mason, 2004). The Matchmaker Phase I staff did not include a licensed psychologist. This decision was based on what was available at the time (both funding and personnel). None of the current staff had any expertise in that field, and hiring a psychologist would have been far too costly for the Phase 1 budget.

11

Increasing the size of the user profile questionnaire provided other problems as well. This concern stemmed from the limited amount of data that could be transferred within a quick (less than 2 second) period of time. The larger the user profile, the longer the required transmission time. The Matchmaker project staff was optimistic about the data transfer rate, and early tests proved that larger files (220 KB) could be transmitted. However, as the time required to transfer increased, so did the possibility of loosing connection. In a multi-user environment, this could be catastrophic.

As a result of these two concerns, the Matchmaker project staff concluded that designing a complex, detailed questionnaire during Phase 1 was unfeasible. The alternative agreed upon for Phase I was to complete a limited, three item user profile. This smaller profile would merely test the devices’ algorithm (to ensure it could operate given multiple areas of compatibility). For Phase II, the group agreed to develop a somewhat detailed User Profile with the help of a PhD in psychology. The size of this profile would be determined during Phase II file transfer tests (see Part Two, Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work Plan).

Item (2) of the final product’s functionality (establishing a wireless network) was also reduced in girth for development in Phase I, Constrictions on Phase I budget and personnel limited our test equipment to the accession of 2 Bluetooth ™ wireless USB transmitter/receivers. The group agreed that focusing on the delivery of the user survey itself was enough to prove feasibility for this area of development. Bluetooth™ networks had been successfully tested utilizing similar devices in the past (Sony, 2003).

These facts left three requirements to be achieved during the prototype phase, Phase I. These included:

1) Develop a software algorithm capable of determining compatibility) between 2 profiles.2) Test the delivery of user surveys over a wireless Bluetooth self-sustaining, network (consisting of 2 nodes). 3) Constructing and implementing a basic graphical user interface for use in the future (Phase III) product.

These three objectives became the focus of our prototype during Phase I of the SBIR. The overall end result of the prototype (based on these objectives) was a successful prototype that met the three requirements listed above.

The implementation of the project’s software algorithm was a complete success. Some difficulty in maintaining the schedule was experienced. The algorithm was not completed until twelve days after initial the initial expected completion date. However, Phase 0 planning allocated a two week buffer for unforeseen difficulties in constructing the algorithm. As a result, this delay did not affect the

12

overall project results. There also were no surprises during testing of this algorithm; this component passed both testing and evaluation without difficulty,

There were also some unforeseen positive results as a result of the development of the software algorithm. Initial estimates for the algorithm’s size were guessed at over 100 KB. However, the final design of the algorithm was different from early estimates by two distinctions. First of all, the algorithm implemented was purely software based. This eliminated the concern of integrating more hardware into the device. Secondly, the final algorithm was very compact in size (KB). Our future device will only sacrifice 13 KB of memory to hold the algorithm, and as a result, sacrifice less processing time to utilize the algorithm. Reduced processing time will also likely improve the results of the load testing during Phase II as well.

The second functionality test of the project was to develop and test the delivery of user surveys across a Bluetooth™ self-sustaining, wireless network. As mentioned before, focus was placed on the delivery of the user profile itself. Our communication tests with two Bluetooth™ USB transceivers were moderately successful during this phase. The only difficulty was an unforeseen start-up period required by both the transceivers. Once both devices were powered up, the Windows operating systems on each laptop computer required approximately 4 minutes to set-up the network. Once established, the network actually performed better than expected. Successive tests demonstrated that the two laptops could be separated by almost 50 meters before the connection was lost. As mentioned before, our future tests will include multiple devices with interference from other wireless networks. Based on current tests, so long as the startup time is accounted for, the outcome of should be excellent.

Our final functionality requirement, developing the graphical user interface, was accomplished with little difficulty. In our future product, the graphical image display will serve as the means for the user to program, see results, and make selections. Utilizing Visual Basic, the project constructed a user interface which implemented all required functionality of the future device.

These facts more than provide the group a ‘green light’ for receiving grant funding for Phase II SBIR.

SBIR PART 2: Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work Plan:

As previously mentioned in Part 1, Results of Phase I Project, the results from Phase I proved the Matchmaker’s design prototype met all initial functionality requirements. Future development of the product will bring the Matchmaker

13

project’s design from prototype into marketable product. The functionality of the final product design requires meeting the following technical objectives:

Section 2.1: Phase II Technical Objectives

1) Utilize a pre-manufactured, COTS (Cost Off The Shelf) hardware component of similar construction to a typical pocket PC device. The following components were to be present on the device (typical of Pocket PCs in use):

a. Be of small size (no greater than 6” by 3” by 1/2”).b. Have a 2-way navigational keypad.c. Require no external source of power, and utilize a BATTERY

OF SUCH AND SUCH POWER REQUIREMENTS.d. Incorporate a color screen.

2) Be capable of developing a Bluetooth ™ Service Discovery Protocol (SDP). This Protocol is essential for

3) Harvest interviews/surveys from existing compatibility based Internet dating services.

4) Construct an item survey based on the results of analysis performed in requirement (5).

As mentioned in Part 1, Results of Phase I Project, the scope of Item (2) will be broadened to fully meet the stated requirement. The Matchmaker project has developed a plan based on these six design elements.

Section 2.2: Required HardwareSingles that travel or frequently attend social gatherings like singles’ cruises will utilize this device. To meet these specifications, the Matchmaker device will be small (4.46 in. x 2.75 in. x 0.50 in.), lightweight (4.37 oz.) device, powered by a rechargeable battery. A user will answer a multiple-choice questionnaire concerning his or her interests, and this information will be stored as the device’s ‘user survey.’ The user’s device will then broadcast its own user survey and work in tandem with other Matchmaker devices to determine which user’s surveys are compatible. The surveys are relayed from device to device via a wireless, electronic signal each one broadcasts. After receiving another user’s survey, the user’s device uses an algorithm to determine if the two profiles are ‘compatible.’ Once compatibility is determined, the device transmits a picture image to the other device along with a picture request from the other device. The vibrating mechanism in each Matchmaker device activates, and each user sees a picture image and profile in the Liquid Crystal Display screen.

Our SBIR Phase I findings concluded that the Matchmaker device can be built utilizing existing, readily available hardware technology. In fact, our Phase II SBIR pre-production prototype (and Phase III products) will be composed entirely of one COTS (Cost Off The Shelf) Component: the Hewlett Packard iPAC Pocket PC. The HP iPAC meets all of our specific technical requirements. It’s small,

14

lightweight, and utilizes existing wireless technology that has been on the market for over 3 years. By utilizing an existing HP distributor, our price per unit (single iPAC) will be $200 per unit (including shipping). Our initial estimate of cost to design and produce the hardware in-house came to $260 per unit. But reduced production costs are not the only benefit gleaned from utilizing the iPAC.

There are two other advantages in using the IPAC as our sole hardware component. First, it reduces our development costs to software only. Shock testing, ergonomics testing, and a hardware replacement warranty are all costs absorbed by Hewlett Packard. And secondly, our engineering staff is reduced from our original projection made during Phase 0. Our original plan called for two level 3 engineers; that plan now consists of one level 3 engineer (the Software Engineer). Besides the 30 iPACs purchased, the only hardware cost incurred from Phase II is the cost of two desktop computers (a total cost of $1,200).

Thanks to the incorporation of the IPAC, the most essential tasks to get the Matchmaker device into production will center on software development. At the completion of Phase I (June 15th, 2004), the Matchmaker Project will have a completed, compatibility-based software program to compare user profiles. This program will be transferred onto thirty (30) HP iPACs for field testing, through the utilization of a Bluetooth Developer Kit (at total costs of $7,500 and $10,000, respectively). Field tests will include indoor and outdoor range tests, to determine the effectiveness of the iPACs at given distances from each other. These tests will also include load testing (groups of iPACs will ‘load’ each other with survey requests), fault seating, and will utilize obstacles and walls of various thicknesses. To ensure these tests are executed on a scientific and timely basis, the Matchmaker Project will hire a level 3 software engineer at the beginning of Phase II.

Section 2.3: Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP)Our product also requires a means of transmitting user profiles from one device to the next. The reasoning for this is simple. Without a wireless method to transfer user profiles, the portability of our product is lost. For this activity, our device will need a fairly small (less than 5 cm by 2 cm by 1 cm) transmitter, whose power consumption is minimal at best. The device also needs to be able to set up its own slave-node network system. Requiring the addition of signal exchangers or boosters is far too costly for our SBIR budget, and almost completely removes the ‘portability’ aspect of the device. Furthermore, the device will need a fairly secure means of transmission, particularly one without a lot of interference from other wireless transmissions. Our initial design speculations suggested using either 802.11 g Ethernet or Sony Bluetooth technology as means of transmitting. After reviewing the requirements of both technologies, the group settled on testing with Sony Bluetooth during Phase II.

Our communication tests with two Bluetooth USB transceivers were successful during this phase. This may be an indicator of future difficulties in testing during

15

the next phase. Transmission between transceivers was successful so long as both were kept perfectly still and separated (indoors) by a distance of less than 10 meters. Our future tests will include multiple devices with interference from other wireless networks.

The development of a Bluetooth™ Service Discovery Protocol (SDP) is critical for the continuance of the project. According to our research, current laws and technical specifications require any device that plans on utilizing Bluetooth™ to write its own SDP for that device. As such, there is

A level 3 software engineer will be employed as the overall administrator for the software development of our SDP Protocol. He or she will be employed to work 100% of the time of Phase II, at a total cost (from June 15th, 2004 to January 15th, 2005) of $35,000. To assist the software engineer in the field testing, two ODU undergraduate computer science students (each who have completed CS 250) will be employed as software testers as well. The undergrad students will be employed for the entire phase as well (100%), at a cost of $40,000. To further justify their use, the undergrad students will be utilized for essential clerical/secretarial tasks as needed, including answering the office phone. During Phase III, software development tasks are nonexistent. The software engineer will ensure that the Matchmaker device’s software is ready for mass production by January 1st, 2005. However, our budget realistically accounts for ‘error recovery time,’ in case software needs to be fixed after production (at an estimated cost of $250 per error). Therefore, the software engineer and software testers will be employed for only a fraction of the length of Phase III (at a combined cost of $55,250).

Being located in our own Computer Science department benefits our project both in manpower and in reducing overhead. The Matchmaker Project will employ the original SBIR Phase 1 team. This will eliminate both advertising costs and the need to include a week-long ‘employee indoctrination’ period for the first six members. This one week, although it seems like an insignificant period of time, translates into $11,350 of cost savings for Phase 2. The location also supplies the Matchmaker Project with an excellent source of qualified software testers and software engineers to hire from. This reduction in advertisement reduces the total initial hiring costs of our personnel to a final cost of $6,300. Furthermore, office space and utility costs will be null, thanks to the space supplied by Old Dominion University. Office equipment costs includes office supplies (such as paper and printer cartridges) and the before mentioned desktop computers for Phase II and Phase III. The total cost of the office supplies comes to $4,300, and includes 15 USB storage keys (one for each member of the Matchmaker Project).

Section 2.4: Compatibility ResearchThe final Milestone to accomplish is the construction of a compatibility-based questionnaire. This questionnaire doesn’t need to exceed industry standards for

16

‘compatibility matching’. It must, however, be effective at providing basic compatibility matching between other Matchmaker users. As mentioned in section (1), the majority of online dating services employed compatibility as a means of matching customers. Also, the Matchmaker group’s research agreed with this approach. Therefore, the product’s matching was entirely compatibility-based. To help with the construction of a user profile that meets this requirement, the project will employ a Psychologist on staff.

Section 2.5: Market ResearchAnother most essential group of tasks to ensure the Matchmaker device reaches production focus on generating a sales contract with a cruise line. For this purpose, the marketing staff, initially consisting of our own marketing director, will expand to include both a marketing consultant and a legal consultant (Lawyer) at the start of Phase II.

The priority of accomplishing the cruise line sales contract cannot be more emphasized. Therefore, the marketing consultant will be employed on a full-time (100%) basis during both Phase II and Phase III. The total (salary and benefits) cost of the marketing consultant during both Phase II and Phase III will be $133,000. Considering the essential nature of the sales contracts (and the full-time employment of the job), this is an adequate financial representation of what will be accomplished. During Phase II, both the marketing director and the marketing consultant will be directly tasked with traveling to and lobbying the three largest cruise lines, Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean.

Conveniently, all three cruise lines are headquartered in Miami, Florida. As a result of this, the marketing consultant will be renting a studio to work out of in downtown Miami for the entirety of Phase II (six months). This studio will be at a total cost of $12,000, including the price of utilities and rental deposit. The marketing director and marketing consultant will together have an additional $38,000 in travel expenses, to be used in pursuit of a contract to sell a bulk order of Matchmaker devices to the before mentioned cruise lines.

The legal consultant is utilized for two purposes. The first is to oversee and draft sales contracts. These sales contracts include those with the Matchmaker group and potential cruise line customers, and the Phase III order contract for our COTS hardware, the HP iPACs. The second purpose will be to keep the legal consultant on retainer in case of any unforeseen legal difficulties or lawsuits arise (at the combined cost of $30,000, including both retainer and contract fees).

Being located in our own Computer Science department benefits our project both in manpower and in reducing overhead. The Matchmaker project will employ the original SBIR Phase 1 team. This will eliminate both advertising costs and the need to include a week-long ‘employee indoctrination’ period for the first six members. This one week, although it seems like an insignificant period of time,

17

translates into $11,350 of cost savings for Phase 2. The location also supplies the Matchmaker Project with an excellent source of qualified software testers and software engineers to hire from. This reduction in advertisement reduces the total initial hiring costs of our personnel to a final cost of $6,300. Furthermore, office space and utility costs will be null, thanks to the space supplied by Old Dominion University. Office equipment costs includes office supplies (such as paper and printer cartridges) and the before mentioned desktop computers for Phase II and Phase III. The total cost of the office supplies comes to $4,300, and includes 15 USB storage keys (one for each member of the Matchmaker Project).

The greatest fiscal savings for Phase II comes in the way of capital costs. There are none; the capital costs for this project come to exactly zero dollars. Since the utilities and leasing fees are covered by Old Dominion University, there are no ‘location/facility’ expenses we need to be concerned with. And since the Project utilizes COTS hardware components, it doesn’t need to purchase or rent any mass production equipment.

The project’s Phase II time schedule is based on the limited amount of software work we need to accomplish. Phase II will center on turning our initial ‘rough-sketch’ Phase I prototype into a producible, working model for the customer. Since the hardware development costs are null in terms of time and money, our Phase II timeline will be as cost effective as possible. Our only tasks to accomplish in Phase II consist of the software design and marketing contract aspects already mentioned. Our cost effectiveness is part of the reason our SBIR Grant Request for Phase II was accepted. Our budget costs for Phase II ($371,000) were well under the SBIR Phase II funding cap ($750,000). But the greatest advantage of the Phase II schedule and budget is this: the cost of maintaining the Matchmaker project during Phase II comes to.

During Phase II, the number of employees we hire is quite small. This reasoning is validated in terms of cost. Personnel salary costs, accounting for 88% of the total costs of our project, are by far the most expensive costs of the project. By limiting our Phase II staff to nine employees, we limited the total cost of personnel for Phase II to $272, 500. Our Phase I project staff consisted of the following members: project manager, operations director, SBIR director, technical service director, research and development director, and marketing manager. The nine employees of Phase II include the original Phase I project staff, the software engineer, the marketing consultant, two software testers, and a psychologist.

SBIR Part 3. Organizational Information

Section 3.1: Phase II Staffing OverviewThe Matchmaker project team management’s goal is to work closely with the customer to fully understand the system requirements and field a system that

18

meets those requirements. The management approach for pursuing this is based on the philosophy that successful programs are delivered by goal-oriented teams.

Section 3.1.1: Project Manager

The Project Manager will lead the Matchmaker team throughout Phase II and III of the SBIR process. The Project Manager is responsible for all planning, programmatic, technical, and financial aspects of the Matchmaker project. The Program Manager is the primary Point of Contact (POC) for the customer.The primary duties of the program manager include supervision of all planning, scheduling, financial, and technical activities, and customer liaison. In order to facilitate customer involvement, the project manager will provide planning and schedule recommendations, and assist in resolution of technical and programmatic issues.

Section 3.1.2: Program Team – Phase II

Figure 2: Phase II Management Structure

To comply with the requirements set forth by the NSF SBIR funding, the company will be providing the services of those positions highlighted in blue in the above figure (figure 1). Those positions directly contributing to research are highlighted in green and will be funding by SBIR funding.

19

Through an extensive system selection process, the Matchmaker Team (figure 1) is experienced with the implementation of each component that will comprise the Matchmaker project. The functions of each member are as follows:

Project Manager: The Project Manager manages all budget and timeline milestones for the Matchmaker project. This position is constant throughout the SBIR process (Phase I-III).

Operations Director : The Operations Director manages the day to day operations of the Matchmaker project. As the project moves into phase III (production), the Operations Director will place heavy emphasis on the manufacturing of the Matchmaker in conjunction with sales.

R&D Directory: The R&D director manages all research for the Matchmaker project. The research performed in Phase II consists of both technical and societal topics.

Product Manager: The Product Manager manages all aspect of the customer’s relationship including sales and market of the Matchmaker to our clients. The Product Manager also manages customer feedback so that we may constantly refine our device as determined by our market.

Legal Affairs Director: The Legal Affairs Director provides support for our contract and funding from our sources. Since this product will be an FCC device, this position will ensure that we meet federal compliance of radio devices. The Legal Director will provide assistance to the development with contractual agreements with our customers and vendors.

Technical Services Director : The Technical Service Director coordinates all technical support pre and post the sale of the Matchmaker unit. The Technical Services Director coordinates with the Product Manager and the R&D Director reliability and performance data acquired from the field.

In Phase II, a psychologist will provide services to the company by performing research within the field of relationship sociology. With this assistance, the Matchmaker project will assured of providing a highly probability of a successful match. The psychiatrist will also be available during the product testing to help us refine our products to those results.

Section 3.2: Future Staffing (Phase III)During the initialization of Phase III, several positions will be created to support the four direct reports to the Operations Director. The positions emphasize manufacturing, sales and support for the Matchmaker device. All positions during Phase III will be funded by the company. (Figure 2)

20

Figure 3: Phase III Management Structure

References

1. Bear, M. (2002). U.S. Mobile Commerce: Fact or Fiction? Retrieved from American Press Institute.com on October 10th, 2003 at http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/content/1520.cfm?print=yes

2. Cellular-News.com (2002). Sony Ericsson T608. Retrieved on October 22nd, 2003 at http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8423.shtml

3. ComputerBits.com (2002). PDAs and the Small Business Retrieved.on September 10th, 2003 from http://www.computerbits.com/archive/2003/0800/pdaandsb.html

4. Cruising.org (2003). Number of Cruise Ships in the Caribbean. Retrieved March 27th, 2004 at http://www.cruising.org/cruiselines/ShipIndex.cfm

5. Cruises.about.com (2003). Cruise Passenger Travel Increases in 2003. Retrieved September 30th, 2003 from http://cruises.about.com/cs/officialinfo/a/MARADstats0603.htm

6. Dynamic Travel.com (2003). Programs Offered by Cruise Lines. Retrieved September 28th, 2003 at http://www.dynamictravel.com/singlesguide.htm

7. East Bay Buisness Times.com (2002) PDAs to Grow Moderately (In 2003). Retrieved September 20th, 2003 at http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2002/04/01/daily41.html

21

8. Frommers.com (2003). Matching the Cruise to Your Needs. Retrieved September 21st, 2003 at http://www.frommers.com/activities/single/article.cfm?destid=SINGLE&arti cleid=538

9. Frommers.com (2003). Carnival Cruise Lines (analysis). Retrieved September 22nd, 2003 at http://www.frommers.com/activities/single/article.cfm?destid=SINGLE&arti cleid=538

10.Griffen, Ilene (2002). Singles Guide to Cruising. Retrieved from Caribbean Lime Travel.com October 10th, 2003 at http://www.caribbeanlime.com/singles%20guide%20to%20cruising.htm

11.Hagan, Pat (2002). Even Singles Cruises Have Rules. Retrieved from Cruisemates.com on October 1st, 2003 at http://cruises.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fww w.cruisemates.com%2Farticles%2Fsingle%2F

12.Mason, Anthony (2003). Cyber Courtships Catching On. Retrieved from CBS News.com October 23rd , 2003 at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/eveningnews/main577356.shtml

13.Matchmaker Budget (2003). Retrieved on March 26th, 2004 at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/matchmakerODU/files/

14.Ready 2 Go Travel.com (2003). Cruise Line Demographics. Retrieved October 28th, 2003 at http://www.geocities.com/ready2gotravel/cruiselinedemographics.html

15.Saltzstein, W. (2003) Bluetooth: the Future of Wireless Medical Technology? Retrieved October 15th, 2003 from Device Link.com at http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/02/02/001.html

16.Semiconductor Business News (2003). TI offers ROM-based Bluetooth Processor For $5 Solution In Volume Products. Retrieved on October 1st, 2003 from http://www.mwee.com/printableArticle?doc_id=OEG20011211S0041

17.Sony Ericson T68i Website(2003). Retrieved September 13th, 2003 at http://www.sonyericsson.com/T68i/

18.Sullivan, B. (2003). Online Dating: Everybody’s Doing It. Retrieved from MSNBC.com on September 30th, 2003 from http://www.msnbc.com/news/806278.asp?0dm=B17GB&cp1=1

19.Weaver, J. (2003). Video, Voice and Instant Gratification. Retrieved from MNBC.com on September 30th, 2003 from http://www.msnbc.com/news/809820.asp?0cb=-416105685&cp1=1

20.U.S. Census.org (June, 2001). America’s Families and Living Arrangements. Retrieved October 5th, 2003 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf

22

Biographical Sketches

Craig Gilkey is a senior at Old Dominion University majoring in Computer Science, and plans on graduating in May of 2004. Craig has been in the United States Navy for the past 10 years, and until his current assignment to ODU, worked in the Health Sciences. Craig earned an Associate’s in Health Sciences (A.S.) from George Washington University in 2000, and has attended numerous military training schools, including Field Medical Service School and Military Laboratory Technician School. Craig has visited 13 foreign nations both through the Navy and on vacation (which includes attending 2 different cruises).

Trent Busch is a ceramic engineer (Alfred University, 1992) working toward his master in Computer Science. During the past 10 years, Trent has held positions such as Plant Engineer, Technical Service Engineer, and Product Manager. Having successfully implemented win-win projects for his customers that provided a 10% increase in net income for his company, Trent earned the Most Valuable Player Award– Kentucky Tennessee Clay Company. Trent has published two articles in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society and presented papers to industry conventions. With extensive project management experience acquired from an industry leader in management, Trent looks forward to applying his engineering background to the CS culture, while becoming part of a dynamic company in the future.

Nick Hundstad is a senior at Old Dominion University, with a completion of a B.S. in Computer Science and a minor in Computer Engineering he intends to return to industry. Nick held a position at Catalyst Communications Technology Incorporated for two years and has worked at nHance for a year where he is still employed.

Sharina Broughton is a senior at Old Dominion University and plans to receive her BS in Computer Science with a minor in Computer Engineering in May 2004. She currently volunteers at a local high school as an assistant to Java and C++ programming teachers. Upon graduation, she plans to pursue a career in programming, web development or databases.

Josh Lazernick is working toward his Bachelors in Computer Science from Old Dominion University, the most recognized school in South Norfolk. With no official recognition for his computer talents, Josh is trying to show off his skills in computer programming, web design, and mathematics. Josh has experience in web publishing, Microsoft Windows, and C++. Josh also has introductory knowledge of Java, Unix, X-Windows, Paintshop Pro, Photoshop, Xara 3d, Internet Relay Chat, and open-GL.

Michael Urban is a senior studying Computer Science with a Math minor at Old Dominion University. He expects to graduate in May 2004. He has attened Tidewater Community College.

23

Summary Proposal Budget for Overall Project[Place Holder]

24

25

26

Appendix I: Project Milestone Chart and Payment Schedule

Project Milestone Chart

The Matchmaker project’s Phase II development will include the following Milestones:

The Matchmaker project attached these Milestones to four specific areas of development. These include Required Hardware, Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP), Compatibility Research, and Market Research.

Tasks Days Start Date End Date

Budget Analysis for Phase II 60 05/15/04 07/15/04

Training Guidelines for Maintenance Personnel 15 06/20/04 07/05/04

Software Testing (with Hardware) 210 5/16/04 12/16/04

Set up Hardware Contract 144 5/30/04 10/24/04

Preliminary Product Sales Contract 45 05/30/04 07/14/04

Market Analysis: Open Sale 120 07/01/04 10/01/04

Test Analysis 30 12/01/04 01/01/04

Final Pre-Production Product Review 10 01/01/05 01/15/05

27

Payment Schedule

Phase IIDuration: 8 months

Salaries   SBIR FundedCompany Funded

  #

% of work dedicated to

project

Duration of work

during phase (months)

Cost for Phase

Cost for Phase

Project Manager 1 50% 8 X  Operations Director 1 80% 8 X  R&D Director 1 80% 8 X  Product Manager 1 100% 8   XLegal Affairs Director 1 50% 8   XTechnical Service Director 1 100% 8   XSoftware Engineer 1 100% 8 X  Software Developer 2 100% 8 X  Psychologist 1 75% 8 X  Marketing Consultant 1 100% 8   XLegal Consultant 1 20% 8   X  Hardware/Software          

# $ each  Cost for Phase

Cost for Phase

Hardware    Desktop Computers 2 $600   XSoftware    Bluetooth Developer Kit 1 $10,000     X

Marketing          

# $ each  Cost for Phase

Cost for Phase

   Travel Expenses 1 $50,000   XParticipate at Cruising Convention 1 $20,000   XAdvertising 1 $10,000   XSample Units 30 $250   XWebsite 6 $30   X

 Total   $632,713 $261,333 $371,380

One-eight of each cost in this table will be allocated each month for the entire eight months of Phase II.

28

Appendix II: Indicators of Commercial Potential and Commercialization Plan

Introduction of SBIR Project, Expected Outcomes, and ImpactDating experts agree whole-heartedly with the findings of the U.S. Census. They insist that for long lasting relationships to succeed, compatibility needs to be the primary component (Mason, Sullivan, 2003). However, most singles would contend that it is tough to try to find someone with the same interests without having to enlist some help. This ‘help’ often comes in the form of meeting others through a trusted friend or though an online Internet dating service. But neither of these two methods comes in handy at group functions. At large group functions, a friend’s knowledge about all the individuals present is not very deep. Often friends are not even sure who is single. An Internet dating service like Match.com might be utilized by only a handful of people at a particular group function. And this handful of Match.com users might not contain anyone with whom you are ‘compatible.’ This leaves singles with an unanswered question: “How can I find someone I am compatible with while I’m at my favorite get-together?”This is where the motivation to develop the MatchMaker originates. The goal of this SBIR research is to develop a product that will improve communication between people who are compatible and to help eliminate the time people waste trying to get to know someone with whom they turn out to not be compatible.

The technical objectives of this project are to develop a portable MatchMaker device that allows communication with other MatchMaker devices over a wireless network, to develop an algorithm that will determine compatibility between users and to have the device produce output in real time. We will fulfill the portability requirement by purchasing Hewlett Packard IPAQs as our main hardware component. The IPAQ’s will house all of the functionality of the device. In order to utilize a wireless network and real-time output, we will equip the IPAQ with Bluetooth, which is a technology that enables communication between portable devices. To develop the algorithm, we will employ a psychologist to research compatibility and determine what criteria we will use to determine compatibility and software engineers to create a program that compares the criteria and determines whether the criteria of the users being compared constitutes a match.

The innovation this product will introduce is the ability to autonomously communicate with other devices coupled with the power to stimulate contact between single people. The anticipated societal impact of this innovation is to encourage communication between people who are compatible and help them find happiness in a partner.

The CompanyThe MatchMaker project team is currently a group of six individuals dedicated to the research and development of the MatchMaker product. In order to effectively

29

make the transition from Phase II to the production stage, we will employ the Phase II project management team with the addition of six staff members: three technical support workers, a sales worker and a customer service representative and a hardware manager. In order for this team to grow as a business, we plan to expand our market from cruise lines to the general public.

Market, Customer, and CompetitionWe intend to market our final product to cruise ships so that they can distribute them on their single’s cruises. Our research shows that this is a highly lucrative market. The cruise industry in the US has been in a rapid growth phase over the past ten years. The cruising industry produced a record year for 2003 with over 9.52 million worldwide guests enjoying cruise vacations in 2003. This is a 10.2% increase over the 8.6 million who cruised in 2002. Nearly 8 million North Americans cruised in 2003 which is a 6.9% increase compared with the nearly 7.5 million who cruised in 2002.1 There are 153 cruise ships that service passengers originating from the US.2 Cruise ships attained a 102.6% load factor in 2003 (compared with 98.6% in 2002), demonstrating the enormous demand for cruise vacations.3 With such growth, there has been increased competition among companies trying to differentiate themselves to attract higher net income per passenger. With 56% of Americans being single (US Census 2000) cruise companies are focusing on the single’s market.

According to solvedate.com, there are five ways for a single person to find a potential partner: on his or her own, in virtual communities, with personal ads, through traditional dating services, and though online dating services. Each of these services has its advantages and disadvantages. These methods are our current competition and we plan to diminish their threat by incorporating their advantages and eliminating their disadvantages.

If a person decides to search for someone on his or her own, there are time constraints, a narrow social reach, and a low frequency of meeting people. These flaws leave the person to rely on friends, relatives, and other social networks as means to meet new people.

Virtual communities (chat rooms, instant messaging, and email) increase social isolation. “A recent Stanford study of 4,113 individuals reported that the more time people spend using the Internet, the more they lose contact with their social environment” (solvedating.com, 2004). The purely text-based services also lack effective communication. When online, people lose the ability to properly register 1 Cruise Lines International Association, February 26, 2004, CLIA MEMBER CRUISE LINES POST STRONG PASSENGER GROWTH WITH OVER 9.5 MILLION CRUISERS IN 2003 at http://www.cruising.org/CruiseNews/news.cfm?NID=1562 Cruise Lines International Association, Cruise Line and Ship Profiles as presented on March 28, 2004 at http://www.cruising.org/cruiselines/ShipIndex.cfm3 Cruise Lines International Association, February 26, 2004, CLIA MEMBER CRUISE LINES POST STRONG PASSENGER GROWTH WITH OVER 9.5 MILLION CRUISERS IN 2003 at http://www.cruising.org/CruiseNews/news.cfm?NID=156

30

sincerity and sarcasm, which are usually revealed by facial expressions and the tones in a person’s voice. Delays of even a few seconds in an online conversation can display a false hesitation or disinterest. Another study showed that online groups took about three times longer to develop impressions of each other than if the group had meet face-to-face (solvedating.com, 2004).

Personal ads have an inadequate membership size, take away the ability to judge physical appearance, have a financial overhead, and have a small space for descriptions and what the advertiser is looking for in a relationship. Because customers are usually charged by the word, they usually find that they are limited in their specifications. Many personal ads do not convey more than the gender, race and age of the author, the desired gender, race and age he or she is looking for in a match and a few words briefly detailing the author’s hobbies and interests. There is no physical appearance feed back since photos are not published in the papers. The user’s short description is lumped together with everyone else’s which limits the chances of the ad being noticed unless the author paid extra money to make the ad stand out.

Traditional dating services have low membership size and usually involve a high financial cost. This service works by introducing customers to other customers. The effectiveness of this service relies heavily on who else has paid for this service.

With online dating services, member profiles are unreliable, there is a considerable financial cost, and membership retention is hard. Many online dating services do not include pictures due to the lack of interest or lack of technology. Pictures are not a good source of information online anyway. Studies have shown that people are more likely to lie about themselves online. People generally only post flattering pictures and sometimes the pictures do not accurately reflect the person’s true appearance. Also, there are monthly fees the customer must incur. For these services, members have to pay twenty to forty dollars per month. A member is no good to the service if he or she has not checked for a match for a couple of months or if he or she fills out a profile but is unwilling to pay the fee to be able to communicate.

The Matchmaker combines the strengths of these four options and eliminates the weaknesses of them. The Matchmaker solution is portable so you take it out into the real world with you and meet people face-to-face. Non-matches are weeded out by matching software. The face-to-face meeting is key to solving most of the other dating services shortcomings.

The Matchmaker saves its user’s time. It has a profile that is quick and easy to fill out. Once the profile is filled out, the user simply has to carry the device around with him or her and let it find other singles that meet the criteria. This saves the user the embarrassment of walking up to someone and being rejected

31

because the other person is not single. It also allows users to focus on people that they match with.

When you’re face-to-face with someone, ineffective communication is reduced by being able to see his or her reactions. The user can see what they think about the other person and if they are wasting time. When the person the user is talking to tells jokes or uses sarcasm, it will be easier to tell because the user can hear the tone of voice and see facial expressions. Also, in the matchmaker profile there is a section that allows users to tell a little about themselves in their own words. This allows the user to see if they share common interests, giving them something to talk about. This effective communication helps to eliminate slow impressions.

Pictures may be worth a thousand words but seeing someone in person is priceless. It is easy for someone to just fake the information in a profile. It is a little harder for someone to fake a picture. However, when face-to-face with someone it is hard for him or her to hide the way he or she looks. The user can know if he or she attracted to their match.

With the Matchmaker device the user’s decision to walk up and talk to someone does not have to be based purely on looks. They can also look over the profile and see if they have things in common. The decision to date someone should not be based purely on looks or what he or she’s written in the profile, so the user also gets to talk to the person. When you are staring someone in the eye it is harder for him or her to deceive you. The user can ask questions about the profile and see if the other person really does like reading poetry or whatever else may be in the profile.

Costs, and membership problems are addressed by the alliance of The Matchmaker project, cruise ships, resorts, and other social gathering locations. The cruise ships, resorts, and other social gathering locations will take on most of the cost for the user, charging a limited fee. In return they will attract to their other services customers who are singles looking for a way to meet matches. Since these locations will be handing the matchmaker devices to other singles, the frequency of matches will go up. Membership retention will also not be as big a deal because only people with the device will be on the system, unlike online dating services where profiles may remain up for a long time after the person is no longer using the service or has already found a match.

Our approach towards obtaining customers involves establishing a close relationship with the cruise industry as well as select participants of singles cruise orientated programs. The cruise line industry is comprised of two main marketing focuses: the cruise lines and the travel agencies. Initial sales contacting will begin and in Phase II and continue throughout the production phase. A production prototype will be produced during this Phase II. To test the

32

acceptability and viability of the MatchMaker, a lot of 150 units will be produced for real world testing and evaluation.

This real world evaluation will take place on a cruise ship and be done in coordination with a singles, cruise oriented travel agency. In order to ensure acceptability an exit survey will be given to participants; focus of the exit survey will be placed on key development topics and overall general users’ opinion. The projected group of participants will number around three hundred; half will be given the device to allow a comparison to be done between those with and those without the MatchMaker.

Some issues that may hinder success in the production phase involve gaining acceptance from society. New technologies usually take a while to become accepted by the general population. There can sometimes be a stigma associated with new gadgets because of the preconceived notion that gadgets are for “nerds.” However, there is a low chance that this will be a problem for our product because they will be implemented on IPAQs, which are now common devices. There are also more serious risks that are associated with this product. The Matchmaker cannot guarantee the integrity of its users nor of the information that they submit. We have no control over how its users portray themselves nor over what they do with the information they receive from other users. Our potential users may have a fear of using this product because it does not protect against stalking or because there is a chance people may use it as a prostitution tool. There is no way to prevent this from happening once the product is sold to the general public, but while it is on the cruise ships, the onboard security will handle any problems that may arise in that arena.

Intellectual Property ProtectionTo protect the intellectual property developed relating to the Matchmaker product, we will copyright the software used in the device.

Financing and Revenue StreamOur most recent market analysis indicates that we will be able to sell a total of 15,000 MatchMaker devices over the next 2 years. The MatchMaker will be sold at a $400 per unit pricing schedule. We will acquire the HP IPAQ units and prepare them for shipping for approximately $200 per unit. We are able to achieve a sales rate of 600 units per month with our hardware taking the first month to fill the pipeline within our production. Our budget indicates that we expect a revenue of $240,000 per month with our profits being -$159,583 for the 1st month. Other months with the exception of the last month will bring in an $80,417 per month profit and the last month will bring in $200,417. We will have gained a $1.97 million income by February 2007.

We will only require corporate funding for the first month of production. This leads to a capitalization cost of $160,000 to start up our production cycle. All funds will be recovered within three month of this initial expense.

33

Appendix III: Evaluation Plan This portion of the SBIR document details the evaluation plan for the MatchMaker project. Project evaluation appraises the progress and performance relative to the project’s initial or revised plan. The evaluation also appraises the project against the goals and objectives set for it during the selection process.

During the various stages of the project, the MatchMaker’s management team will be running numerous evaluations on the schedule and budget. The MatchMaker project will be evaluated mainly at the end of each project phase. This evaluation will test the products’ milestones and compare the pre-production timelines set.

During testing of certain aspects of the project that will involve customer input (such as the comparison forms), the MatchMaker will call upon testers. Because the project is planned to be completed before Spring Break of 2005, our flagship market will involve singles on Cruise Liners.

The major milestones for Phase I are prototype design and the initial software. The initial software is a java application comprised of compatibility data and the logic to compare with other devices. To evaluate we will make sure the software will compare all the data fields, especially those marked critical by certain devices. Essentially, to evaluate the initial software, we will have to make sure a minimum of 50% the total fields and all of the critical fields of the compatibility data match.

In order to test the prototype design, we will need to test the software, Bluetooth range, stress its limits, and make sure the information stored on the device can be searched and altered. The device should transmit information and request to receive data, from the user, if there is a successful match. Also, we should test that the device should not receive any information on other devices with non-matching critical sections. According to our specifications, the device will have a 10m range (approx. 33 ft) in open air. To test its limits, we will have several PCs/laptops come into range with the prototype (all have the software and Bluetooth capabilities). We will expect the devices to verify they are similar devices, open a connection, transmit the compatibility information, and if they are a “match” we will transmit the personal/extended information between the two devices.

The major milestones for Phase II are durability/hardware testing, on-site testing, and the proposal of sales contracts to our initial target market. Durability/hardware testing involves several issues. For the hardware testing, we will have to test the proper functioning of several components of the device, including the LCD screen, battery, numeric keypad and buttons, USB port, and

34

main memory. Specifically for the battery and main memory, we would like to know how long the battery will last and how many profiles we can store. For durability testing, we will have to make sure the device can still function after free-falling a minimum of six feet and test how long (under normal wear and tear) before the device fails. The free-fall will have to be performed on concrete, hardwood, and marble flooring and still must be fully functioning.

According to MBusinessDaily, Bluetooth cannot even transmit between simple masonry walls. On a typical cruise ship we are limited to open air areas including the deck, walkways, lounges/clubs, banquet halls, the central mall, and seating halls/amphitheaters. Because we have no research on Bluetooth range between metallic walls, we will run tests in these areas to verify the range. A successful test will allow us to properly transmit information between these two devices approximately 33 feet.

During Phase I, we conducted marketing research to gain information on the singles’ and cruise ship patrons’ demographics. We will take this research and formulate sales contracts to our initial market. The presentation and documentation will prove to the cruise line corporations that there is a market and a demand, and will prove to be a lucrative project should they choose to accept our agreement.

35

APPENDIX A

Information about Principal Investigator/Project Directors

Submit only ONE copy of this form with your proposal. Attach it on top of the cover page of the copy of your proposal that bears the original signatures. Leave the back of the page blank. Do not include this form with any of the other copies of your proposal, as this may compromise

the confidentiality of the information.Please check the appropriate answers to each question for all principal investigator(s)/project director(s) listed on the cover page, using the

same order in which they were listed there:

Principal First Second Third Fourth

Investigator/ Additional Additional Additional Additional

Project Director PI/PD PI/PDPI/PD PI/PD

1. Is this personFemale Male X

2. Is this person aU.S. Citizen X Permanent Resident Other non-U.S. Citizen

3. Which one of these categories best describes this person's ethnic/racial status? (If more than one category applies, use the category that most closely reflects the person's recognition in the community.)

American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Black, not of Hispanic Origin Hispanic Pacific Islander White, not of Hispanic Origin X

4. Does this person have a disability which limits a major life activity?

36

Yes No X

Check here if this person does

not wish to provide some of allof the above information

REQUIRED: Check here if this person is currently serving (or has previously served) as PI, Co-PI or PD on any Federally funded project

X

AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North American and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.ASIAN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of East Asia, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent. This area includes for example, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.BLACK, NOT HISPANIC ORIGIN: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.HISPANIC: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rico, Cuban, Central of South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.PACIFIC ISLANDER: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii; the U.S. Pacific territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marinas; The U.S. Trust Territory of Palau; the islands of Micronesia and Melanesia; or the Philippines.WHITE, NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

*Disabled: A person having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; who has a record of such impairment; or who is regarded as having such impairment.

WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigators/project directors and co-principal investigators. To gather the information needed for this important task, you should submit a single copy of this form with each proposal; however, submission of the requested information is not mandatory and is not a precondition of award. Any individual not wishing to submit the information should check the box provided for this purpose. (The exception is information about previous Federal support, the last question above.)Information from this from will be retained by Federal agencies as an integral part of their Privacy Act Systems of Records in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. These are confidential files accessible only to appropriate Federal agency personnel and will be treated as confidential to the extent permitted by law. Data submitted will be used in accordance with criteria established by the respective Federal agency for awarding grants for research and education, and in response to Public Law 99-383 and 42 USC 1885c.

NSF Form 1225 (SBIR 12/96)

37

APPENDIX E

Certificate Of Current Cost Or Pricing Data

This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as defined in section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations), submitted either actually or by specific identification in writing, to the Grant Officer or to the Grants Officer's representative in support of ___________The Matchmaker Project_____* are accurate, complete, and current as of ______May 1st, 2004__________________.**

This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are part of the proposal.

 

COMPANY NAME: ___________ The Matchmaker Project_________ REPRESENTATIVE NAME: _______ Trent Busch_________________REPRESENTATIVE TITLE: ________Senior Investigator___________REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: ______________________________

DATE OF EXECUTION***: _________May 2nd, 2004_________ SBIR Organizations are required to submit this certificate with their proposal. If the proposal is recommended for funding, a second certificate will be requested by NSF subsequent to a pre-award budget review, but prior to award.

* NSF will provide the Proposal Award Number.

** (1) Insert the date, month, and year of proposal submission when submitting with proposal, (2) or the date, month, and year when notified by NSF that the proposal has been recommend for award and price negotiations are completed.

*** Insert the date, month, and year of signing

38