Description of ODOP users

While admittedly a little late in the game, it is hopefully never too late to articulate a description of an ODOP user.

There are at least four distinct groups:

• Evaluators (including "tourists")

• Spring Designers

• Design Type (a.k.a. design problem) implementors

• Open Source software engineers

Evaluators

Just about all users will begin as evaluators. First impressions are important. Without a good first impression, few if any, will go forward to become one of the other user types. Mature on-line Help and Demo / Tutorial facilities are thought to be important factors here.

Spring Designers

Considering that Piston-Cylinder and Rectangular Solid are only demonstration problems, "production" users will be spring designers. Spring design users can be further broken down:

• Spring end-users; engineers in industry with a spring application problem to solve

This group may break down into sub-groups: Those looking for a stock spring to meet specific application requirements versus those looking to design a full custom spring. These folks will likely find the ODOP:Spring software through an Internet search or possibly via YouTube. Note that this implies that Search Engine Optimization (SEO) will become a significant issue.

• Customers of Spring manufacturers or spring industry participants

If private label versions of ODOP:Spring are linked to by the web site of a spring manufacturer or spring industry participant such as a stock spring distributor, wire manufacturer, machinery manufacturer or test equipment manufacturer, spring end-users may come through this channel.

• Spring design engineers employed by spring manufacturers

Considering competition from and positioning relative to the UTS Advanced Spring Design (ASD) software, this is not likely to be a large group. Specifcally:

• UTS ASD is already well entrenched in this group. Unless there are clear feature advantages, there will be little motivation for this group to learn a different approach to spring design.
• The UTS ASD software provides many (most?) of the ODOP:Spring key features.
• On the scale of the cost of the UTS ASD software, this group is not particulary price sensitive.
• While compression, extension and torsion springs provide most of the demand for spring design, the UTS ASD software supports a broader range of spring types than ODOP:Spring.
• The UTS ASD software provides features like CAD graphics and CAD data interfaces that are not currently provided by ODOP:Spring.

It is possible that ODOP:Spring is better at solving design problems starting from original specifications than UTS ASD. This point should be investigated and potentially emphasized in ODOP documentation and marketing efforts. Also, while not a major factor, it is quite unlikely that UTS ASD has any equivalent to the ODOP Trade feature.

Design Type (problem) implementors

It is possible that people with design problems to solve on a routine basis will be attracted to the ODOP feature set and / or user interface. The open source aspect could be an important factor for this group. These people could implement a range of design types (problems) for use by other designers.

This group will likely find the ODOP:Spring software through an Internet search or possibly via YouTube.

Open Source software engineers

If ODOP gains a significant user base, there will be a need to maintain the core system as software technology evolves. Hopefully, continued use by a vibrant user community will bring motivation for enhancement. Perhaps major participants will even fund this kind of development work.

Open Source software engineers are likely to find the ODOP software project through GitHub searches.