In early 2022, Carlos Ospina, co-founder of Botfactory, had just taken over the reins of CEO. As he climbed the three flights of stairs to his office in Long Island City, New York, he pondered the future of additive manufacturing in electronics. Botfactory, a leader in this field, was known for creating one of the first complete desktop printed circuit board (PCB) printers. With an established product, patented printing processes and a decade-long presence in the market, Botfactory was poised for significant expansion.
Yet, the company found itself at a critical juncture, facing an urgent need for additional funds. Despite attending trade shows, garnering positive feedback and successfully selling their printers, it was not enough to sustain their operations. Fundraising efforts were proving to be equally challenging. From Ospina’s perspective, it took eight years to finalize their Minimum Viable Product (MVP) – a necessary timeline to develop such novel technology. To investors, however, eight years should have translated into building scale, boosting revenue, and increasing profit. Unfortunately, as a small company of ten, Botfactory did not have impressive figures to show. Scaling a hardware startup was a monumental task – one that many investors were often impatient about.
In this new season of Botfactory, a transformation was essential. Ospina ensured that the team of ten received a decent salary and basic benefits, shifting the focus from mere survival to being able to concentrate on their work. To sustain this, Ospina faced a pivotal decision: seeking external investment and fundraising, focusing on organic revenue growth strategies or pursuing strategic partnerships. The path Botfactory would choose was crucial. Whichever strategy they pursued, they had to make it or go broke. It was not just about surviving; it was about proving that they could sustain and thrive in the long run.
Not Fast Enough
In 2012, Ospina and Nicolas Vansnick graduated from a New York University (NYU) engineering class where a staggering 90% of their peers had failed, primarily due to delays in board manufacturing. Electronics fabrication was notoriously expensive, messy, and time-consuming as traditional manufacturing processes were geared towards large-scale production. For the average student looking to prototype a singular board quickly, this meant facing prohibitively high costs and long turnaround times. While PCBs could be obtained swiftly, the exorbitant costs associated with this convenience were prohibitive for most.
This challenge was not unique to New York. In his home country of Colombia, Ospina encountered similar challenges with his first company, which focused on electronics and heavy machinery for the truck market. Each prototype took between 30 and 40 days to develop. Not only were these prototypes costly, but the delays also meant that many of his employees were left idly waiting for the boards, resulting in significant financial losses.
At NYU, Ospina also had the chance to collaborate with Michael Knox, a distinguished industry professor known for his expertise in analog and microwave circuit design. Beyond their work in electronics, Ospina, Vansnick and Knox were united by their shared passion for 3D printing – a technology that was capturing the imagination of innovators in 2012. That year marked a turning point for additive manufacturing, with MakerBot leading the charge. By making 3D printing accessible to hobbyists, small businesses and retired dads, MakerBot sparked a wave of community-driven innovation and generated significant media buzz. Riding on that wave, Knox quipped:
What if we had a 3D printer, but for electronics?
Vansnick shut the idea down immediately, noting that it was already possible to prototype PCBs using a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling machine. In fact, Knox’s lab in NYU was equipped with such a technology. However, Ospina was acutely aware of the limitations of CNC milling. It was a manual and imprecise process, suitable for creating a single layer on a PCB but mostly inadequate for anything more complex. Meaningful electronic boards typically required multiple layers—a minimum of two, but often four or more. Ospina response was rooted upon a deeper understanding of the market:
I 100% agree that additive manufacturing for boards would be good, if and only if, we can do multilayer boards.
Ospina’s key comment reflected the insights he had gained from an Institute of Printed Circuits (IPC) report that provided a comprehensive forecast for North America. The report highlighted the dominance of multilayer rigid PCBs in the market, which accounted for over 80% of PCB sales in North America, establishing them as the backbone of the industry (see Exhibit 1 for a detailed market breakdown). Ospina recognized that merely replicating the capabilities of CNC machines via additive manufacturing would fall short of addressing the real market demands. The true need was for a solution that could produce complex, multilayer boards with speed and cost-efficiency – something better than the existing CNC technology. He also understood that multilayer rigid PCBs made up around 40% of North America’s total PCB production market, signalling a substantial commercial opportunity in the region (see Exhibit 2 for a detailed market breakdown). Nearly half of North America’s PCB production was dedicated to rigid multilayer boards – for Ospina, this posed not only a technological challenge but also a lucrative business prospect.
MakerBot, but for Electronics
NYU InnoVention Challenge
The idea for additive manufacturing in electronics emerged during the 2013 NYU InnoVention Challenge, where Ospina and Vansnick were tasked with validating, prototyping, and pitching commercially viable technology solutions to address global challenges within a six-month timeframe. With an emphasis on quick and dirty prototypes, the team repurposed an Ultimaker frame (a 3D printer frame), an extrusion nozzle, and conductive paste to draw conductive lines. The conductive paste, typically used for sealing gaskets due to its high thermal expansion properties, was not originally intended for such electronic applications but proved to be an innovative solution for their project.
Early in the competition, they were booted out. The judges felt that they were not addressing a real industry need – CNC mills existed, and while traditional PCB manufacturing was not ideal, it had become so ingrained in people's routines that it seemed like the only way. However, a popularity vote, comprising many electrical engineers frustrated by long lead times for their prototypes, brought them back into the game. The team, and the judges, realized then that there was a genuine need for their product.
NYU Summer Launchpad
Eventually receiving second place for hardware and third place overall in the NYU InnoVention Challenge, the team was invited to participate in the NYU Summer Launchpad, an accelerator that heavily emphasized the Lean Startup method. This approach, prioritizing customer feedback over intuition and flexibility over rigid planning, continues to be a core principle in how Ospina manages operations today. Each month, they had to talk to a hundred people, including potential customers, industry experts, competitors, suppliers, possible partners, affiliates, and even representatives from growth channels.
While Vansnick despised the interviewing, Ospina thrived in it. Carrying a large cardboard box around town, Ospina eagerly attended coffee chats with electronics companies, enthusiastically demonstrating his prototype and sharing his vision. Eventually running out of leads, he took a bold step: he created a website, removed the logo of a Roland CNC machine and listed all the features he envisioned for a PCB printer. It could print four layers, connect the vias automatically, apply paste and handle pick and place operations. Investing in AdWords and generating buzz on electronic design blogs, Ospina successfully attracted traffic to the site. This move allowed them to connect with even more professional engineers, enthusiasts and tinkerers, gathering invaluable feedback. Eventually, Ospina got busted for copying the Roland machine and had to take the site down – but not without creating a significant buzz, collecting a wealth of feedback and gaining crucial market validation.
Upon graduating from the accelerator, Ospina and Vansnick had enough conversations to know that a PCB printer was something they had to get done – Ospina, Vansnick and Knox signed the papers to establish Botfactory in 2013.
Kickstarter for Squink
Knox had met Andrew Ippoliti, a bored frontend engineer at IBM, through a tech meetup and saw potential in him for Botfactory. He introduced Ippoliti to the team, and George Kyriakou, an NYU student and Vansnick’s roommate, soon joined their ranks. With four startups under his belt as CEO, Ospina was eager to shift his focus to the role of CTO, dedicating himself to building and refining the product based on customer needs rather than handing the demands of a CEO. Vansnick, captivated by market dynamics and investor interests, enthusiastically stepped into the CEO role. With his extensive experience in patent work, Knox took on the role of CINO. Ippoliti led the software development, while Kyriakou concentrated on enhancing the technology and the company’s operations.
With $4000 to their name, earned from the accelerator, they gave themselves 6 months to launch a Kickstarter campaign for their first product – Squink. The focus was now more technical – taking apart the feedback they had received, creating a model for demonstration purposes and translating it into specifications and features on a machine. By this time, they knew that an extrusion head with conductive paste was too imprecise, so the switch was made to inkjet printing. Squink had three operations:
- Print: Conductive ink is used to draw conductive lines on a substrate
- Paste: Conductive glue dots are applied where the pins of the components will be placed
- Pick and Place: Components are picked up from a tray, aligned, rotated and placed onto the glue dots
Just as MakerBot aimed to bring 3D printers into every home, Ospina and Vansnick aspired for Botfactory to revolutionize electronics prototyping by putting it into the hands of tinkerers and innovators right at home. Their vision was to democratize electronics fabrication. With Squink, a personal factory for electronic circuits, one could easily print and assemble their circuits in mere minutes, attaining the same agility as software development.
The Kickstarter campaign was a resounding success, enabling Botfactory to surpass its $100k goal. By July 2015, they were shipping Squink for $2000 each.
Squink’s Value – not for the Makers, but for the Corporations
As Squink evolved, Ospina and Vansnick began showcasing their printers at trade shows and Maker Faires, aiming to increase credibility, boost sales and generate the funds needed to support their growth. As a quintessential “show-and-tell” product, Squink shone the brightest in live demonstrations. While explaining its features left some skeptical, watching Squink print a PCB live amazed and captivated audiences. In other words, attending trade shows was a natural fit for Botfactory.
The Berlin Trade Show
One day, Botfactory’s phone rang, and a guy by the name of Jonathon Harrop bluntly pointed out that the team lacked understanding of their product and target market. To prove his point, he suggested for Botfactory to attend a trade show to observe what others were selling and their pricing. He invited them to his trade show in Berlin, IDTechEx Printed Electronics Europe 2015. As Squink was catered to hobbyists, Botfactory was selling it at a maker’s price of $2,500. Nobody else had a product quite like Botfactory’s, but the company right next door was selling an extrusion-based machine that could print conductive lines. This machine, akin to Botfactory’s early NYU prototype that they knew did not work well, was being sold for $12,000.
A representative from BMW, intrigued by Squink, approached their booth and inquired about the price. Sensing the potential of a large corporate client, Ospina doubled Squink’s price to $5000 on the spot, hoping to capitalize on the opportunity. Without hesitation, the BMW guy requested four units.
Ospina realised then that many companies were struggling with the same slow electronic prototyping issues he had faced in Columbia. Botfactory was not meant to be the electronics version of MakerBot – after all, only so many average dads were interested in electronic prototyping. Instead, Botfactory was destined to revolutionize prototyping for professionals, and corporations were more than willing to pay for it. The pivotal moment at the Berlin trade show marked a turning point for Botfactory. It became clear that the true value of additive manufacturing for electronics lay in its potential for professional use. The demand from large companies highlighted a significant market opportunity that Botfactory had only begun to explore. With this newfound understanding, the founders shifted their focus towards catering to the needs of professional engineers.
New York Angels
By 2016, Botfactory had sold around $400k worth of printers – enough to demonstrate market potential but barely enough to sustain operations in New York. This pushed them to seek their first round of seed funding from the New York Angels. With contributions mostly from friends and family, they successfully raised $1.3 million. Armed with massive feedback from tradeshows, the founders poured their resources into developing their second desktop PCB printer, SV2. However, having been born and raised Columbian, Ospina did not love the idea of taking money from friends and family:
In my house, if you’re starting a business, you don’t put your family’s money into the business because if everything goes to hell, who’s going to help you if they don’t have money? Unless your father is like super wealthy, and he doesn’t care for his million dollars. But it’s not common.
Before releasing SV2 in 2018, Botfactory was running out of money, so they went out for a bridge investment in the form of a convertible note to secure $600k. They received support from the New York Angels Innovation Fund and Sand Hills Angels. Ospina commented:
It feels to me that the main goal for founders in the US is to get investment. Not in my country – you build the company first; you make it profitable and then the investment comes in and you grow right? That’s obviously riskier in terms of runway because you have to make sure you can stand on your feet and get to where you want to get to quickly before you die.
Of course, Ospina would love to have more cash in the bank. While many investors were captivated by the concept of a printer for electronics, when it came time to scrutinise the company’s financials, the allure of additive manufacturing could only go so far. No matter how compellingly Ospina pitched the vision, the harsh reality of Botfactory’s balance sheet couldn’t be ignored. Time and again, they received poor evaluations or the terms from investors demanded an excessive share of the company in exchange for minimal funding. Even when offers were on the table, Ospina hesitated, sensing that the capital—while tempting—would not propel Botfactory to the level of success he envisioned.
Selling SV2
With their target market now shifted towards professional corporations, including universities, research and development labs and hardware companies, Ospina gathered even more valuable feedback on Squink through trade shows, moving away from their initial focus on hobbyists, makers, and hackers. With the funds raised, the founders began developing their second desktop PCB printer – SV2.
The original plan was to collaborate with industrial designers to create a larger and more accurate version of Squink. However, despite significant financial investment and time, the project made little progress due to the specialized knowledge required, which the consultants lacked. As a result, the R&D team had little to show for their efforts. While the project was ultimately unsuccessful, Ospina salvaged what they could to develop SV2. This included removable and configurable heads that were faster and more precise. The frame was also upgraded to a metallic one that was more rigid and sleek. Additionally, conductive and insulative ink was outsourced to partners for the SV2.
Squink could print lines as thin as 400 microns, but the SV2 improved this to 200 microns. The clearance, which is the shortest distance between two conductive lines measured through air, determines the type and size of components that can be placed on the board. On Squink, the clearance was 500 microns, while SV2 achieved a clearance width of 200 microns. With these developments, around 80% of electrical components could be placed on a PCB created by SV2, whereas PCBs printed by Squink could only fit 40% of electrical components. Upon launching in 2018, SV2 was sold at a fixed price of $15,000.
Pricing SV2
One of the main issues with SV2 was the misalignment of the printhead. To address this, the printhead holder was completely redesigned for greater precision by minimizing rotational movement. However, the new printheads were incompatible with the old system. Seizing this opportunity, the founders released the SV2 Professional and introduced three versions of their product, each tailored with varying specifications and price points: Starter, Enhanced and Professional. In terms of performance, the SV2 Starter was slightly better than Squink, the SV2 Enhanced offered improved clearance compared to the SV2 Starter and the SV2 Professional was the pinnacle of Botfactory's capabilities, achieving a trace width and clearance of 200 microns. Based on the 2011 PCB market research (refer to Exhibit 1 for Ospina’s initial understanding of the industry when Botfactory was established) and preliminary customer feedback, the SV2 Professional was what Ospina envisioned to be a key offering to the PCB market – the production of high mix, low volume multilayer PCBs. The pricing for these models was set at $10,000 for the SV2 Starter, $15,000 for the SV2 Enhanced and $18,000 for the SV2 Professional.
The primary difference among the SV2 models was the software. This made upgrades extremely simple; if a customer requested an upgrade, it was merely a matter of a software update on Botfactory’s end and hitting refresh on the customer’s end, making the process seamless and efficient.
Interestingly, most customers opted for the SV2 Professional, leading the founders to realize they had inadvertently employed a decoy pricing strategy. This strategy effectively steered customers toward the highest-priced option. The company also discovered that its target market consisted of customers who were both willing and able to invest significantly in high-end solutions. Recognizing that his market consisted of buyers who were able and willing to purchase high-end solutions, Ospina began experimenting with incremental price increases, testing the waters once or twice a year. Over time, he identified February and August as ideal windows for these adjustments. January tended to be slow, but by February, sales activity surged, especially among universities eager to finalize quotes. August, being a time when many were on summer vacation and less attentive, proved effective for raising prices—likely because fewer noticed the changes. Although balancing price hikes with the risk of losing customers was challenging, Ospina observed that the closing ratio remained consistent, regardless of price adjustments.
Monetising SV2
Apart from selling the SV2 printers, significant revenue was earned from various products and services associated with SV2. Ospina’s MBA and marketing specialisation enabled him to recognise and capitalise on these low-hanging fruit opportunities. SV2 accessories included conductive ink and insulative ink cartridges, conductive glue, solder paste, and Kapton and FR-4 substrate sheets. To maximise sales, a bundle pricing model was introduced, offering yearly consumable plans where customers received monthly shipments of ink cartridges. Bulk purchase options for substrates, solder paste, and conductive glue were also provided, allowing customers to benefit from savings in larger quantities. Additionally, Botfactory offered consulting services, including training, support and extended warranties, for companies interested in customizing the technology to meet their specific needs.
Voltera, the Competitor
In early 2016, Botfactory became aware of a major competitor – Voltera. Despite Voltera's machine having fewer capabilities and only performing extrusion, they were experiencing rapid sales growth, eventually allowing them to grow into a larger company than Botfactory. Ospina realized that there were valuable lessons to be learned from Voltera’s commercial approach.
Firstly, Voltera achieved an extremely low cost by working directly with engineers in China to design and produce their printers. By having a manufacturing facility in China, they outsourced production and assembly in large quantities and at an affordable cost, unlike Botfactory, which assembled each machine lovingly in-house.
Secondly, Voltera recognized the potential of their product early on and targeted hardware companies from the outset. They sold their printer at $5000 directly to customers and at $3500 to distributors.
Thirdly, Voltera understood that trade shows were an effective way to reach their target market. Because they could manufacture in bulk and their printers were small and compact, Voltera's trade show setup included a wall lined with printers, presenting a professional image and an accessible inventory. Customers could immediately purchase a printer on the spot, whereas Botfactory, needing time to build their machines from scratch, required a lead time for customer orders.
SV2’s Value
SV2 represents Botfactory’s significant advancements in research and development, resulting in a desktop PCB printer tailored for professional research and development labs. However, relying solely on printer sales proved challenging, as sustained revenue depended on more than just occasional trade show appearances. Ospina knew that the current approach had to be changed somehow.
Partnerships
As Botfactory equipped companies with desktop PCB printers, opportunities for custom projects and partnerships flourished. Ospina and Vansnick, through their engagements at tradeshows, were able to introduce Botfactory to potential partners and clients as well. With their deep expertise in the processes, materials and mechanisms essential to additive manufacturing of electronics, the founders were well-positioned to offer its technology to large corporations seeking to advance their technological capabilities.
Airbus – Factory of the Future
At the IDTechEx Berlin 2019 conference, Ospina attended a presentation from Airbus and quickly realised Botfactory had exactly what they needed. Seizing the moment, he caught up with the presenter at the exit and invited him for coffee. What started as a brief chat turned into hours of animated discussion about the future of electronics. The next day, the Airbus representative visited Botfactory’s booth for a demo. Impressed by what he saw, he introduced Ospina to his team. After six months of meetings, a contract was signed to cement Botfactory’s partnership with Airbus’ Factory of the Future project.
Over a year, Botfactory developed a customised printer for Airbus, enabling the rapid printing of specialized PCBs to simulate and customise sections of aircraft components. The printer was designed to enhance the customer experience by allowing customers to view their chosen customisations on the plane on demand. Ospina loved the project, but the COVID-19 pandemic had other plans:
It was one of our first huge partnerships with someone huge, so we were extremely excited. Basically, we took SV2 and made it bigger – it had the same materials and the same processes. It worked! And the Airbus loved it. Then, COVID came, and the project fizzled out.
Birmingham Technologies – Dual Print Heads for Nanoelectronics
A 2018 edition of Rapid + TCT, a leading North American exhibition for additive manufacturing technology, opened the door to an unexpected opportunity with the CEO of Birmingham Technologies. After an engaging discussion filled with probing questions, they expressed interest in visiting Botfactory’s New York office with their chief engineer. After seven months and fifteen proposals, an agreement was signed, marking the beginning of a promising relationship.
Birmingham Technologies and Botfactory worked on the development of a dual print head printer for nanoelectronics – a highly precise machine that used electric fields to position ink droplets, in contrast to the linear motion system of Botfactory’s SV2. Birmingham Technologies contributed their expertise in nanoelectronics and nanotechnology, while Botfactory provided their in-depth knowledge of additive manufacturing for electronics. However, after a year of development, the project hit a roadblock when Birmingham Technologies could not deliver on their portion, despite Botfactory being ready with their materials and processes, ultimately leading to the project’s failure in 2021.
US Air Force – Automated Local Manufacturing Tool
The relationship with the U.S. Air Force began through Ospina’s relentless cold-calling efforts in search of a grant sponsor. Eventually, Ospina was given an email introduction to the Chief of REARM (Reverse Engineering Avionics Redesign and Manufacturing). After a promising call where Ospina presented about their technology, discussions began in earnest, though it would take two years of negotiation and planning before the contract was finalized.
In March 2021, Botfactory was awarded a $750,000 Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant by the U.S. Air Force's AFWERX program. Collaborating with the 402nd EMXG/REARM team at Robins Air Force Base, Botfactory aimed to develop a fully automated desktop machine for on-site, on-demand 3D printing and assembly of PCBs—a project similar to their work with Airbus. The objective was to advance the additive PCB manufacturing technology to support the maintenance of the USAF fleet, ensuring it always remains mission-ready.
Military-grade electronics must meet stringent durability standards and adhere to strict access controls due to national security requirements. Although the technology has made significant strides, prototyping and small-volume production processes have lagged. Combined with bureaucratic red tape and vendor lead times, airmen and engineers are often left idling, resulting in thousands of lost hours.
The 402nd REARM Lab specializes in reverse engineering legacy systems for the USAF, maintaining the electronics of aging aircraft like the C-130, B-52 bombers, F-15 fighter planes and the HH-60 helicopters. However, many of these aircraft rely on components that are no longer in production and are likely out of warranty, requiring the REARM to creatively repair old PCBs, adapt new components to outdated designs, or engineer entirely new PCBs that replicate the original functionality with modern parts. This is especially challenging because original PCB designs are often unavailable due to contract limitations or trade secrets held by manufacturers. Although REARM has built a strong manufacturing capability, the process remains slower than ideal. The extensive tuning required to produce a single replacement board is the same as that for mass-producing hundreds, creating a significant bottleneck when only one board is needed to get an aircraft back in the air.
Botfactory’s role was to create a desktop-sized “factory” capable of additively manufacturing PCBs, enabling engineers to rapidly iterate and test prototypes in quick succession. With the ability to fabricate complex multi-layer PCBs in just a few hours, this empowered REARM to manufacture temporary replacement boards in a matter of hours, significantly reducing the time required from several days to mere hours. Additionally, given REARM’s need to produce a diverse range of boards in small quantities, additive manufacturing is an ideal solution for the USAF’s unique demands.
Botfactory’s work showed significant potential. The quality of the board's features was highly precise, meeting all necessary tolerances. However, the durability of the additively manufactured board was slightly below the standard required, limiting its immediate application to daily operations only. Despite this, Ospina was very pleased with the results, recognizing the huge potential for additive manufacturing in the defence industry. This could open the door to further advancements, particularly in enhancing the structural rigidity of the boards, paving the way for future growth.
Successful partnerships proved immensely valuable for Botfactory, offering more than just financial gains. These collaborations provided critical funding for “engineering time”, which was essential for ongoing machine enhancements and R&D efforts — crucial for a hardware startup. Unlike raising investment, which often dilutes ownership and control, these partnerships allowed the founders to maintain ownership while simultaneously pushing the boundaries of its technology. However, securing such consulting services and grant-funded projects was no easy feat; they required navigating complex processes and building strong relationships with industry giants. Despite the challenges, the benefits were substantial, as each partnership not only validated Botfactory's technology but also opened new avenues for scalability and innovation.
Going Broke
Despite Botfactory’s strides in venture funding, machine sales and industry partnerships, the company was still not turning a profit. By 2020, they were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (see Exhibit 4 for Botfactory’s P&L statement). Ospina had to sit Vansnick down on multiple occasions to discuss their precarious financial situation:
We have to change the way we do things around here. We’re setting these sales targets and goals, but we’re not hitting them. We set even more ambitious targets for the next quarter, the next year, but nothing we do changes around here, we get even further from our targets, and so we feel even more discouraged. SV2 was released in 2018, and even though 2019 was bad, we said let’s give it a year since we just launched. But it’s been a year, and we’re still stuck in a rut.
In 2021, Kyriakou convened a critical meeting with Ospina, Vansnick and Ippoliti in a final effort to save the company. Together, they reassessed the potential of additive manufacturing of electronics, aiming to identify new target markets and chart a long-term growth strategy to secure the company’s future (see Exhibit 5 for Botfactory’s 2022 target market). During this meeting, the founders also reevaluated their roles. It was suggested that Vansnick and Ospina swap roles, leveraging Ospina's prior CEO experience and business acumen to bring a fresh perspective as CEO, while Vansnick would become CTO. Dissatisfied with the decision, Vansnick chose to step away from day-to-day operations and remain as a board member. Consequently, Ippoliti assumed the role of CTO and Kyriakou became COO.
Hence, Ospina needed to determine the company’s strategic path forward. Should they pursue another round of fundraising, focus on driving organic growth through SV2 sales or explore more strategic partnerships?
Vansnick and Ospina had concentrated heavily on fundraising in the past, which proved to be extremely challenging for multiple reasons. Firstly, the inherent difficulties of fundraising for a hardware startup were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondly, convincing investors of the vast market potential for additive manufacturing of electronics was tough. Despite serving a distinct market, the struggles of the broader 3D printing industry influenced investors' perceptions, making them hesitant to believe in the viability of a desktop PCB printer. Thirdly, as a small company with a few years in the market, Botfactory faced skepticism about its proven track record. Investors tend to expect that a company with a launched product is ready to scale. They look at a company differently once it has launched; they expect to see substantial revenue and profit. However, as a small company which needed much time for research and development efforts, Botfactory did not yet have impressive financial numbers. Convincing investors with limited metrics hence proved to be a significant challenge. Lastly, even when they received offers, the terms were often unfavourable, with investors demanding excessive equity for minimal funding.
However, the access to capital, could be useful for imminent efforts to scale operations and expand growth efforts – even more rapidly than organic growth alone might allow. This influx of capital could also help Botfactory enhance its product line, potentially improving the SV2 and speeding up the development of new products. Additionally, securing high-profile investors could lend credibility to the company, attracting more customers and partners.
On the other hand, focusing on driving organic growth through SV2 sales presents a separate set of challenges and opportunities. SV2 sales were hitting a roadblock. However, as the company’s “bread-and-butter,” selling SV2 was crucial. In Ospina’s words:
At Botfactory, we believe selling our printers is our primary way of delivering value to customers. If we cannot even achieve that, what is the point of getting funding or partnerships? If we get this right, we know we are solving a problem our customers have – that’s the core purpose of our business.
Finding alternative ways to generate leads or attending more trade shows were potential strategies to increase brand visibility. This was also where opportunities for partnerships could flourish. While consulting services and grant-funded projects were rare and difficult to secure, they offered a lifeline by providing necessary revenue while simultaneously improving the company’s knowledge of additive manufacturing of electronics.
However, diving into strategic partnerships was not without its hurdles. Ospina first had to build personal connections and establish trust before addressing any technical details. In essence, fostering relationships through genuine "handshaking" was key to securing every partnership Botfactory achieved. These partnerships, hard to come by, often meant juggling the interests of multiple stakeholders, each with their own agendas. This complexity could lead to messy conflicts and cumbersome decision-making. Moreover, the terms of these partnerships might mean that Botfactory would have to cede some control over its technology and strategic direction, which could dampen innovation or force the company into compromises that muddled its original vision. Ultimately, the biggest hurdle was that securing partnerships depended on decisions from external stakeholders—something Botfactory could not fully control.
Funding the Future
Ospina was confident in the potential of Botfactory’s product, especially the SV2, to make a significant impact in the market. However, to transition from a struggling startup to a thriving company, Botfactory needed a strategic approach. It was to go big or go home. Whether through alternative fundraising efforts, focusing on SV2 sales or seeking strategic partnerships, a clear path forward was essential.
With coffee in hand, Ospina headed to his first board meeting as CEO. Joined by Ippoliti and Kyriakou, both filled with ideas and aspirations for the company's future, they were ready to chart the course for Botfactory's next chapter together.
Exhibit 1. Rigid PCB Sales by Product Type from IPC Market Research
Source: 2011-2012 Analysis & Forecast for the PCB Industry in North America (IPC Market Research from Botfactory’s document archives)
Exhibit 2. Type of PCB Production in North America from IPC Market Research
Source: 2011-2012 Analysis & Forecast for the PCB Industry in North America (IPC Market Research from Botfactory’s document archives)
Exhibit 3. North American PCB Sales by End-Market Applications from IPC Market Research
Source: 2011-2012 Analysis & Forecast for the PCB Industry in North America (IPC Market Research from Botfactory’s document archives)
Exhibit 4. Botfactory’s P&L Income Statement from 2017 to 2021
Source: Company Financial Data (Internal).
Exhibit 5. Botfactory’s target market for AME in 2022
Source: Company Archives.
Made with Bullet