My perception is that most companies are buying off the shelf devices
which were built without their input. In other words they are saddled
with the compromises without having the opportunity of prioritizing them.
Buying a known technology does defer to the manufacturing company goals
rather than to those of the end user. Of course the manufacturing company wants
their clients to succeed but the manufacturer's survival is viewed as being way more
important.
Certainly we have purchased off the shelf
technology but the moment we took possession of it the discussion began
on improving the device to meet our needs. Control systems were bypassed in favour of
Labview based data acquisition and controls. The equipment claims were
compared to the measured performance then we searched for better and
more effective ways to enhance the process.
Sometimes we contacted the evaluated equipment's manufacturer to test the waters about incorporating what we considered to be improvements while at other times we either kept the results in house or dropped the project in favour of a fresh approach.
It is possible to learn by analyzing existing machines. Rarely will they prove to be an ideal fit to your needs but if you are attentive in its usage you will make up a list of Pros & Cons. That conclusion will at least give you concepts to analyze and sometimes an appreciation for the work that went into the original design. Falling into the trap of flippant analysis often leads in the wrong direction because it fails to take into consideration the battles of formulating the original design which after all usually achieved commercial status. "Armchair quarterbacks" are known for their 20/20 hindsight vision which does not make room for the Law of Unintended Consequences or even a thoughtful analysis. Having said that sometimes a fresh look does provide insight because the person is not constrained by the history of the project or the emotional aspect of the design.
Modifying machines can mean living with the Law of Unintended Consequences especially in complex systems where there is interaction between many elements. I think of it as the battle of the laws of physics which can be predictable or result in a complete surprise that should be explored or abandoned. Abandoned projects can be revived when new techniques or solutions are found but until that moment manifests itself they are on the back burner if not in the deep freeze so to say.
Concluding now, for the sake of brevity, first; formulate an analysis plan by listing the requirements in order of priority, second; decide on the evaluation criterea, third; pay hommage to Genrikh Altshuller and examine patents to understand how others might have tackled the problem, fourth; undertake the challenge of melding the many ideas into a workable solution so that you can build your prototype.
