For an industry obsessed with speed, engineering still moves slowly at the beginning. Not because of a lack of ideas, but because of something far more basic — access to components. The proof-of-concept stage is where engineering is at its most creative but is also where it’s most constrained.

Engineers are testing assumptions, swapping components, pushing designs in different directions, yet the way components are bought hasn’t evolved to reflect that reality, explains Chris Withers, sales director at Zel Components, an alternative electronic component distributor.

Over the past few years, product development cycles have compressed dramatically. In electronics alone, development timelines have shortened by as much as 30-40 per cent over the past decade, driven by increased competition and the need to iterate faster.

At the same time, the infrastructure around prototyping has expanded. The global electronic prototyping market is now worth several billion dollars and is growing at double-digit rates, with forecasts suggesting it could more than triple in size over the next decade.

That growth tells a story. More ideas are being tested, more frequently, by more people, but the way engineers access physical components still largely assumes the opposite.

The friction in early-stage development

At the start of a project, engineers don’t need scale. They need flexibility to test different voltage ratings, compare component behaviours and experiment with multiple approaches before settling on a direction.

Interestingly, products go through five to seven prototype iterations, up from just two or three a decade ago, as highlighted in the aforementioned report above. That level of iteration demands access to variety.

Instead, engineers are often pushed into buying like they’re already in production. Minimum order quantities, price breaks and catalogue structures all assume certainty that simply doesn’t exist at the proof-of-concept stage.

The result is a familiar pattern. Parts are over-ordered “just in case”, substituted when the exact specification isn’t available or stockpiled for future use. It works, but it’s inefficient, and more importantly, engineers are designing with what they have, not necessarily what’s optimal.

Smaller teams and bigger expectations

This problem is being amplified by how engineering itself is changing. More development is happening in smaller teams, startups and independent environments where budgets are tighter and procurement processes are less structured.

Simultaneously, the complexity of what’s being built is increasing, from power electronics to IoT systems and embedded devices. The data in the same report reflects that too, with more than 65 per cent of electronics manufacturers now relying on rapid prototyping to reduce development cycles.

In other words, there’s appetite for prototyping but the tools supporting it haven’t fully caught up.

Variety over volume

When we talk about the tools at the proof-of-concept stage, it’s about having ten different components as opposed to having a hundred of one.

Engineering decisions at this point are driven by comparison and experimentation. Subtle differences in behaviour, efficiency or thermal performance can determine the direction of a design. Without access to a range of components, that process becomes slower, more expensive or both.

This is particularly evident in areas like power design, where selecting between different MOSFETs or regulators can materially change performance, or in signal applications where diode characteristics directly affect behaviour.

The irony is that the industry has invested heavily in enabling faster iteration everywhere else, from software-defined design to rapid PCB fabrication, while leaving one of the most basic inputs — component access — relatively unchanged.

Signs of change

Prototyping infrastructure, the rise of maker culture and the accessibility of tools like desktop fabrication all point to engineering becoming more experimental, more distributed and more iterative.

Even outside traditional engineering environments, access to tools has expanded. For example, entry-level 3D printer shipments grew by 15 per cent year-on-year in 2025, reflecting a surge in hands-on, small-scale fabrication.

It’s quite clear that engineers, students and hobbyists expect to be able to build, test and iterate quickly without committing significant upfront cost.

From stockpiling to structured experimentation

We’re starting to see a move away from the old habit of stockpiling parts and hoping for the best. Instead, engineers are moving toward more deliberate, curated access to components.

Rather than buying in bulk or hoarding parts “just in case,” having a defined set of components designed for experimentation makes a lot more sense. It’s not about quantity, it’s about variety. This way, engineers can compare, test, and iterate without the constant hassle of digging through drawers or reordering the same parts again and again. It frees up time and brainpower to focus on what really matters: testing ideas.

At the proof-of-concept stage, the goal isn’t efficiency in the traditional sense, it’s learning. The faster an engineer can test, fail, adjust and retest, the better the outcome, a process that not only depends on access to the tools and software, but to the components as well.

With prototyping becoming more common and engineering more distributed, solving this simple problem is hugely valuable. Because the difference between an idea progressing or stalling isn’t usually capability, it’s whether the right component is within reach.

That’s where structured component assortments really start to make a difference. Whether it’s diodes, premium high-power devices like MOSFETs, regulators and thyristors or connectors, having a kit built around experimentation rather than production volumes lets engineers move faster and make better decisions earlier.

A few suppliers, like Zel Components, are even starting to formalise this approach with engineering-focused starter kits. Each kit contains 24 components across 16 different products, giving engineers and makers a practical assortment to test and iterate without committing to large orders.

It’s not a radical innovation by any stretch of the imagination, but it does address a genuine constraint. For engineers and hobbyists working at the earliest stage, where most ideas either take shape or fall apart, volume isn’t what matters most, it’s having the flexibility to try different components and approaches.

For more information on pin-for-pin alternatives and ways to reduce distribution risk across current designs, visit the Zel Components website.