Boise State University H4D Weekly Update #6

Hi Everyone!

This week we focused on Product Mission Fit. Naturally, we want to ensure that our product actually has a viable place in the market. We explored this in more detail for our product this past week and the results look promising!

High-Level Summary:

Mission Model Canvas:

Key Partners:

– Added “RF engineering expert”.
– Added “ATAK programmer”.

Key Activities:

– Added “Part A: software development”, “Part A: hardware development” and “Part B: software development”.

Beneficiaries:

– Broke up “USSOCOM” into three different parts: “USSOCOM Stateside”, “USSOCOM Local”, “USSOCOM Ground Force”.

Mission Budget/Cost:

– Added “Recurring costs: software maintenance and new parts”

Mission Achievement/Impact Factors:

– Added “Achieve >90% accuracy rate on detection of people”.

Minimum Viable Product:

– We stayed with the same form factor this week, but instead explored how the hardware components would be laid out on the device.

Product Mission Fit:

– We definitely think we have a viable product for the mission at hand!

Detailed Update:

Mission Model Canvas:

Since we were working on the technical aspects of the MVP, we started diving deeper into the intellectual and technological support we are lacking in this space and who we can talk to and/or bring on board to help us make our product a reality. Two of those areas include RF engineering and ATAK technology. ATAK is basically the app that is used across military smartphones. Although not all soldiers use ATAK now, it is becoming increasingly popular and will likely be the standard by the time we get our product to the market. We also need an RF engineering expert. Although we are learning as we go, having someone to support us with a background in electrical engineering would be immensely helpful. We have started conversations with many experts in the Boise community and will hopefully be able to partner with someone moving forward.

Another big change we made to the MMC was that we divided USSOCOM to three different groups in the beneficiaries. We did this because we felt that they had different needs that they wanted met related to this product. USSOCOM Local are the intelligence analysts located at or near the site where the breach or raid is being made, USSOCOM State Side are the intelligence analysts located back in the U.S. and monitoring the situation from a distance and USSOCOM Ground Force is the group actually conducting the raid or breach. By separating SOCOM into three beneficiaries, we will be able to better identify the needs of each and prioritize them.

Another change we made to our MMC is that we identified a target for accuracy in detection of human form of 90%. Obviously, the users want a device that is as reliable as possible. We have set the bar at 90% accuracy in detection because we think that is feasible, that is better than any other products out there and because after talking with users, it seemed as though this was a rate at which they were comfortable trusting their device. That being said, 90% is a minimum and we will strive to bring that number up as much as we can.

Mission model canvas

Our weekly Mission Model Canvas. Changes denoted in blue.

Minimum Viable Product:

This week, our MVP was a more detailed iteration of our previous MVP. We added parts in their anticipated locations so that we could get a better idea of how it would all come together and know how much space we had if we need to add any further parts. We found that we do have enough room for the major required parts (as of right now) and we do have limited room for further design changes.

Mission viable product

Our previous MVP (above) and this week’s MVP (below)