NN
Rugged Field-Service Computing: A Product Development Case MA
Study at Dell Inc.
sOFc TECHNOLoGy
8 00-iaff
by
by
F[JUN 18 2014
Jeremy M. Giese
B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, 2008
LIBRARIES
Submitted to the MIT Sloan School of Management and the Mechanical Engineering
Department in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Business Administration
and
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
In conjunction with the Leaders for Global Operations Program at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
June 2014
@ 2014 Jeremy M Giese. All rights reserved.
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly
paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any
medium now known or hereafter.
Signature redacted
Signature of Author
MIT Sloan School of ManagemeniMIT DWgaprtment of Mechanical Engineering
May 9, 2014
Signature redacted
Certified1b
Supervisor
Steven ppinger, The
General Motors LGO Professor of Management, W41T, loan School ofManagement
Signature redacted
Certifie 1by
Warren Seering, Thesis S pervisor
" echanical Bigineering
Department
Engineering,
Professor of Mechanical
A cepe-
t~4
d41,
Signature redacted
y
lDavicl E. Hardt, Chair
Mechanical Engineering C mmittee o
Accepted by
raduate Students
redacted.
____________Signature
I
Maura Herson
Director of MIT Sloan MBA Program
MIT Sloan School of Management
1
-jO1
Rugged Field-Service Computing: A Product Development Case
Study at Dell Inc.
by
Jeremy M. Giese
Submitted to the MIT Sloan School of Management and the MIT Department of
Mechanical Engineering on May 9, 2014 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degrees of Master of Business Administration and Master of Science in
Mechanical Engineering
Abstract
In the face of challenging market conditions, Dell, Inc. is in the process of
shifting from focusing on electronics hardware development and sales to focusing
on providing complete IT solutions to business clients. Part of this process involves
determining what products and services Dell can provide beyond its current
offerings, and then developing these new offerings internally or through acquisition.
This thesis will use the internal development of one such offering as an in-depth
case study to examine an accelerated version of Dell's standard new product
development processes. Additionally, it will use the case study to identify pain
points in Dell's process and make recommendations to improve this process.
The process detailed here resulted in the successful development of a new
product concept that Dell may or may not pursue for further development and
market introduction. The success of the project is evidence of the robustness of
standardized product development processes. The thesis strives to provide a
working example of this process in action, and serve as a guide for others who
intend to identify new product opportunities and capitalize on them through new
product development initiatives.
Thesis Supervisor: Steven Eppinger
Title: General Motors LGO Professor of Management, MIT Sloan School of
Management
Thesis Supervisor: Warren Seering
Title: Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering
3
This page intentionallyleft blank.
4
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dell Inc., and in particular my internship supervisor, Drew
Tosh, for providing me the opportunity to work on this project. Drew's preparation
and project definition, as well as mentoring throughout the project process, were
critical to its success. I would also like to thank my project sponsor, Ed Boyd, for
placing his trust and confidence in this type of internship product development
project.
Additionally, I would like to thank the various advisors and team members who
assisted me during my time at Dell. These include, but are not limited to, Erin
Walline, Ed Chun, Drew Moore, Mark Menendez, and Chris Barnard. Each of these
people helped me to advance the project at critical junctures and to proceed when
obstacles presented themselves. The end result of the case study presented herein
would not have been possible without the contributions of each of these individuals.
I would like to thank my two faculty advisors, Steve Eppinger and Warren Seering,
for their continued guidance and support throughout the internship project as well
as during the composition of this thesis. Their input was invaluable in navigating
some of the more ambiguous stages of this project, as well as when determining the
scope and content of this thesis.
Finally, I would like to thank the LGO program and the LGO class of 2014 for their
support and for being a part of this incredible educational experience.
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
Table of Contents
Ab stra ct..................................................................................................................................
.. 3
A cknowledgm ents....................................................................................................................5
T able of Contents .................................................................................................
List of Figures...............................................................................
1
5
13
13
15
16
16
18
19
21
21
24
29
Quantitative Market Research and Segment Targeting ..................................
Contextual User Research ........................................................................................
Product Market Familiarization ..............................................................................
Organizational & Process Considerations...........................................................
Opportunity Discovery............................................................................................
29
30
33
33
35
"The Fuzzy Front End" - Needs Categorization & Insight Generation........ 35
Iterative Product and Technology Brainstorming ...........................................
38
Organizational & Process Considerations...........................................................
40
Concept Development & Selection..........................................................................
Identifying Worthwhile Concepts...........................................................................
Concept Definition, Storytelling, and Down-Selection.....................................
Concept Refinement & Final Selection...................................................................
Organizational & Process Considerations...........................................................
Concept Refinement................................................................................................
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
9
12
Market and Contextual Research .........................................................................
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8
9
28
6.1
6.2
6.3
7
A Standard Product Development Process ........................................................
Product Development Practices at Dell, Inc. .......................................................
_ 7
The Case Project: An Overview ............................................................................
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6
"The PC is Dead" - Overview of the PC Industry....................
Dell, Inc. - from OEM to Solutions Provider.............................................................
Rugged Computing and Field Service...................................................................
Product Development Processes..........................................................................
3.1
3.2
4
Project M otivation .........................................................................................................
Problem Statem ent...........................................................................................................
T h esis O verview .................................................................................................................
B ack grou n d .....................................................................................................................
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
..................................
Introduction ...............................................................................................................
1.1
1.2
1.3
2
.............
"A Guiding Light" - Defining a Key Point of Differentiation...........................
Competitive Product Research................................................................................
Feature Specification and Trade-Off Analysis......................................................
Designing in an Ecosystem.........................................................................................
Mechanical Layout & Aesthetic Design................................................................
Manufacturing Considerations.................................................................................
Organizational & Process Considerations...........................................................
Recommendations and Conclusion ....................................................................
7
41
42
44
45
46
47
47
48
50
52
53
55
57
60
9.1
Recommendations on Product Development at Dell Inc...............................
60
9.2
Conclusion............................................................................................................................
62
10 References.......................................................................................................................
63
11 Appendices......................................................................................................................
64
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
Card Sorting Exercise Results ...................................................................................
Case Project Down-Selection Criteria Definitions.............................................
Case Project Concept Story ........................................................................................
Com plete Com petitive Product Assessm ent........................................................
Feature Decom position Results ..............................................................................
8
64
66
67
68
69
List of Figures
Figure 1: Planned project schedule, proceeding through four distinct phases:
Research, Discovery, Design Development, and Engineering Development.......14
Figure 2: Global PC shipments increased dramatically from 1998 to 2012, but now
appear to have stagnated or begun to decline (Arthur, 2014)............................ 16
Figure 3: Market adoption rates of personal computing products. Note the
introduction of smartphones and tablets in the upper right portion of the chart
(D e d iu 2 0 1 2 )................................................................................................................................
17
Figure 4: Panasonic Tougbook and Motorola MC65, market leaders in the rugged
notebook and rugged handheld computer segments (panasonic.com &
m otorolasolutions.com )......................................................................................................
19
Figure 5: Dell ATG semi-rugged and XFR fully-rugged notebooks.............................. 20
Figure 6: The six phases of the standard product development process detailed by
U lrich and Eppinger 2013...................................................................................................
22
Figure 7: Generalized Product Development Process at Dell Inc................................. 24
Figure 8: Computer rendering of the case project concept device mounted to a pair
o f sa fety g la sse s ...........................................................................................................................
28
Figure 9: Highly portable computing devices (tablets, wearables, and handhelds)
exhibit strong projected grow th......................................................................................
29
Figure 10: Field Service customers make up the largest portion of rugged device
sales, indicating a large and targetable user segment. ............................................
30
Figure 11: Relative efficiency of focus-groups vs. interviews (Griffin, 1991)......... 32
Figure 12: User types with associated user needs category ratings. Here the users
have been listed in order of the importance of Mobility / Portability, one of the
primary opportunity factors identified in quantitative market research.....37
Figure 13: Radar map of user need category ratings from pervious figure. Users
covering large areas of the map, such as Oil & Gas Engineering Consultants,
have a broad diversity of needs, while users with smaller areas, such as Cable
Connection Installers, have a more specific need set.............................................
38
Figure 14: A wide range of varying product concept ideas were generated during the
brainstorm ing session........................................................................................................
39
Figure 15: Idea down-selection occurs in three stages...................................................
41
Figure 16: Example of a storyboard from the case project. This particular example
illustrates the main benefits and use cases for the wearable camera system.
Storyboards can help to convey the complex benefits on a novel product much
more quickly than verbal or written descriptions. .................................................
45
Figure 17: Assessment of key differentiating attributes and potential improvements
for product segments similar to that of the product concept ..............................
49
Figure 18: Example feature decomposition, focusing on alternative options for
im plem enting a user feedback feature. .........................................................................
51
Figure 19: Chain of feature and mechanical layout decisions. The feature
requirement at each step of the chain is in the top of each box, and the resulting
decision is detailed below ...................................................................................................
54
9
Figure 20:Cross-section of mechanical layout of case project device. Dimensions are
in mm. The circular element is the battery, the rectangular element is the circuit
board, and the triangular shape is the overall device cross-section and housing
d im e n sio n s....................................................................................................................................
55
Figure 21: Cross-sectional view of final device design, based on mechanical layout,
aesthetic design, and manufacturing considerations...............................................
56
Figure 22: Exploded-view of final device design, based on mechanical layout,
aesthetic design, and manufacturing considerations...............................................
57
10
This page intentionallyleft blank.
11
This page intentionally left blank.
12
1
1.1
Introduction
Project Motivation
In the face of challenging market conditions, Dell, Inc. is in the process of
dramatically restructuring its business model. The company is shifting from
focusing on electronics hardware development and sales to focusing on providing
complete IT solutions to business clients. Part of this process involves determining
what products and services Dell can provide beyond its current offerings, and then
developing these new offerings internally or through acquisition.
This paper will use the internal development of one such offering as an indepth case study to examine an accelerated version of Dell's standard new product
development processes. Additionally, it will use the case study to identify pain
points in Dell's existing process and make recommendations to improve this
process.
The goal of the new product development case project is to identify an
aspirational new product concept that moves the needle for Dell, from both a
revenue and strategic positioning standpoint. Rugged computing products for field
service workers has been identified as a market segment that has significant
potential for Dell, and will be the focus of the work examined here. Field service is
defined as any worker involved in the installation, maintenance, or repair of
equipment in the field, across a broad range of industries.
1.2
Problem Statement
The goal of the case project was to develop an aspirational new product concept
for Dell, with sufficient detail such that the product would be ready for quote by a
third party manufacturer. An aspirational product is defined as one that delivers on
13
a user need in a novel way, and in a way that is not currently served by Dell's
existing offerings. The project was initiated with field service as an intended target
segment, but with no defined or required direction beyond this.
The overall duration of the project was six months, an extremely aggressive
timeframe in which to identify and subsequently develop a product opportunity.
Another goal of the project, beyond the development of a new product, was to assess
whether or not such a timeframe is realistic in a large company. The project is
intended to provide a case study of Dell's product development processes, and help
to identify the aspects of Dell's process that both help and hamper such high-speed
product development initiatives.
Research
P
Market
30 &py
Experience
'
Report Development
Research Review
Discovery
Technology Discovery
Concept Discovery
Concept Reviews
Design Development
Engineering Concept
Direction Refinement
Model Creation
Renderings
Enghneerng Development
Engineering refinement
Design Refinement
Engineering review
3wks
Nmn 6/17/13
Mon 6/17/13
Fri 7/26/U3
Fri 7/5/13
5 wks
Mon 6/17/13
Fri 7/19/13
I wk
0 days
28 days
2 wks
3 wks
3 days
40 days
Mon 7/22/13
Fri 7/26/13
mon 7/29/13
Mon 7/29/13
Mon 8/2/13
Mon 9/2/13
Thu 9/5/13
Fri 7/26/13
Fri 7/26/13
2 wks
3 wks
2 wks
Thu 9/5/13
Thu 9/19/13
Thu 10/10/13
Wed 9/18/13
Wed 10/9/13
Wed 10/23/13
1 wk
12 days
2 wks
2 wks
2 days
Thu 10/24/13
Wed 11/6/13
Thu
Thu
Thu
Thu
Wed 9/4/13
Fri 8/9/13
Fri 8/30/13
Wed 9/4/13
We12/6/13
11/7/13
Fri 11/22/13
11/7/13 Wed 11/20/13
11/7/13 Wed 11/20/13
11/21/13 Fri 11/22/13
Figure 1: Planned project schedule, proceeding through four distinct phases:
Research, Discovery, Design Development, and Engineering Development
The project plan called for four distinct development phases: Research,
Discovery, Design Development, and Engineering Development. These phases are
described in detail in Chapter 2 of this paper.
14
1.3
Thesis Overview
This paper investigates, in detail, the process steps required to identify a novel
product idea and develop it into a feasible, coherent product concept. The case
project demonstrates the success of this process, and is invoked in each section of
the paper to provide examples of all steps taken. The general format of each section
is a discussion of the tasks required in each phase of the product development
process, as well as a description of a number of specific product development tools
and frameworks applicable to that phase. This generalized discussion is followed by
a detailed assessment of the critical steps taken in the case project. This format
should provide the reader with a solid understanding of the steps required to
develop a new product, as well as numerous examples from the case project to
further illuminate the process.
Generally speaking, the paper assumes that the reader is considering product
development from the standpoint of creating an aspirational product in the
technology hardware segment. While product development processes are
generalizable to a very broad set of markets, industries, and product types, the
process and steps described in this paper are tailored to this specific type of
development effort.
15
2
2.1
Background
"The PC is Dead" - Overview of the PC Industry
The PC industry has experienced meteoric growth over the past three decades,
with annual PC shipments rising from 10M units in 1980 to almost 300M units in
2011 (Dediu, 2012). Now, after this 30-fold expansion in market size, the traditional
PC industry appears to have stagnated, and possibly even begun to decline.
Quarterly global PC shipments from 3Q 1998 - 3Q 2013
100000
a HP
9 AS
a IBM
75000
go"lB
ce
t~ao
is
r fteu aeSWWW
NEC
MM: 0C
50000
25000
3Q99 2Q9
1qoQ
4Q00 3Q01 2Q02 1Q03 4Q03 3Q04 2K05 1Q06 406 3Q07 2Q09 1Q09 4Q09 MQ1O 2Q11 1Q12 4Q12 3Q13
Figure 2: Global PC shipments increased dramatically from 1998 to 2012, but
now appear to have stagnated or begun to decline (Arthur,2014).
Compounding this slide in global sales, traditional PC manufacturers have also
had to contend with the market entrance of several low-cost competitors.
Commoditization of both PC components and design capability has allowed
companies like Asus and Acer to capture market share by offering relatively high
quality products at very low prices.
16
WIND shbped Parywmor
*asynwema low=
PC
1000u
to-
0
Sanato" 1111 turn turntnwamtur t910106r0
imam
auua
maWsiaml
Figure 3: Market adoption rates of personal computing products. Note the introduction
of smartphones and tablets in the upper right portion of the chart (Dediu 2012).
In addition to these difficult competitive forces in the traditional PC industry, new
computing products and form factors, such as the smartphone and tablet, have seen
tremendous success and acceptance in a very short timeframe. These products offer
similar enough performance capabilities and feature-sets to be considered direct
competitors with traditional PC products. In light of these market trends, some
industry analysts have proclaimed that "the PC is dead" (Lee, 2014).
This has all led traditional PC manufacturers to ask the question: how do we
continue to operate and profit in a product segment that has become almost
17
completely commoditized? In recent memory, this has been achieved by altering the
relationship between the PC manufacturer and business clients, and providing
software services and IT solutions in package deals with PC boxes. This strategy has
managed to keep the PC a highly relevant product, despite ever-shrinking margins.
However, the introduction of new computing devices and form factors has
reiterated the point that this industry is still changing rapidly. This rate of change
presents both a significant threat and opportunity to traditional PC makers, and has
forced them to seek to develop new products and services that could be the next big
thing.
2.2
Dell, Inc. - from OEM to Solutions Provider
Dell Computer Corporation was founded in 1984 by Michael Dell. The company
saw immediate success due to several key operational innovations, including direct
PC sales, a mass-customization production system, and the use of standardized PC
components. These innovations contributed significantly to Dell becoming the
market leader in global PC sales by 2003 (Holzner, 2006).
Throughout Dell's existence, numerous market shifts have occurred. A repeating
cycle of the commoditization of existing technology and PC products led Dell to
expand into non-commoditized product segments. Then, as new technology and
components have been developed, Dell has moved in to capture market share and
bolster its profits (Holzner, 2006). The recent market entrance of low cost
competitors such as Acer and Asus have begun this cycle again, forcing Dell to once
more adapt and find new revenue streams.
Dell's most recent strategic re-alignment has been to shift from focusing on
providing the best products and service in the PC market to providing the best
products, software, and service in the overall IT solutions market. Dell's new
strategy relies on continuing to sell its bread and butter PC products, and bundling
them with additional service and software products. To support this shift into new
18
products and services, Dell has executed a significant string of acquisitions,
purchasing at least 25 companies since 2007 at an estimated cost of $7.9 billion
(Sherr, 2012).
However, the fantastic success of new product form factors such as the
smartphone and tablet has challenged Dell's typical wait-and-adapt strategy. The
company has been relatively unable to compete in these new product segments,
with initially disappointing unit sales on new product launches (Arthur, 2013). Dell
has therefore seen the value in developing proprietary novel product concepts that
will introduce the brand to new user segments and generate potentially explosive
new revenue streams.
2.3
Rugged Computing and Field Service
One market segment that Dell has identified as potentially primed for innovative
product introduction is rugged computing devices. Rugged computing devices are
typically sold to business and enterprise customers, and span a wide range of
industries and product types. The largest existing product categories by both unit
and dollar sales are rugged notebooks and rugged handheld computers. Panasonic's
Toughbook line of products is the market leader in notebooks, and Motorola is the
market leader in handheld computers. These products have enjoyed significantly
Figure 4: Panasonic Tougbook and Motorola MC65, market leaders in the rugged notebook and
rugged handheld computer segments (panasonic.com & motorolasolutions.com).
19
higher margins than traditional PCs, leading Dell to enter the market with offerings
of its own.
Dell currently sells two rugged offerings: the ATG semi-rugged notebook and the
XFR fully-rugged notebook. These products have been quite successful, with
particularly strong sales to the US Military and the Public vertical, which consists of
police and emergency response. Sales of these products to field service users,
however, have been less exceptional. It is suspected that this is due to the highly
mobile nature of field service work, as well as the very specific computing needs of
field service workers. Both of these characteristics are somewhat incompatible with
Dell's fairly large, fairly heavy workstation-replacement level rugged notebooks.
Figure 5: Dell ATG semi-rugged and XFR fully-rugged notebooks.
Field service is suspected to be a very strong potential market segment to
pursue primarily because of the sheer number of people it employs. In the US alone,
over 5.6 million people are employed to install, maintain, and repair equipment in
the field across a broad range of industries (www.bls.gov). Additionally, experience
selling Dell's existing product lines into companies involved in field service work
has shown a significant willingness to pay for productivity-enhancing products and
equipment. Dell therefore speculates that the launch of a novel product that is
purpose built for field service workers has the potential to sell at relatively high
volumes, and at very high margins.
20
3
Product Development Processes
There is a generally recognized need for the standardization of major business
processes in organizations of all sizes. Seeing as many companies rely on the
introduction of new products and services to continue to grow and remain
profitable, standardizing the process of new product development and introduction
seems to be a desirable activity to undertake. As of 2004, over 60% of firms engaged
in significant product development efforts used a standardized process (Markham &
Lee, 2013).
When implemented correctly, applying formalized processes to new product
development results in the enhancement and proper channeling of the creativity of
employees, and enables employees to contribute to the overall success of a
company. If implemented poorly, however, these processes can stifle innovation and
motivation, and prevent companies from bringing truly innovative products to
market. This chapter will briefly examine a broadly accepted standard product
development process that can be modified and adapted to a given firm's individual
needs and circumstances. It will then provide an overview of the product
development process that has been implemented at Dell, and which was followed
throughout the course of the case project.
3.1
A Standard Product Development Process
Much work has been performed analyzing the tasks required to repeatably and
reliably bring new products to market. The codification and standardization of these
tasks into a well-defined process has been performed in many organizations.
Interestingly, despite the immensely wide variety of products available on market
today, there are many aspects of product development processes that are applicable
across all industries and markets. It is possible to articulate a standard product
development process that is viable and successful regardless of the type of product
in question. The work by Karl Ulrich and Steven Eppinger, contained in the book
21
"Product Design and Development," presents a generally accepted rendition of this
process, and will be outlined here (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2013).
Ulrich and Eppinger define a product development process as "the sequence
of steps or activities that an enterprise employs to conceive, design, and
commercialize and product." Broadly speaking, this process is arranged in six
phases, displayed in Figure 6. A summary of each phase follows.
Planning
Detail Design
Concept IJSystem-Level
JiRefinement
Design
Development
Testing and
Production
Ramp-Up
Figure 6: The six phases of the standard product development
process detailed by Ulrich and Eppinger 2013.
Phase 1: Planning
The planning phase consists primarily of opportunity identification and
selection, as well as the articulation of project goals. Target markets and
users are identified. Additionally, strategic and financial business objectives
are often established in this early phase of product development.
Phase 2: Concept Development
The concept development phase consists of primary user research and needs
identification. This is followed by needs-based brainstorming and concept
generation. The concepts that are generated are intended to deliver on the
identified user needs and to capitalize on the market opportunity that was
identified in the planning phase.
22
Phase 3: System-Level Design
This phase consists of decomposition of the selected concept into functional
subsystems or subcomponents, and the subsequent definition of the method
of implementation for these sub-units. This includes the selection of
appropriate technologies to be included in the product, as well as geometric
definition of the form of the product. Manufacturing and production
approaches are considered during this phase as well.
Phase 4: Detail Design
Detail design consists of finalizing the exact specifications of the product.
This includes detailed definition of all component geometry and dimensions,
final selection of all off-the-shelf parts and components, and design of the
manufacturing processes needed to produce the product.
Phase 5: Testing and Refinement
This phase consists of construction of production-level products. These
completed units are then tested for performance and robustness, and
refinements to the detailed design are made as necessary. This phase focuses
on ensuring that the product will deliver on its intended performance
specifications and satisfy customers once it enters the market.
Phase 6: Production Ramp-Up
The final phase of the product development process consists of producing the
product via the actual production system to be used for full-scale production.
A ramp-up phase is required to ensure that the manufacturing workforce is
up to speed on the process and that all of the kinks have been worked out of
that process.
23
There are many more details required to make this generalized product
development process a useful tool, and these are enumerated in "Product Design
and Development" by Ulrich and Eppinger. This process can also be adapted on a
per-organization or per-project basis to ensure that it is appropriate to the specific
needs and circumstances of a given product development undertaking. To that
point, Dell utilizes a process that is very similar to this six-phase description, but
with tweaks that make it viable within the company. This Dell-specific process will
be outlined in the following section, and then examined in detail throughout the
remainder of the thesis.
3.2
Product Development Practices at Dell, Inc.
This section will focus primarily on the early stages of product development at
Dell, from opportunity identification through to full concept definition. The work
described here maps nicely to the first three phases of the standardized product
development process in the previous section. Dell has generated its own unique
terminology for the tasks performed in this early phase of product development,
which will be introduced here. Generally speaking, Dell's process proceeds through
four distinct phases, which correspond to the case project schedule seen in Figure 1.
Research
* Market Trends Identification
- Contextual User Inquiry
* New Technology Investigation
Discovery
-
*
User Needs Categorization
- Concept & Technology ideation
Competitive Product Research
Design Development
Engineering Development
*Concept Specification Refinement
* User Experience Definition
Ecosystem-Level Concept Creation
0,
Complete Feature-Set Definition
- Mechanical Package Optimization
Manufacturability Considerations
e
Figure 7: Generalized Product Development Process at Dell Inc.
24
Phase 1: Research
The Research phase consists of significant quantitative and qualitative
assessment of the target market and user segment. This research serves to both
inform Dell about a new category with which it is not familiar, and to identify
specific user segments and user needs that present the greatest opportunities.
Phase 2: Discovery
The Discovery phase consists of confronting the "fuzzy front end" of product
development, when significant knowledge has been accumulated about target
users and their needs, but concrete insights and product ideas have not yet been
articulated. In this phase, findings from the Research phase are categorized and
synthesized into concise user-needs. These needs are then used as stimuli for
brainstorming. An iterative process of brainstorming and technology / product
research is conducted to generate potential product ideas.
Phase 3: Design Development
The Design Development phase is spent primarily on assessing the numerous
opportunities that were identified in the previous phase. As part of this
assessment, opportunities are screened via several criteria, and pitched to
various stakeholders within Dell. Finally, a single concept is chosen. Competitive
product research and benchmarking is conducted to fully understand what is
and is not technically feasible for the chosen concept, and to generate a list of
features required to be competitive in the market.
25
Phase 4: Engineering Development.
Engineering Development, the final phase, consists of fully defining the user
experience and technical specifications for the chosen concept. Significant
tradeoff analysis is performed in order to hone in on the final set of features that
will be included in the product offering. Mechanical and other hardware
considerations are taken into account during these tradeoffs, and a mechanical
layout of components is completed. This layout serves as a guide as to what is or
is not possible during aesthetic design and usability discussions. Manufacturing
methodology is also considered during this phase.
Dell's product development organization is set up to support this process, with
the Experience Design Group (EDG) being primarily responsible for the bulk of
these activities. EDG is comprised of four teams. The Design Language team is
responsible for the aesthetic direction of Dell's products, ensuring consistent style
and branding for the full line of offerings. The Design Development team assists with
bringing product concepts from the Concept Development phase through the
Engineering Development phase, focusing on mechanical layouts and
manufacturability. The Usability group performs product testing and specifies
product features based on ergonomic and anthropometric studies to ensure a
consistent and positive user experience. Finally, the Materials & Technology
research group works with third party suppliers to develop new manufacturing and
materials technology to incorporate into new Dell products.
In addition to these primary teams with EDG, Dell maintains a separate product
development process for highly prioritized, aspirational products, called Special
Vehicle Teams (SVT). SVT projects are kept highly confidential even within Dell, and
are meant to be accelerated through the standard product development process.
The goal of these projects is to bring novel products to market as fast as possible.
26
Finally, on the product management and marketing side of the organization, Dell
has numerous product planning groups, organized by product category. These
categories are generally split by user segment, including consumer, business client,
and rugged. Some product planning groups are also focused around specific product
groups, such as servers or cloud services. These groups are responsible for market
analysis and monitoring, with the goal of identifying market trends that could
present opportunities for strategic product initiatives.
For the case project, the thesis author resided in the Design Development group
within EDG. The project most closely resembles an SVT initiative, with an
accelerated timeframe of six months from project start to complete concept
definition. The development team for the case project consisted of one mechanical
engineer (the author), two industrial designers, and one member of the rugged
product planning group. The development team was managed by members of the
Design Development and Usability groups within EDG. This group provided a wellrounded skillset to perform the various tasks called for throughout Dell's product
development process. The case project closely followed the process outlined above,
and will be examined in detail in this thesis.
27
4
The Case Project: An Overview
In an effort to provide context to the following chapters of this paper, a
description of the end result of the case project at Dell is detailed here. This
description should provide a reference while investigating each stage of the project
and inform the reader about what impact each step of the process had on the final
deliverable. The case project is the direct result of the new product development
process that is examined in this paper. The research, idea generation, and concept
refinement efforts required to bring the case project to its current state will be
examined in great detail.
Stated simply, the case
project product concept is a
wearable data capture
documentation system for use
in rugged, field service
environments. It consists of a
wearable camera system and
associate software products,
all of which are designed to
enhance the productivity of
Figure 8: Computer rendering of the case project concept
device mounted to a pair of safety glasses
the target user. A number of hardware accessories are also considered in the
concept, as a means to make the solution usable by a wider span of potential user
groups.
The main intended benefit of the system to is to simplify worksite
documentation and work report generation by non-office workers. This benefit is
achieved through a combination of hands-free technologies and a novel approach to
documentation data management. The final deliverable of the case project is the
complete definition of this product concept, including technical specification,
aesthetic design, user experience, and manufacturability definitions.
28
5
5.1
Market and Contextual Research
Quantitative Market Research and Segment Targeting
As indicated in the introduction to this paper, rugged field service computing
devices have been suspected by product planning groups at Dell to be a potentially
fertile segment for new product introduction. In order to validate or disprove
suspicion of a market opportunity, quantitative market analysis must be performed.
Such analysis can also serve to identify specifically which segment of a given
product market is most attractive or underserved.
In order to assess market conditions, reliable market data must first be obtained.
Dell does not maintain this direct market research capability in house, so a number
of 3rd party research firms were engaged to provide detailed historical and recent
market data. This data included figures of gross sales by units and dollars across a
wide array of relevant product categories. It included information on a global scale
as well as broken out by geographical region and market. It also specified market
share figures by major competitors across these product lines and geographies.
When examining such a
glut of data, it is critical to
identify key metrics that
are being sought, and to
Rugged Revenue Growth (Global, %)
140% 120% -
Tablets
100%
Wearables
understand what must be
identified to signify a
market opportunity. In the
case of this project,
evidence of strong product
segment growth, a large
potential user-base, and a
targetable user segment
-Handhelds
60%60% --
Laptops
40%
20%
0%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Figure 9: Highly portable computing devices (tablets, wearables,
and handhelds) exhibit strong projected growth.
29
were considered to be the prime metrics of a strong market opportunity. Detailed
examination of the data revealed various product categories and user groups that
met these criteria, but the user / product combination that best fit the metrics was
field service workers and mobile, rugged computing devices. This confirmed the
suspicions of the product planning groups at Dell that this was indeed an attractive
market, and that a new product introduction should be pursued.
Mobile Rugged Device Volume by Segment
* Field Service
N Government - Military
N Health Care
E Trucking - Other
E Manufacturing Shop Floor
N Warehouse/DC
0 Other
Figure 10: Field Service customers make up the largest portion of
rugged device sales, indicating a large and targetable user segment.
5.2
Contextual User Research
Having quantitatively validated the existence of a market opportunity, the next
step in defining a product concept is identifying a user need opportunity. Such an
opportunity could consist of an unmet need or latent need, or a performance gap in
existing products on the market. Successfully identifying such a need in a user
segment that aligns with the market opportunity previously identified should
30
provide strong reassurance that there is in fact a viable product concept to be
developed.
When pursuing aspirational new product concepts, such as in the case project, it
is critical to initiate original contextual user research and not rely on presupposed
assumptions about the user group or product category in question. This will help
the development team to generate new insights about the user group in question
that will lead to novel product ideas. Additionally, when branching into new product
categories or generating product concepts for a novel user segment, exploratory
user research can be highly valuable. Exploratory research is defined as contextual
inquiry intended to identify a general need-set of a user segment, across the full
spectrum of activities that the segment experiences. This is in contrast to targeted
user research, which seeks to identify the specific needs of a user when performing
a certain task or using a certain type of product. Exploratory research can help the
development team to identify a wider range of latent needs. This is particularly
beneficial when the team seeks to generate product concepts that are outside of the
traditional scope of the organization.
An important aspect of maintaining an exploratory scope is generating an
appropriate interview questionnaire. While broad scope is important for
exploratory interviews, some boundaries must be placed on the discussion. For
example, in the case project, the goal of the research was to identify as many
computing device needs of field service users as possible. Interaction with
computing devices was therefore set as the scope of the interviews. Topics beyond
this scope, such as use of hand tools, safety equipment, or apparel, could have
yielded interesting product development insights, but are not pertinent to the
market opportunity identified through quantitative market research. The specific
interview topics for this project included devices used, interfaces with those devices,
device usage, device setup and maintenance, device ruggedness, and expansion of
device functionality. These topics generated the opportunity for wide ranging
31
discussion during interviews, while keeping within a scope appropriate for the
project.
Another consideration to be taken
into account when designing user
research campaigns is the type of
research to be conducted. Significant
research has been conducted as to the
efficacy and efficiency of various types
I/
.
o",v.ew
f
4
C
e
.
of contextual inquiry, with the results
0-i
0
Figure 11.nOne
summarized insumaried
Fgur11.OneNumber
potential approach to user research is
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
I
6
I
7
S
I
of R..9.nnssr Grows.
9
10
Figure 11: Relative efficiency of focus-groups
vs. interviews (Griffin, 1991).
to conduct a mix of varying types of
interviews. One on one interviews tend to be the most efficient at identifying the
broadest range of user needs, but focus groups and group discussions can lead to
topics and therefore needs identification that would otherwise potentially not come
up. Additionally, the use of in-field tag along observation is critical, especially when
investigating a user group that is not already well understood by the organization.
Seeing a user perform tasks in his or her natural environment can allow the
researcher the opportunity to directly observe performance gaps, latent needs, or
compensating behaviors that the user would not otherwise directly articulate in a
formal interview setting.
In the case of this project, a mix of one on one, focus group, and in-field tag along
research was conducted. All of the individuals interviewed were users of computing
equipment in field settings, and represented a wide range of industries and job
functions. This diversity of interview format, industry, and work task was critical to
identify a highly varied range of user needs. This was done intentionally, to align
with the exploratory nature of the research, and with the wide scope of the market
opportunity identified. The category represents a broad range of industries and
product segments, and the contextual research was designed accordingly.
32
5.3
Product Market Familiarization
In addition to developing an understanding of the business market conditions
and the needs of potential product users, it is also critical to gain familiarity with the
existing range of products that could serve the user segment in question. In
exploratory research, such as in this project, this range of existing products can be
very large. Being aware of the full range of products that the user group in question
is exposed to helps put both quantitative market research and contextual user
research into context. For example, in this project, product research was conducted
on rugged laptops, tablets, handheld computers, wearable devices, construction
equipment, analog and digital sensing equipment, field communications products,
and a number of other categories. The research consisted primarily of awarenessbuilding tasks, such as internet searches, reading manufacturer websites, and
reading product reviews. This sort of awareness-building helps the researcher to
develop empathy with the user segment in question, and to understand the type of
products that the user may work with on a daily basis.
5.4
Organizational & Process Considerations
Generally speaking, Dell's market and contextual research processes closely
align with industry best practices. One primary recommendation can be made that
could potentially bolster Dell's early-stage opportunity identification and
assessment capability.
While this case project began with an in-depth quantitative market analysis to
assess the size and scope of the suspected opportunity, this is not standard practice
at the company. Many product concept ideas are generated with an assumed
understanding of the markets that Dell already operates in. Many others are
generated for new markets but are never provided with sufficient resources to
perform such research. Both scenarios leave open the potential for opportunities to
33
be misrepresented in terms of scale or scope, and for subsequent inappropriate
pursuit or abandonment of product development initiatives.
A potential solution for this problem would be the creation of a dedicated earlystage market research group, which is not a cost center associated with a specific
product group or segment. This group would serve to assess the quality of the
suspected product or market opportunities identified throughout the company. It
would differ from existing product planning groups in that it would focus solely on
new and aspirational product opportunities, as opposed to monitoring the various
markets in which Dell already operates. Keeping this early-stage research group
independent of any product group would be critical to maintaining its impartiality,
and lead to an unbiased identification of the most promising opportunities available
for Dell.
34
6
6.1
Opportunity Discovery
"The Fuzzy Front End" - Needs Categorization & Insight Generation
Having performed detailed market research and collected raw data on user
habits and needs, the product development process now moves on to needs
categorization and insight generation. This phase of the process is often called "The
Fuzzy Front End" of product development. It has earned this name because this
phase can be associated with uncertainty, ambiguity, under-definition, and lack of
direction regarding where the project should move next. Individuals' differing
interpretations of contextual research can lead to lack of consensus, and desire to
avoid pursuing dead-end product ideas can prevent the team from confidently
identifying a path forward. Understandably, this is a phase that can induce
significant frustration and doubt within a product development team. This section of
this thesis will focus on several needs categorization and insight development tools
that were useful through the course of the case project.
The first step in attempting to digest user needs is to decode and distill them into
a consistent and standardized format. The goal is to translate direct quotes from
users into a simplified form that still captures the essence of what the user was
expressing. Using this process generates a manageable list of concise,
comprehensible user needs, which will simplify the other tools discussed in this
section (Ulrich, 2012).
One commonly used tool in attempting to demystify raw contextual inquiry data
is a technique called "card sorting." This is a process by which user need statements
are sorted into categories, without any a-priori determination of what those
categories should be. The resulting categories can then be named, and these names
are then considered to correspond to potential user need categories. The process is
often repeated by a number participants, and by both individuals who did and who
did not have exposure to the original user research. The user needs categories that
35
are identified most frequently can potentially be considered to be more valid or
accurate in their alignment with true user need categories.
Card sorting was performed on the raw data that was collected from the 31 field
service workers that were interviewed for the case project. The results of this
exercise can be seen in Appendix 11.1. The colors present in this graphic indicate
which interviewee or group of interviewees made each statement. The exercise
resulted in the identification of ten distinct user needs categories. This ability to
categorize needs helps to provide significant structure to creative thinking and
development team conversations. The cards in this example were color coded by
interview participant, so that specific user data was not lost in the process of need
distillation. This was done to examine the post-sorted cards for correlation between
user and need category, or between industry and need category. Is the case project
no such correlations were found. However, keeping identifying data associated with
each need statement is a good practice, as it leaves open the opportunity for further
analysis once the cards have been sorted.
Once the team is equipped with an agreed upon set of user needs categories, a
useful tool can be identifying any high-level user segmentation that may exist.
Ideally the exploratory research that was conducted spanned a fairly wide range of
users. Identifying which needs categories resonate most with these varying user
types can help the development team to see whether there is the potential to
develop product concepts that are applicable to a specific subset of users.
One process to perform this segmentation analysis involves rating the
importance of each user need category for each user that was interviewed during
the contextual research. Once this rating has been performed, users can be
categorized by a number of different metrics, such as generality or specificity of
need importance.
36
Needs Categories
Name
Occupation
Industry
______Portability
rblty
Corputing
Power
Ruggedness
Need for
Peihrl
Total
5
3
16
3
1
11
Rick
Natural Gas Plant
Inspector
Oil & Gas
5
3
Brent
Construction Site
Construction
4
3
Inspector______
Importance Ratings
__
____
Leon
Pest Control Business
Owner
Business
Services
3
2
2
2
9
Deven
Cable Connection
Installer
Telecom
3
1
5
1
10
Shae
Oil & Gas Engineering
Oil & Gas
2
5
4
5
16
Consultant
Figure 12: User types with associated user needs category ratings. Here the users have been
listed in order of the importance of Mobility / Portability, one of the primary opportunity factors
identified in quantitative market research.
In the case project, the importance of four user need categories was rated for a
number of users. The distribution of these ratings amongst the various users can
help the development team to see the diversity of needs importance across different
user types and use cases. In this case, there was a clear difference in the importance
of Mobility between the various users. This was interpreted to mean that products
that focus on improving the mobility of field service workers should focus on the
needs of specific user types.
A good way to visually communicate the differences in needs between these
users is to create a radar map of these ratings. These charts allow the different user
types to be readily apparent, and aid in communicating the differences between
user types amongst the development team.
These tools are all methods by which the development team can begin to
decipher the messy, qualitative data that comes out of exploratory contextual
inquiry. By analyzing the data via a number of different methods, patterns or trends
about the users, user segmentation, and need categories should start to emerge.
37
Mobility/ Portability
5
4
-Natural
X
-
'7
Need for Peripherals
Computing Power
Construction Site Inspector
-Oil
-
Gas Processing Plant Inspector
& Gas Engineering Consultant
Pest Control Business Owner
-Cable
Connection Installer
Ruggedness
Figure 13: Radar map of user need category ratings from pervious figure. Users covering large areas of the map,
such as Oil & Gas Engineering Consultants, have a broad diversity of needs, while users with smaller areas, such
as Cable Connection Installers, have a more specific need set.
6.2
Iterative Product and Technology Brainstorming
Equipped with an understanding of the target user, the development team can
now begin to brainstorm product ideas. Good brainstorming practices are well
documented, and should be followed for this task. Brainstorming sessions can be
conducted with a number of different focus areas, including user needs categories or
user segments.
In the case project, an initial brainstorming session was conducted focused
around four different user segments. This session resulted in the generation of
several dozen product, product feature, and solution ideas.
Product development is rarely a linear process, and using the results of certain
steps of the process to reiterate previous steps can often provide deeper insight and
38
better product ideas. As a case in point, the results of the initial brainstorm session
helped to bring further clarity to the understanding of user needs categories. After
the brainstorm was completed, the product ideas were sorted into categories, much
like the card sorting task used in the needs categorization phase. The brainstormed
product ideas were sorted without any a-priori intention of what the categories
would be. The resulting categories were: Hands Free Operation, Portability, Device
Input / Output and User Interface, Data Capture, Modularity, and Data Access /
Security. These product idea categories provided a link between product ideas and
the types of users that would value such products, and as such, created a new set of
topics around which to brainstorm additional ideas. This sorting also helped to
clarify some of the categories of product concepts that could be potentially useful
for field service workers.
Hands Free
Portability
Operation
Data Capture
1/0 or User
Interface
Modularity
Data Access /
Security
Figure 14: A wide range of varying product concept ideas were generated during the
brainstorming session.
Brainstorm sessions can also be organized with technology as a creative
stimulus. Identifying potential technologies that the development team suspects
may be influential in the yet-to-be-selected product concept, and brainstorming on
those technologies, can yield very interesting product ideas. This process can also be
iterated on, or combined with needs-based brainstorming. Product ideas that the
development team thinks show promise can be investigated from a technology
standpoint, and the relevant or interesting technologies that are identified can then
be brainstormed around to generate additional ideas. In the case project, numerous
concepts were generated in the first needs-based brainstorm that pertained to
39
surveillance and image capture. This prompted the development team to research
technologies that enable microtized cameras and imaging systems, and employed
that knowledge to conduct additional brainstorm sessions. Knowledge of the
underlying technology can inspire new ideas, and also help guide the development
team in understanding what is or is not feasible during brainstorming sessions.
6.3
Organizational & Process Considerations
There are aspects of Dell's organizational design that both encourage and hinder
effective brainstorming. Dell's dedicated and co-located Experience Design Group
greatly facilitates the occurrence, frequency, and spontaneity of brainstorming
sessions. The various teams within EDG frequently intermingle and convene to have
both planned and impromptu brainstorming sessions. On the other hand, EDG is
located in its own building on the Dell campus, physically isolated from other
departments that are engaged in product development, such as marketing and
supply chain. This may sound trivial, but the inconvenience of the isolation likely
reduces the likelihood of these other departments being involved in impromptu
brainstorm sessions, and decreases their likelihood of being invited to formal
sessions.
While the placement of EDG within the campus was deliberate, and intended to
provide the group with autonomy and insulation from the at-times creativity-stifling
realities of business, the negative effects of this decisions should be considered.
Members of EDG should be cognizant of the need to interact with outside groups as
frequently as possible, and actively pursue marketing, supply chain, and sales
inclusion in brainstorming sessions.
40
7
Concept Development & Selection
Once a substantial number of concept ideas have been generated, the
development team must identify which of these ideas hold the most promise. This
requires investigation of each concept idea and subsequent idea ranking and downselection. This phase represents a major shift in the product development process,
away from focusing on extensive idea generation and towards idea refinement. It is
frequently depicted by what is known as the "product development funnel." The net
effect of the work in this phase will be the selection of a single product concept to
move forward with, while discarding dozens more.
The case project tackled concept down-selection in three stages, each of which
will be examined in detail. A three-stage approach was chosen to optimize the time
spent examining the potential of each brainstormed concept, and to attempt to
avoid discarding potentially promising candidates too early. At each stage the
definition of each concept idea becomes more refined, and the bar for proceeding to
the next stage becomes higher.
Stage 1
1 Product Concept
2 Finalists
20 Concepts
87 Ideas
Stage 2
Stage 3
Figure 15: Idea down-selection occurs in three stages.
41
7.1
Identifying Worthwhile Concepts
The first step in identifying worthwhile concepts is to define the criteria against
which each brainstormed idea will be assessed. There are an endless number of
criteria that could be used, and each concept down-selection initiative will be
different depending on its particular market and organization. However, these
criteria usually fall into one of three buckets, each of which aligns with one of the
factors necessary for product success: market viability, technical feasibility, and
user desirability.
A common framework for generating criteria is called the "Real-Win-Worth-it"
method, which was originally developed by 3M. This framework poses three
questions to the product development team (Eppinger 2012):
" Does the idea address a real opportunity? Is there a market need for this
idea, and does the technology exist to actually develop the product? Does
the idea address a perceived user need? At this point in the process, the
development team should have sufficient familiarity with the relevant
market and technology issues to answer these types of questions fairly
accurately.
" Can the company win with this idea? Does the idea align well with the
company brand and market positioning, and does the company have the
capabilities required to bring a superior product to market? For
evolutionary products these questions can be fairly straightforward.
When working on aspirational product concepts that may reside beyond
the company's current purview, these questions demand more attention.
"
Is the idea worth pursuing? Will development and launch of this product
idea result in substantial financial or strategic payout for the company?
Again, aspirational product ideas demand significant attention when
answering these types of questions.
42
Considering each brainstormed product concept along these three lines of inquiry
can help the development team to generate appropriate rating criteria. During this
very early-stage idea rating, it is critical to answer these questions quickly, often
relying on the intuition of the members of the development team.
Once each idea has been rated according to the selected criteria, the ideas are
sorted by highest total numerical score, and down-selection can take place. In this
first stage of down-selection, it is recommended that a significant portion of the
ideas be kept. The relative portion of ideas to keep vs. discard depends on the
resources available to the development team. The ideas that are kept will be further
investigated and developed, so the number kept should be commensurate with the
time available to the team.
In the case project, six rating criteria were identified according to the Real-WinWorth-it framework:
Real:
" User Desirability
"
Feasibility / Technical Complexity
" Generality / Specificity of Need
Win:
0
Fit with Dell Strategy & Brand
Worth-it:
0
Feature vs. Product vs. Solution
Each idea was scored in each of these categories on a scale of one to three. Each
rating was concretely defined in order to avoid ambiguity. This helped to ensure
that the ratings for each idea were consistent and comparable. The definitions can
be seen in Appendix 11.2.
43
Rating each of the 87 concept ideas along these ratings led to a total possible
score of 15. Considering the time availability of the development team for further
concept assessment, the top 20 concepts were selected to move on to stage two of
down-selection. The lowest score amongst these 20 ideas was a 10 out of 15,
indicating that many of the top 20 ideas had ratings of three across numerous of the
rating criteria.
7.2
Concept Definition, Storytelling, and Down-Selection
Once the top ideas from the opportunity discovery phase have been selected,
additional due-diligence is required to make further down-selection decisions. The
development team can spend additional time investigating the Real-Win-Worth-it
questions previously identified. Alternatively, the team can attempt to more fully
define each concept idea. A more precise definition in terms of user benefits and
product features can help build consensus around what each idea really is, and can
help to communicate the ideas to individuals outside of the development team.
In the case project, each of the top 20 ideas was further defined in terms of both
potential product features as well as main user benefits. These attributes were
conveyed in the form of "concept stories." Each story consisted of a narrative
description of the product, as well as a use-case scenario. This scenario was
fabricated to imagine the way in which an end user might use the product, in an
effort to communicate the main benefit of the product. The concept story for the
case project can be seen in Appendix 11.3.
When selecting final candidates from these top ideas, it was important to get
input from colleagues outside of the immediate development team. The concept
stories helped these outside advisors to understand the concept idea, and to provide
their opinions and insights about the viability and likelihood of success of each of
the concepts. The Rugged Marketing group was the primary stakeholder in the case
44
project, and this group was given executive authority to choose two of the top
concept candidates to proceed for further investigation.
Concept Refinement & Final Selection
7.3
Significant vetting is required to make a thoughtful decision as to which concept
candidate should be pursued. This task consists primarily of continuing the work
from the previous down-selection stage. The concept story should be further
refined, product features should be clarified, and use cases should be elaborated
upon. All of this information should be presented in such a way that each concept
can be described and conveyed quickly and completely. Because of the significant
expansion of resource expenditure required to advance a product concept beyond
this phase, executive approval is often required before proceeding. Creating a
concise and clear concept story to present to company leadership can be a very
effective way of building excitement for the product concept.
In the case project, these refined concept stories were presented to company
leadership, which made a determination on which concept to pursue.
9'
7
400
r
_
__
__
_
/VOTES
Figure 16: Example of a storyboard from the case project. This particular example illustrates
the main benefits and use cases for the wearable camera system. Storyboards can help to
convey the complex benefits on a novel product much more quickly than verbal or written
descriptions.
45
7.4
Organizational & Process Considerations
The primary process consideration for the concept down-selection phase is
standardization and documentation. Dell should strongly consider developing a
company best-practice for both performing and documenting the work done here.
The reasons for this are twofold. First, if all development teams use a common
framework for selecting concept ideas, each time a new development team is
formed the members will already have an agreed upon method for what can be a
contentious step in the product development process. Second, documenting this
process forms a record of the due-diligence performed when analyzing each concept
idea. If, as often happens, after the down-selection phase a non-development team
member challenges the culling of a particular concept idea, the documentation of
that idea's ratings and its reason for rejection can settle disputes. Because this other
colleague will be familiar with the standardized down-selection process, there
should be little debate about the validity of the concept rejection decision.
46
8
Concept Refinement
Once the final product concept has been selected, the goal of the development
team is to advance the definition of the concept to the point that it can be pitched to
an investor or buyer, or sent out for manufacturing quote. This effort spans a wide
range of activities that convert the existing rough concept idea into a polished,
coherent, and feasible product concept.
8.1
"A Guiding Light" - Defining a Key Point of Differentiation
This phase of the product development process involves making subjective and
at times divisive decisions about what the product concept is, and what it is not.
These decisions will determine whether the product that is eventually developed
stands apart as a differentiated, innovative product, or one that merely falls in with
the rest of the pack. There are many tools and principles that designers and
development teams use during this phase in an effort to stay on track. One principle
that can be particularly useful is what the case project development team called the
"guiding light."
The concept of the guiding light is to concisely and explicitly define the product
feature or benefit that makes the concept unique and differentiated amongst what is
almost always a very competitive market space. Defining this concept attribute early
in the concept refinement process, and gaining consensus amongst the development
team and other stakeholders, can be very powerful as the refinement phase
progresses. The guiding light of a concept can be invoked to settle disputes, make
difficult feature trade-off decisions, and explain decisions to external stakeholders.
In the case project, the guiding light was defined to be complete commitment to
productivity enhancement.The importance of this determination will be reiterated
several times through the remainder of this chapter.
47
8.2
Competitive Product Research
An important step in defining the feature-set of a new concept is understanding
what products are currently on the market. An assessment of existing products can
lead to insight as to which features are required to compete, and which features
have made the market leaders stand out in their field. Additionally, in technologycentric products, such as the case project, assessment of the component breakdown
of competitive products can help the development team understand what is
technically feasible with current product technology.
Identifying which competitive products to research is the first step in this phase.
This may sound trivial, but when developing an entirely novel product concept
there may be no direct competitive products on the market. In this case, products
that have a similar feature-set or benefit to the concept, but that target somewhat
different user segments or industries, can be a good substitute. Once identified,
these products should be assessed in a number of ways. First, any quantitative
technical specifications should be noted. These quantitative values will serve as a
point of comparison when selecting the performance characteristics of the product
concept. Second, an assessment of the key differentiating attributes of each
competitive product should be performed. This assessment should take into
consideration the target user of each of these products, and consider what attributes
that user would value.
If the product concept is in fact a novel and differentiated idea, its guiding light
attribute should provide an interesting lens by which to compare it to the
competitive products in question. Each of these competitive products has their own
unique feature set that makes them differentiated and valued by their target user
segments. By analyzing these features according to the guiding light of the product
concept, the development team should be able to identify a unique feature set to
design into the product concept. Features present in competitive products that
adhere to the guiding light principle should be included, and features or
48
performance characteristics that are lacking should be noted for inclusion on the
product concept feature set.
The product features identified through these quantitative and key
differentiating attribute analyses should provide the development team with a
broad set of features to consider designing into the concept.
In the case project, no products existed on the market that directly competed in
the intended target segment. Therefore, products that could potentially be
considered "wearable data capture devices," but that target a different user group,
were selected for assessment. These included products in the rapidly growing
consumer "action camera" segment, as well as the relatively new and much-hyped
"glasses-mounted computing" segment.
Assessments were performed on the market leading products of both of these
categories. All features that are quantifiable were noted, including battery life, optics
quality, size, and weight. Then, the key differentiating attributes of each of these
products was identified, as they might be perceived by the target user segment. The
full details of the competitive analysis that was performed can be seen in Appendix
11.4.
Action Cameras
Key Differentiating
Attributes
*
High Quality Video
Glasses-Mount Computing
*
Hands Free Operation
Guiding-Light
*
Improvements
& Battery Life
-
*
*
Data Management
Seamless Data Access
3 rd
Extreme Ruggedness
f
Party Apps
Ruggedness
Image Quality
Battery Life
Figure 17: Assessment of key differentiating attributes and potential improvements for
product segments similar to that of the product concept
49
These competitive products were then considered from the standpoint of
improving them according to the guiding light attribute of the product concept. For
example, the market leader in action cameras has been successful because of their
superior optical and video processing quality, and the extreme ruggedness of their
product. However, a similar product that was focused on a "complete commitment
to productivity enhancement" - the guiding light attribute of the case project
concept - would benefit from improvements in hands free operation, battery life,
and data management simplification. This analysis helps to generate performance
metrics through which the case project concept can stand out against established
products.
8.3
Feature Specification and Trade-Off Analysis
Having identified a substantial list of product features to potentially be included
in the product concept, the development team must now pare down this list and
finalize the actual feature-set to be included. This process can be thought of in a
similar way to the concept generation and down-selection funnel discussed in
sections 6 and 7. It is important to consider not just what value a specific feature
will take, such as battery life, but also how each of these features will be delivered in
the final product.
In order to adequately assess the feasibility of various features, the development
team must consider the various ways in which each feature can be implemented.
This process of "feature decomposition" is similar to the established process of
"functional decomposition" that is detailed by Ulrich & Eppinger (2012). A feature
decomposition exercise is particularly helpful in hardware development projects
where the device being developed can be created by combining a number of
existing, mature technologies and components. A mini-brainstorm is held for each
feature of interest, generating a list of how each feature could potentially be
implemented.
50
User Feedback
Visible
Visible Feedback Mechanism
Peripheral Vision LEDs HUD
Audible Feedback Mechanism
External Speaker
Integrated Ear Piece Remote Ear Piece Accessory
Audible Feedback Content
Voice
Tones
Hybrid
Tactile Feedback Mechanism
Vibration
Temple Prod
_
Audible
Tactile
Remote Pendant LEDs
Figure 18: Example feature decomposition, focusing on alternative options
for implementing a user feedback feature.
In the case project, 37 potential product features were identified for the product
concept. A mini-brainstorm was then held, generating up to four potential
implementations for each of these features. An example can be seen in Figure 17,
illustrating the various ways in which feedback can be transmitted from the device
to the user. The full results of the feature decomposition for the case project can be
seen in Appendix 11.5.
The resulting list from feature decomposition provides a tool for the
development team with which to investigate the various combinations of
components and technologies that can deliver the desired feature set for the
product concept. Seeing a full list of feature implementation options can also
provide the team with a good way to assess which features interact or interfere with
one another. For example, in the case project, weight, battery life, and video quality
were identified as important competitive features. It is immediately apparent that
these features are in competition with one another. This led the development team
to quickly agree that the battery on the device should be swappable, as opposed to
integrated into the unit.
51
While some feature decisions can be made through a simple inspection of the
feature decomposition list, it can be beneficial to wait to make a final determination
about feature selection. The ecosystem in which the product will exist, mechanical
component layout and aesthetic issues, and manufacturing requirements should all
be considered before making final feature-set decisions.
8.4
Designing in an Ecosystem
In today's computation and software-centric product market, hardware devices
are rarely sold as standalone goods. Bundling of hardware with associated software,
integration with mobile computing devices such as smartphones and tablets, and
offering of additional hardware accessories are all commonplace practices.
Therefore, when designing hardware products, the development team must take
time to consider the impact of the software and computing ecosystem in which the
concept product will reside. This consideration can have a significant impact on the
feature-set that is ultimately designed in to the final product.
A primary topic that the development team should consider is the opportunity to
"off-board" certain product features to other elements of the product ecosystem. For
example, certain features may be able to be removed from the core device simply by
allowing it to pair with a smartphone or other computing device. Similarly,
hardware accessories may allow for certain features to be removed from the core
device. This offers users the option to add in the removed functionality by
purchasing such accessories. In the case project, the decision was made to remove
nearly all of the hardware configuration user interface elements from the core
device and off-board them to a companion smartphone or tablet app. This decision
required the addition of a Bluetooth chipset to the core device, but drastically
simplified the resulting mechanical layout and aesthetic design of the device itself.
52
8.5
Mechanical Layout & Aesthetic Design
Having generated a list of potential feature implementation options, the
development team must now consider the mechanical layout of the components
required to deliver the intended feature-set. The goal of creating mechanical layouts
is not to finalize the detailed design of the internal geometry of the device, but to
investigate what is, and is not, realistic in terms of component, feature, and
technology combinations. This stage will bring certain feature incompatibilities to
light, in some cases drastically simplifying feature selection decisions that seemed
previously intractable. The end goal of creating mechanical layouts is to generate a
realistic physical envelope of the functional components of the product concept. The
goal is not to generate a detailed mechanical design of all engineered elements of the
product concept.
Before beginning a mechanical layout, the development team must identify
which features are of highest importance to the success of the product. This feature
ranking should be done through the lens of the guiding light of the product concept.
If there are certain attributes of the concept that cannot be compromised on, or that
must be included in the product for it to be viable, this should be noted before
mechanical layout begins. These firm feature requirements can often guide or
dictate decisions about other, subordinate product features.
In the case project, device weight was identified as a critical feature. In keeping
with the guiding light of "complete commitment to productivity enhancement," the
development team determined that the device must be comfortably wearable by the
user for an indefinite period of time. Usability research conducted at the host
company indicated that this results in a maximum weight for a glasses-mounted
device of about 60g. Another critical feature was circuit board area. In order to fit
the chipsets required to provide the desired functionality, the total circuit board
53
area had to equal about 1400 mm 2 . These two features were locked in place as being
immutable, with all other features subordinate.
The next features of primary importance were frontal cross-sectional area and
optics quality. Again, these features were identified using the guiding light principle.
A small frontal area would keep the device comfortable and unobtrusive when used
in a wearable configuration. High quality optics were required to ensure that a wide
field of view of visual data could be collected and that that data was of high enough
fidelity to be useful to the user. Optics quality was assumed to be correlated to the
diameter of the optical element that would fit on a given layout.
The development team then generated a number of mechanical layouts. These
layouts all adhered to the two immutable features, weight and board area, but
varied in their success in minimizing frontal area while maximizing optical area. The
weight requirement dictated the use of a fairly small battery. The development team
realized that stacking a round battery above the circuit board created the option of
having a roughly triangular cross-section for the device. A circular optical element
could then be circumscribed within this triangular cross-section, providing a small
frontal area and a large optical element. A summary of this feature selection process
can be seen here:
Optical Area: Maximize
- Circumscribed
Circular Optics
Frontal Area: Minimize
<6 g h:
Weig-
-Small, Circular
Battery
~~~
Stacked Battery &
Board
0Triangular CrossSection
- .,Bo~ard
Width
rBoard Area: 1400 mm2
/
- Overall Board Length
* Overall Device Length
Figure 19: Chain of feature and mechanical layout decisions. The feature requirement at each step
of the chain is in the top of each box, and the resulting decision is detailed below.
54
The resulting cross-section layout can be seen here:
115
05
-
0.5
Figure 20:Cross-section of mechanical layout of case project device. Dimensions are in mm.
The circular element is the battery,the rectangular element is the circuit board, and the
triangular shape is the overall device cross-section and housing dimensions.
The resulting cross-section, length, and component placement decisions
represent the completed mechanical layout. This layout was then provided to a team
of industrial product designers. The designers were tasked with developing an
attractive, functional design to "wrap" around the mechanical layout. Industrial and
aesthetic design was not a primary focus of the case project, so the topic will not be
addressed in detail in this paper. However, the approach for making feature tradeoff decisions during industrial design should follow the same guiding light principle
that has been invoked throughout this phase.
8.6
Manufacturing Considerations
Having selected a mechanical layout that optimizes the product concept featureset, and arrived at a desirable aesthetic design, the development team must
investigate potential approaches for mass production. Seeing as the overall goal of
the concept refinement phase is to add enough detail to the concept to ensure that it
is feasible, some consideration must be given to the manufacturability of the design.
The goal of these manufacturing-specific considerations is to ensure that the
product concept feature-set and mechanical layout are realistic and can be produced
in a cost-effective manner. As in the mechanical layout stage, the goal here is not to
fully define the manufacturing process for the product concept.
55
In the case project, two general approaches to manufacturing and assembly were
considered. The primary custom component with significant flexibility as to its
method of production was the main housing of the core device. This component was
to be made out of metal, and could be either machined from a solid billet or casting,
or stamped. Both processes were assessed from a high-level, considering complexity
of manufacturing and complexity of assembly. A cursory review of both options,
along with the intuition of the development team, led to stamping being selected as
the manufacturing method of choice.
Again, the goal of these manufacturing inquiries is not to fully define the
manufacturing or assembly method that will be employed. These details are often
worked out with the supplier that will be contracted to produce the product.
However, sufficient detail was added to the mechanical layout and aesthetic design
models to give the development team confidence that a stamped main housing was
feasible. The resulting component layout can be seen in these cross-section and
exploded view models:
Figure 21: Cross-sectional view of final device design, based on mechanical
layout, aesthetic design, and manufacturing considerations
56
Housing
Insert
Mi
C
Housing
Shell
Back
Gasket
Control Dial
Lens
Optics
Spring
Cover
LED Ring
Dial
Control
Gasket
LensLens
Body
Lens Cover
Ring
Toggle Switch
Insert
PogoArray
USB
Memory
Daughterboard
Interface
Retention
Mother-board cent
5
Figure 22: Exploded-view of final device design, based on mechanical
layout, aesthetic design, and manufacturing considerations
8.7
Organizational & Process Considerations
The activities outlined in this chapter span a wide range of disciplines and
represent a significant portion of the time spent during the overall concept
development effort. As such, there are many process and organizational
considerations and trade-offs that could be made. The remainder of this chapter will
focus on three recommendations to improve Dell's capabilities and effectiveness in
this stage.
The process consideration that comes up earliest in the concept refinement
phase is standardizing the use of the guiding light principle. Development teams at
Dell must make a serious effort to define the single, overriding, differentiating
attribute that will make the product unique in the market. This attribute is the
product's reason for being, and should be clearly articulated, understandable, and
agreed upon by all people and groups involved in the development effort. Defining a
strong guiding light, and ensuring that this guiding light is not skewed or forgotten,
should become a key step in the development of every new product at the company.
57
This will ultimately help Dell deliver more differentiated, interesting, and successful
products to market.
Another process consideration concerns the technological complexity of the
product segment in which Dell operates. This complexity makes it critical that
development teams at the company have very strong technical understanding and
capabilities. To this end, Dell has focused on recruiting product, manufacturing, and
technology savvy designers into EDG. This is commendable, as generating
realistically feasible product concepts cannot be done without this technology
sensitivity. However, because of Dell's new strategic interest in expanding its
product offerings - both in terms of hardware and software - it is critical that EDG
expand its technical purview. Engineers with strong mechanical, electrical,
manufacturing, and software training and experience should be integrated into the
various teams within EDG. This will drastically improve development teams' ability
to generate feasible product concepts, especially when dealing with non-traditional
Dell products.
A final process consideration for Dell is increasing the integration of the supply
chain group into this early phase of the product development process. This is
particularly true for novel, first-to-market ideas such as in the case project. Part of
assessing the feasibility of a product concept is determining if and how the product
will be made. It is not reasonable to assume that the company's existing contract
manufacturing partners will have the manufacturing process capabilities required
to make products significantly outside of Dell's normal product range. While the
technology and manufacturing-inclined designers of EDG likely have strong
intuition on what can and cannot be produced, they do not have good visibility of
what Dell's manufacturers can and cannot produce. Bringing supply chain and
manufacturing groups into this early phase of development can increase this
visibility. It will also serve to increase the lead-times that supply chain groups have
to develop new capabilities and manufacturing partners, or find new partners with
58
the required capabilities. This early involvement of the supply chain organization is
critical to ensuring fast time-to-market, especially on aspirational ideas.
59
9
Recommendations and Conclusion
Several recommendations to improve Dell's product development capability are
identified throughout this paper, and will be summarized in the following section.
9.1
Recommendations on Product Development at Dell Inc.
The various organizational and process recommendations identified throughout
this paper are recounted below.
Recommendations on Market and Contextual Research:
*
The creation of a dedicated early-stage market research group that would
serve to assess the quality of suspected product or market opportunities.
This group would focus solely on new and aspirational product
opportunities, as opposed to monitoring the various markets in which
Dell already operates. The purpose of this new group is to avoid the
misrepresentation of opportunities in terms of scale or scope, and the
subsequent inappropriate pursuit or abandonment of product
development initiatives.
Recommendations on Opportunity Discovery:
*
An increased focus on involving groups outside of EDG, such as marketing
and supply chain, in product brainstorming sessions. These groups have a
vested interest in the success of Dell's new product introductions, and
significant insight into the markets in which Dell competes. This
extensive knowledge and passion is invaluable, and would bring new
perspectives into brainstorming sessions. Because of the physical
60
isolation of the EDG offices, members of EDG should actively pursue
marketing, supply chain, and sales inclusion in brainstorming sessions.
Recommendations on Concept Development and Selection:
*
The standardization of the product down-selection process. This will
accelerate the work of development teams because each time a new
development team is formed the members will already have an agreed
upon method for what can be a contentious step in the product
development process. Additionally, documenting this process forms a
record of the due-diligence performed when analyzing each concept idea.
This should serve to avoid extended conflict and debate over concept
selection or rejection.
Recommendations on Concept Refinement:
*
The standardization of the guiding light principle. Any product's key
reason for being should be clearly articulated, understandable, and
agreed upon by all people and groups involved in a development effort.
Defining a strong guiding light, and ensuring that this guiding light is not
skewed or forgotten, should ultimately help Dell deliver more
differentiated, interesting, and successful products to market.
"
Expanding the technical capabilities of EDG. Because of Dell's new
strategic interest in expanding its product offerings, it is critical that EDG
expand its technical purview. Engineers with strong mechanical,
electrical, manufacturing, and software training and experience should be
integrated into the various teams within EDG. This will drastically
improve development teams' ability to generate feasible product
concepts.
61
*
Integrating the supply chain group into the early phases of the product
development process. Part of assessing the feasibility of a product
concept is determining if and how the product will be made. While the
technology and manufacturing-inclined designers of EDG have strong
intuition on what can and cannot be produced, they do not have good
visibility of what Dell's manufacturers can and cannot produce. Bringing
supply chain and manufacturing groups into this early phase of
development can increase this visibility. This early involvement of the
supply chain organization is critical to ensuring fast time-to-market,
especially on aspirational ideas.
9.2
Conclusion
The body of work contained herein should have served to develop an
understanding of how applying standard product development processes can
successfully help development teams identify promising opportunities and then
develop those ideas into feasible product concepts. The case study project should
have provided numerous examples of those processes in action, and provided
evidence of the robustness and effectiveness of the process that was followed. The
concept generated through the author's work in the Experience Design Group at
Dell, Inc. was pursued for the issuance of intellectual property and further
development, and as such can be seen as a successful concept development exercise.
62
10 References
Arthur, C. (2014). How the 'Value Trap' Squeezes Windows PC Makers' Revenues
and Profits. [Online] Available at http://www.theguardian.com/. [Accessed: 22-Feb2014].
Arthur, C. (2013). Dell Eyes Wearable Computing Move as PC Business Keeps
Slumping. [Online]. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/. [Accessed: 22-Feb2014].
Dediu, H. (2012). The Rise and Fall of Personal Computing. [Online] Available at
http://www.asymco.com/. [Accessed: 22-Feb-2014].
Griffin, A., Hauser, J. (1993). The Voice of the Customer. Marketing Science, Vol. 12,
No.1 (Winter), 1-27.
Holzner, S. (2006). How Dell Does It. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, V-10, 63-72.
Markham, S. K., Lee, H. (2013). Product Development and Management Association's
2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, 408-429.
Lee, T.B. (2014). The PC is Dead, and this Year's CES Proves it. [Online] Available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/. [Accessed: 22-Feb-2014].
Sherr, I. (2012). Dell's M&A Strategy has Helped it to Diversify. [Online]. Available at
http://www.marketwatch.com/. [Accessed: 22-Feb-2014].
Ulrich, K. T., Eppinder, S.D. (2012). Product Design and Development, 5th ed. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 47-49, 121-123.
63
for bluetooth calls
3 -Docks tablet only for faster
z- uses neaopnone jack to piug
into aux audio of car. Important
rD
M,
M
-w
OrD
x
Ml
m
3
0
CL
I-A
Fn
CL
(D
"a
I-A
Cv
1 - remotes into pcs
11.2 Case Project Down-Selection Criteria Definitions
User Desirability:
1- Will not be understood or desired by its intended target users.
2- Will be moderately desired by its intended target users.
3- Will be strongly desired by its intended target users.
Feasibility / Technical Complexity:
1- Significant technical development necessary.
2- Achievable with a low to moderate level of technical development.
3- Achievable by primarily combining existing mature components or
technologies.
Generality / Specificity of Need:
1- Delivers on needs of a specific or unique sub-set of field computing users.
2- Delivers on needs of a moderate number of field computing users.
3- Delivers on needs of the majority of field computing users.
Fit with Dell Strategy & Brand:
1- Poor fit. Idea is strategically or categorically misaligned.
2- Decent fit. Idea may be on periphery of current Dell strategy and could
open new strategic avenues.
3- Strong fit. Idea is aligned with either Dell's current range of offerings, or
with current business vision.
Feature vs. Product vs. Solution:
1- A product element that can be applied to many different end-products, or,
an element that is in and of itself not a complete product.
2- An end-product that can be sold discretely, either as a complete end-use
device or as an accessory.
3- An aspirational idea that must be supported by multiple discrete
products.
66
11.3 Case Project Concept Story
This is a wearable computing / display product that could be stand-alone or be
integrated with a number of different field-worker safety products, such as hardhats or safety glasses. It is a HUD that allows the worker to reference text and image
information, take photos / video, record voice-information, and can act as the
worker's primary display. The device could be a self-contained computer, or be
connected to a computing device elsewhere on the worker. The HUD could be
controlled in a self-contained way, or be integrated with I/O and UI elsewhere on
the worker, either via a tablet or some form of wearable device.
Amanda is a windmill inspector and repairwoman. She spends her days climbing
windmill towers and repelling down windmill blades. She needs to be able to take a
lot of photographs of her work, as well as be able to read work orders and other
notes with her hands free. With her safety glasses with integrated HUD, she can do
all of these things. The glasses are wired to a computing system on her belt, which
allows for a very long battery life and full computer power routed into her glasses.
When Amanda needs to take notes, she does so via a forearm mounted keyboard,
which is also connected to the computer on her belt.
67
Battery (mAh)
Ruggedness
Software Functionality
I/O
User Feedback
Wireless
Audio In
Dimensions (in)
Weight (g)
Heads-Up Display
No
Bluetooth
Mono
Audible
Wi-Fi
No
Wi-Fi
Mono
No
On-Board Button
Wi-Fi
Mono
No
On-Board Button
submersible
Add-on, 200' resistant, proof
available
submersible
No
5' submersible
Studio
Add-on, 200'
Free App, Free
Studio
Studio
Water
Studio
Studio
controller body
Button
Free App, Free
Button
Free App, Free Free App, Free
Buttons on
Free App, Free
/ remote
WiFi, Bluetooth
Mono
802.11 b/g/n
Mono
.9 x .67 x 3.33
1 x 1.25 x 3.75
1.5 x 2.4 x 1.2
1.5 x 2.4 x 1.2
/ remote
N/A
body: 2.3 x 3.7 x 1
22
74
73
73
No
Large App Selection
Voice
?
42
?
167, camera 30
365
1250
1050
1050
camera: 1 x 2.6
12 GB
No
No
microSD
2GB
No
No
microSD
No
microSD
No
microSD
Storage (on board)
Storage (add on)
?
?
60
120
120
135
Video Time (1080p)
65
720
160
1080(60)
65.5
480(30)
75
1080(3)
120 or 170
4K (15)
120 or 170
1080 (30)
FoV (degrees)
Video Qual
5
5.3
?
?
12
5
Pixels (MP)
1500
6
300
100
glasses
Ear-piece
controller
240
accessories
330
accessories
accessories
200
Integrated into
separate
5
accessories &
Box w/ mounting
mounting
4
Box w/
3
Box w/ mounting
2
Box w/ mounting
1
Form Factor
Price
Product
C
CD
CD
(D
CD
CD
CD
F+
n,
U,
(AI
0
0A
(A
CLMI
C
3
ID
0
0
.P"
11.5 Feature Decomposition Results
Feature
Option 1
Mounting
Wearable
Detachable
User Customizable
Aiming Mechanism Location Mount Integrated
Manual
Aiming Operation
Image Orientation Calibration Manual
User Input
Voice Input
Gesture Input
Physical Keys
Voice
Mic on Unit
Camera Based
Buttons on Unit
Option 3
Option 2
Option 4
Camera Integrated
Automatic
Automatic (IMU)
Gesture
Physical Keys
Remote Mic
Mic on Boom
Additional Sensor
Remote Control Pendent
Visible
User Feedback
Visible Feedback Mechanism Peripheral Vision LEDs
Audible
HUD
Audible Feedback Mechanism External Speaker
Voice
Audible Feedback Content
Tactile Feedback Mechanism Vibration
Integrated Ear Piece
Tones
Temple Prod
Tactile
Remote Pendant LEDs
Remote Ear Piece
Accessory
Hybrid
Hybrid
Physical
Comms Integration
Voice via BT
Voice & Video via Wi-Fi
Photo Quality
Video Quality
Image Processing
FoV (degrees)
Optical Zoom
Lens Construction
Flash / Lamp
1-5 MP
480 p
On Board
60-90
None
Integrated
None
5-10 MP
720p
Battery Integration
Battery Capacity (video)
Charging
Integrated
2-3 hours
USB Cable
Swappable
3-5 hours
Dock Accessory
5+ hours
Pogo Pin outside USB hatcl Tablet Integration
Data Storage
Data Transmission
Real Time Sync
None
Wired Only
None
On Board, Fixed
BT
BT
On Board, Expandable
Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi
Voice Command Processing
Voice to Text Processing
None
None
On Board
On Board
Outsourced to Computing Device
Outsourced to Computing Device
Privacy
No Features
Physical Camera Shutter
Physical Mic Shutter
Ruggedness
Dust Protection
Water Protection
Drop
Temp
1/O Accessibility
Dust
Fully Dust Proof
Hose-Directed Stream
Fully Drop Proof
Full Temp Range
Removable Caps
Water
Drop
Additional Compatability
Webcam
BT Headset
10+ MP
1080p
120-150
90-120
Point & Shoot Equivalent
Replacable / Changeable
Integrated LED Flash / Lam Remote Flash / Lamp
Submersible
Capless-Accessible
69
>1080p
>150
BT & Wi-Fi
Temp