This week, the team began by improvising new methods to find potential interviewees. We reached out in our network, and we also began reaching out to representatives from companies with relevant focus areas. As we became more comfortable conducting interviews, we learned how to improve our listening comprehension by asking qualifying questions and asking open-ended questions. The team prepared questions to ask each of the interviewees, but they were also able to adapt these questions based on the background and expertise of the interviewee.
Sample VPC for End User: Soldiers.
The hard kill team began using Value Proposition Canvases (VPCs) this week to anticipate the needs of each of their interviewees. The VPC is a model for predicting consumer needs or expectations that helps the team anticipate how they might accommodate the consumer. Completing VPCs for each of the people team members interviewed fostered empathy for the consumer, an important step in client-centered product development. By viewing the problem from the perspective of what it would mean to the interviewee, the team was able to incorporate that point of view into the development of its product. For example, the team learned that a lightweight solution would provide incredible value to its users because soldiers will have to carry equipment on their backs for miles. By anticipating this need, the team is able to keep the client in mind as they develop their product.
Team “Aha!” Moments
Azeem Mufti:
This week, we began to fully comprehend the actual problem statement and why UAS Drones are actually an issue to the U.S army. We found that hard kill methods may sometimes be preferable to soft kill methods because drone specifications can be altered in flight to defend against soft kill methods. Hard kill methods are far more reliable. However, the team still needs to investigate the scope of situations where this is the case. A big pointer we got from our sponsor was to try to constrain the cost to $100 instead of $1000, as this will help us come up with innovative ideas.
Sarah Paynter:
This week, I interviewed Jake DuHadway, an ROTC senior at JMU who will graduate this spring into the Air Force as a drone operator. Jake has a background working for the FBI security division writing domestic policy to protect against drones. I learned that in the US, the best practice is to simply track a drone back to its source; if there was a true domestic crisis with a drone, they would shoot it down, but this would present certain problems such as the potential of shrapnel and other harm to citizens in the area. Jake also commented on the use of several hard-kill methods: nets are problematic, he commented, because they only work in close proximity, and you may have to “sneak up” on the drone to capture it without escape. Additionally, he said that signal jammers have two potential problems: they completely black out communication in a large area (endangering citizens and disabling their own military communications), and they may not be effective for drones that communicate with satellites rather than with local communication sources.
Ethan Reeves:
During my interview with Dr. Henriques, the conversation sparked an idea to use water as a possible weapon against airborne drones. While this may be a challenge in feasibility, it led to many insights that were not yet explored by the team. Routes that we intend to pursue are investigation of drone fan-base websites to pursue customer-identified pain points for the technology. Additionally, we will investigate websites dedicated to shooting down drones. This discovery of routes to continue researching summarizes the entirety of the meeting and truly became my “Aha!” moment.
Don Afful:
My interview with Mr. John Murphy was very eye-opening. We talked about using Radio Frequencies (RFs) weighing the pros and cons. My take away from that was that our solution could potentially use a weak close-contact RF jammer. Potential problems with a typical RF jammer includes its effects on civilians because it can prevent emergency communications. However, with a weak close-contact RF jammer, we may be able to target only the drone and not effect the surrounding area.
JMU X-Labs
4-VA
