stratus view stanford 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Final presentation
March 3, 2015
Number of Interviews: 103
TAM: 1,150,000
SAM: 31,500
StratusView:A collaborative, user-friendly platform where missions are planned, modified, and
presented efficiently
Catherine Vaughan Gabriel KhoJohn Kuhn Andrew SouthViraj Tipnis
Note: TAM assumes 50% penetration of DoD. SAM assumes 50% penentration of SOCOM.
Who we are
John Kuhn
Viraj Tipnis
Catherine
Vaughan
Andrew South
Gabriel Kho
20+ years military experience;
team leadership, program mgt
Electrical engineer; CS grad; UAV
expert
Consultant; international nonprofit
strategy
Employee at Garafa, a GIS map
data software company
Computer network research,
interface design, and graphics
Fearless team leader,
military expert
MVP builder and online
surveys/experiments
Team dissenter;
“strategy guru”
Software expert; incredibly
linear thinker
MVP builder;
secret film buff
Here’s where we started: hypotheses
What We Expected What We Learned What We’ll Do Next
Week 1 interviews emphasized
military, emergency response, and
disaster relief.
• The military uses PowerPoint
as a work horse to plan and
communicate complex
operations - but this is
insufficient for their needs.
• Value proposition: Offer
customers an ability to:
Plan operations using
2D/3D imagery and real-time
P2P collaboration
Present operations in
2D/3D, making for easy-to-
visualize plan
communication and
preparation
Track operations in 2D/3D
and real-time P2P
communication
• Understand segmentation of military
market. We heard different needs from
different military units, as well as
simulation vs. rehearsal vs. operations.
• Everyone referenced three programs:
PowerPoint, Excel, and Google Earth.
Explore these applications to replicate
their critical functionality.
• Explore ways to close the disconnect
between planning and presentation
software through seamlessly
importing, exporting, and syncing
mission-critical planning and
presentation data.
• Learn more about 2D and 3D
simulation software: How big is the
commercial market, who are the main
players, what are the unmet needs?
• Explore the potential to incorporate
secure mobile WiFi networking into
an MVP to link people and teams
anywhere without reliance upon existing
bandwidth and infrastructure.
PowerPoint is ubiquitous - but it is insufficient. Some
visualization programs are used in training, but their
graphics are unrealistic.
• Military interviewees use PowerPoint but don’t like it:
“You have identified a definite pain point.”
• That said, PowerPoint is easy, ubiquitous, and can
be used on unclassified computers.
• 2D/3D simulation technology used in pre-deployment
training does not replicate real-life.
Several features jumped out as indispensable in any
operational planning software.
• Time is a factor: simple and intuitive is key.
• PowerPoint is not interoperable with planning systems.
A new system should import, export & sync plans
with presentations.
• Interviewees want realistic, current, and high-rez
imagery and graphics.
• The military’s encryption requirements may limit use of
high-bandwidth video tech.
Interviews also revealed adjacent needs:
• Knowing where people are is important for situational
awareness → need for mobile networking tech and
instant comms.
• Need for data compiled from different sources and
linked to maps, e.g., Wikipedia.
Our initial
hypothesis
focused on
“PowerPoint
replacement”
Our first learnings gave us valuable
insight into key needs, features
Segmenting and understanding the military
market was our biggest “next step”
Here’s where we started: BMC
Started with lots of
potential customers,
with government /
military as core
Annual licenses,
maintenance, and
premium imagery as
main revenue streams
Conduct product demos to get
customers; expand feature set to keep
customers; grow via word of mouth
So here’s what we did.
We got out of the building.
On “a day in the life”:
“A lot of places were really rural. We were taking these
huge vehicles down the road and looking for place to
turn around. Tigrnet had some imagery; I don’t know
where it came from. We would zoom in so that we could
tell people where to turn around. This could be difficult
with a patrol of 6-8 enormous trucks.”
On pain points:
“Why can I talk to you in five different ways on my
iPhone, but can only talk to my boss in one way? Why
can’t I take a picture of something we see on target and
send it back to my intelligence analyst, who can run the
serial numbers really quickly?”
On military purchasing processes:
“The most important thing is for users to generate the
requirement – whether it’s a gun, software, or radio.
The requirement should be generated by the people
who are actually using it.”
Chris Calway, illustrative interviewee Quotes from anonymous interviewees
We built an MVP and got some initial feedback.
“I would love to help you with
the development of this MVP.
Email is not an efficient
method for disseminating and
collecting group-related travel
information. This could be
great for group trips.”
“Ideally there is a product with
icons on a map that you can
touch, which expands into all
the information you want.”
“Your product should be
organized by function.”
We pivoted...
John reviews all of
our potential market
segments:
● Military
● Group travel
● First
responders
● Public health
● Commercial
aviation
● Agriculture
● Journalism
● Real estate
development
● Urban
planning
● Architecture
● Film studios
Product-market fit drives us crazy!
and pivoted...
Steve then yells at us
when we show a spinning
model of Mount Everest.
Steve yells, “WHAT
AM I LOOKING AT?”
...yeah, we didn’t even bother
showing this to Steve.
and pivoted yet again.
(and then we got yelled at.)
Adventurers
(Users)
StratusView
Specialty
Equipmen
t Stores
Online
Equipment
Retailers
Blogs &
Forums
Adventure
Tour
Agencies
Parallel
Tech.
Guides
Marketing
Channels
Distribution
Channels
Other
Users
ADVENTURE
TRAVEL?!?!
We re-settled on military, which allowed us to better
articulate and test our value proposition.
We redefine our core...
...and develop a simple 1-pager
for potential users
Unanimously “must have” features Majority “must have” features “Nice to have”
features
“Don’t need” features
Maps and
imagery
Drop geo-coded pins on maps
Click on pin to access embedded files
Remotely draw on imagery
Upload, embed documents
Import, integrate user-generated
images and 3D models
Animate phased physical movements
Import and integrate
user-created UAV
imagery
Group logistics
planning
Add activities to shared group and
individual calendars
Link activities to
specific map locations
Click on calendar event
and see map
View ind’ll/group itineraries
alongside calendars
Consolidated access to
ind’l/group itineraries
Group
collaboration
and
communication
Plan remotely and in real-time
IM/chat/blog functionality
Real-time voice communication
Secure screen sharing
Real-time info mgt (status updates)
Voice recording Email send and receive
Ability to pull in SMS
texting
Confirmation that message
was delivered, read
Database and
software
functionality
Sharing permissions
Keyword search
Automatic conversion → ppt
Save info for future reference
Historical quant, qual analysis
Variance analysis
Ability to print on paper
We re-settled on military, which allowed us to better
articulate and test our value proposition.
Surveying our MVP testers leads us to “must-have” features.
We then set out to tackle the military’s complicated
procurement processes.Target: 600 pax
SAM 1: 39,500 pax
SAM 2: 86,100 pax
TAM 1: # by Branch
TAM 2: 1.2MM pax
XXX
(600 pax)
XXX
(4000 pax)
U.S. Army
Special
Operations
Command
(USASOC)
(29,000 pax)
XXX
(600 pax)
SOCOM
(63,000 pax)
Department of Defense
(1.2MM pax) *
U.S. Army
(1.1MM pax) *
U.S. Navy
(432,000 pax) *
Department of the Air Force
(626,000 pax) *
U.S. Navy
Special
Operations
Command
(NAVSOC)
(8800 pax)
U.S. Air
Force Special
Operations
Command
(AFSOC)
(8800 pax)
XXX
(300 pax)
U.S. Marines
Special
Operations
Command
(MARSOC)
(3000 pax)
* Includes active duty, Reserves, and National Guard
U.S. Marines
(136,000 pax) *
75th Ranger
Regiment
(2200 pax)
Special
Forces
(4000 pax)
“White” SEALs
(2500 pax)
We then set out to tackle the military’s complicated
procurement processes.
Workflow: two end users
Military personnel (primary)
Military and civilian decision-makers (secondary)
Customer types
End user:
Military personnel and civilian decision-makers planning and
approving trainings and operations
Influencers:
Military representatives at trade shows;
other units who adopt the product
Recommenders:
Technical team (enterprise
architects, systems engineers)
Econ buyer:
Unit product mgr
+gatekeeper: contract
ops specialists
Decision maker:
CommanderConduct
research
and collect
info on
location
Scout out
location;
take photos
and make
initial
decisions
Compile
info in
Power-
Point, brief
decision-
makers
Amend
plans per
decision-
makers’
feedback
Receive
presentatio
n or plan
Analyze
informatio
n
Compare
plan to
actual
operation
Modify or
approve
plan
Week 5: the rest of us (begin to) learn how the military works
We then set out to tackle the military’s complicated
procurement processes.
The Department of the Army (DA) created XXX as a
TDA1 rather than a TOE2 unit. Unlike a TOE unit,
whose funding is governed by a restrictive Table of
Organization and Equipment, CAG retains unique legal
and procurement authorities under its TDA status.
Furthermore, the United States Army Special
Operations Command (USASOC) has designated XXX
as the proponent for evaluating all U.S. Army special
operations force (SOF) combat development
programs. As such, XXX is uniquely positioned to
develop and procure commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
technology to meet immediate combat needs.
Whereas the Big Army’s Research and Development
programs typically maintain 6-12 year deployment
horizons, XXX’s Combat Development programs target
a 6-18 month deployment horizon.
XXX is the only U.S. Army special operations ground
maneuver unit with a fully funded directorate for
combat development and procurement of COTS
technologies and equipment designed specifically for
SOF.
Step 1. XXX retains unique legal and procurement authorities
● Legal authorities for combat development funding derive from the U.S. Congress
● Programmatic authorities derive from federal regulations
Step 2. End user mission analysis
● End user(s) identifies technology and equipment gaps and needs
● End user(s) generates a written requirement statement
Step 3. Staffing process
● The written requirements statement is reviewed by the end user(s) chain of command
● The chain of command disseminates approved requirements statements for review
Step 4. Commander approval
● The Unit commander approves funding for requirements that achieve unit consensus
● The requirement then proceeds to the Combat Development Directorate (CDD) for action
Step 5. CDD assumes execution authority
● CDD HQ subtasks a ‘commodity section’ with executing development and procurement
● CDD HQ resources Combat Development funding
● Commodity section works w/ SOF3 Operators to refine use case
● Commodity section works w/ industry to acquire COTS4 technology and equipment
XXX’s Combat Development Procurement
ProcessWeek 6: We look at special
mission unit procurement.
We built out the other parts of our business model.
Week 7 BMC
Cust.
Segments
-Military units
-Group Travel?
Partners Activities Value Prop-Simple User Interface
-2D interactive layered
maps
-Sync and Link Visual
Data
-Communicate Complex
Ops
-Single Collaborative
platform for coordinating
logistics
-Collaborative Planning
of Ops
-Reduce duplicative
effort / Save Time
Cust. RelatsGet: SOF Indust. Mtgs.
Get: Beta Tests / Pilots
Keep: Expand features
Keep: Stored Data
Grow: Waterfall top-
down
Grow: Cross DoD ops
CostFixed: Software development and research
Fixed: Admin/marketing core
Variable: Customer tech support
Variable: Org-specific product customization design
Revenue-Funded pilots
YES
-One-time group (org or agency) licenses YES
-Annual maintenance contracts
YES
-Annual software licenses NO
Resources Channels
-Cloud SaaS
-On-site training
and customization
-App Store?
Realized perpetual
licenses are the norm
in military contracting
Fleshed out our fixed
and variable costs
based on interviews
We built out the other parts of our business model.
Cust.
Segments
-Military units
-Group Travel?
-Private Military
Training
Contractors?
Partners
DoD organization
brokers
Secure SME
Database
Solutions
Imagery
-Maps
-UAV
-Models
Activities1) Software dev
2) Build net of
insiders and
contract vehicles
3)Support, training
4) Biz dev & mktg
Value
Propositions-Simple User Interface
-2D interactive layered
maps
-Sync and Link Visual
Data
-Communicate Complex
Ops
-Single Collaborative
platform for coordinating
logistics
-Collaborative Planning
of Ops
-Reduce duplicative
effort / Save Time
Cust. Relats- Beta tests & pilot
-Tier 1 Networks -
requirement writers
- Tier 2 Networks - writing
support docs (AAR
support)
- Special Funding/Access
Cost
Fixed: Engineering and Salesperson Salaries
Fixed: Travel Expenses (second highest costs)
Fixed:: Professional Fees, Rent, Utilities.
Variable: “Channel Discounts” (adoption discounts, broker fees),
Server and API costs
Revenue-Funded pilots
-One-time group (organization or agency) licenses
-Annual maintenance contracts
-Training
-Customization
Resources1) Initial capital
2) Software engrs
3) Minimal physical
& tech workspace
4) Eval of system
architecture
Channels-Public Brokers
-Private Brokers
-BAA submissions
direct to SOCOM
orgs
Added training,
customization costs per
Palantir benchmarks
Factored in a discount for early adopters as
well as other fixed, variable costs
Refined customer
relationships and
channels according to
our military
penetration strategy
Week 8 BMC
We built out the other parts of our business model.
Initial budget
Final budget
Along the way, we...
met some amazing people... ...encountered start-up
frustrations......and learned how to
work as a team.
I may be
smiling...
...but I am
disappointed
in you!
Here’s where we ended up.
We identified product market fit . . .
bit.ly/stratusview
Username: test
Password: test
We built a simple MVP that illustrates the essence of a
one-stop-shop planning platformUser feedback
“I get this MVP. A real-time
group planning and
management system would fill
a requirement that nothing else
currently fills. I like the idea of
streamlining planning functions
within an end-to-end product.”
“StratusView would allow all
stakeholders to upload their
operation related files to a
single collaborative platform for
searching and sifting through.”
“This is an intuitive platform. It
would be very useful as a
knowledge management tool. It
would be helpful if people could
collaborate across different
agencies.”
We also have drafted a white paper to vet with brokers,
funders, and users in the military space.
Budget
ApprovalRFP
Budget
RequestBeta Test
Apparent
Need
Validated
NeedFirst Run RFQ
Bid
ProcessAward
Path 1: Big Army Procurement
Write
Requirement
Path 2: Tier 1 / Direct Acquisition
Funded
Pilot
Sole
Source
Frame to
BAAs
Project
Pairing
Development
Funding
US InteragencyPath 3: Tier 2 / Joint Development
Build
Demos
yr 1 yr 2 yr 3
Is need
still
valid?
Path 4: Scale into U.S. Interagency
Commercial Build
We’ve developed an “insurgency” strategy to penetrate our
market and circumvent lengthy acquisitions processes.
Insurgency Ways Ahead: Path 1 (No-Go) / Path 2 (Primary) / Path 3 & 4 (Secondary)
PathProcurement
PathsTarget Organizations Customer Relationships Channels Revenue Activities
1 Department of
Defense
- Army
- Navy
- Air Force
- USMC
🔵 Prime Contractors:
IBM, L3, Raytheon, Northrop
Grumman, General Dynamics,
Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, etc.
- Industry Shows
- Open access bidding:
GSA, FedBizOps, etc.
- Perpetual Licenses
- Maintenance Contracts
- Training Contracts
Wait for budget
allocations for our class
of product
2 Direct
Acquisition
(Tier 1 Units)
🔵 CAG
🔵 DEVGRU
🔴 24 STS
🔴 JSOC
🔵 Direct Tier 1 user network
Proponent:
🔴 JSOC
🔵 USASOC
🔵 Private brokers (BMNT) - Pilot Funding
- Perpetual Licenses
- Maintenance Contracts
- Customization Contracts
- Training Contracts
1. End user network
2. Draft requirement
3. Funding for pilot
- End user funds
- Gov’t R&D funds
3 Joint
Development
(Tier 2 Units)
🔵 75th Ranger Regiment
🔵 Special Forces
🔴 “White” SEALs
🔴 Direct Tier 2 user network
Proponents:
🔴 Special Warfare Center (SWC)
🔴 SOCOM (SORDAC / TILO)
🔵 USASOC
🔵 Private brokers (BMNT)
🔵 Public brokers (AWG)
- Broad Area Announcements
(BAA)
- Development Funding
- Perpetual Licenses
- Maintenance Contracts
- Customization Contracts
- Training Contracts
- Scan BAAs
- Liaise w/ proponents
- Frame proposals
- Use R&D funds to
develop demonstration
applications per user
4 U.S.
Interagency
- Intelligence Agencies
- Dept of State / DSS
- Dept of Energy
- Dept Homeland Security
- Secret Service
- FBI
🔴 Direct user network
🔵 Private brokers (BMNT)
🔵 In-Q-Tel
Scale into U.S. Interagency
We plan to forge ahead with this project and see where
it goes!
Key outstanding questions
● Can StratusView be optimized to allow users to quickly build better planning and presentation visualizations than
PowerPoint?
○ 3D models
○ UAV imagery
○ Existing 2D and 3D maps
● What commercial and government partners exist?
○ National Geospatial Agency
○ NASA
● Are potential profits large enough for the funders we are targeting?
○ If not, how can we position this product for a larger market? What are the key entry points?
● Which commercial applications are the “lowest-hanging fruit,” particularly for funders like In-Q-Tel and others
interested in products that could cross over between military and commercial markets?
● How much will it cost to develop a prototype - can we bootstrap it, or do we need funding right away?
● How can we continue to use the network, resources, and support we built in this classroom as we work on this
privately?