Stratus View Stanford 2015

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)


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


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


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


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



- Customization 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



- Customization 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

○ Google

● 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?

Education

Stratus View Stanford 2015