Neurosmart H4D 2021 Lessons Learned
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•50,480 views
business model, business model canvas, mission model, mission model canvas, customer development, hacking for defense, H4D, lean launchpad, lean startup, stanford, startup, steve blank, pete newell, bmnt, entrepreneurship, I-Corps, Security, NSIN, stress, biosensor, DOD, Joe Felter
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Neurosmart H4D 2021 Lessons Learned
Similar to Neurosmart H4D 2021 Lessons Learned (20)
More from Stanford University
More from Stanford University (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Neurosmart H4D 2021 Lessons Learned
- 1. Team NeuroSmart Optimal Tactical Performance Through Optimal Physiology Original Problem Statement Military officers need a way to regulate their stress while making high-stakes decisions in order to reduce critical mistakes and potential lasting trauma. Final Problem Statement Special Operators going through fast-paced and stressful training sequences (e.g. Close Quarters Combat) need a way to measure and mediate their stress levels to optimize performance. 101 Interviews Support Team Sponsor: Army Research Labs (Dr. Garcia, Dr. Hoffing, and Dr. Ries) Mentors: LTC Ed Cuevas (Defense mentor), Rafi Holtzman (Business mentor), and Dr. Danielle Cummings (Business mentor) Melis Yilmaz Balban PhD ‘15 Neuroscientist Chris Fritz PhD ‘24 Software Systems Engineering Emily Casey Brown MBA ‘22 Business Strategy
- 2. A Bit of A Reversed Journey… Melis putting sensors on a MVPD officer before simulation training NeuroSmart started as a wearable biofeedback technology helping police officers making better decisions under stress.
- 3. NeuroSmart can help anyone making critical decisions under stress.
- 4. We Interviewed 101 Resources Across the Military, Academia, and Industry Users Buyers Partners
- 5. Massive Problem Space: Blessing and a Curse NEUROSMART: A wearable biosensor technology to detect mental red-zones and help users self-regulate to prevent critical mistakes or lasting trauma PTSD and Suicide (prevention, monitoring)? Cognitive Load Monitoring for pilots? Family life adjustment after deployment? Chronic stress management for experienced leaders? A tool to boost operator/ warfighter mental performance? Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10
- 6. Researchers and Warfighters Don’t Communicate Basic & Applied Research Warfighter and Immediate Leader Needs Communication Breakdown “We don’t currently have a pipeline from needs to research right now.” - Army Researcher Warfighters Academia / Researchers
- 7. Stressed and Overwhelmed (We Need NeuroSmart!) Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10 ● Confusion about the problem statement ● Disconnect with researcher and end-user ● Inability to make decisions as a team and put a stake in the ground STRESS
- 8. Difficult Decision: Our Tech Can’t Solve Mental Health ● Stigma is the problem “In my first deployment, we didn’t talk about that stuff. There’s stigma attached” - LTC, 10th Mountain Division ● Culture change, not tech, is the solution “Personal human connection is the strongest protection factor. I don’t know how you’d replicate that with tech” - MAJ, Army MEDCOM
- 9. Stake in the Ground: Decide or Die We were utterly paralyzed by a lack of decision-making.... … and decided that it’s better to make a guess and learn from it than do nothing.
- 10. Conventional Field Grade Officers Need To Regulate Their Stress Levels While Making High-Stakes Decisions ✓ “Decision-making is hindered by the impact from combat over time” - LTC, Marine Corps ✓ “Field commanders are making decisions that impact all of the units in the field” - COL, Marine Corps ✓ “We were making huge decisions under stress with very little information” - MAJ, US Army ✓ “Self-regulation could help this group make better decisions, process information quicker, and be more resilient in high stress situations” - COL, Marine Corps Field Grade Officers Conventional Forces Why did we want to test this beneficiary? Things we heard from Conventional Field Grade Officers:
- 11. Oops - Wrong Beneficiary! Time To Pivot We learned that this technology would not be a priority for Conventional Field Grade Officers for a number of reasons: ✗ Funding Challenges: “We’re just trying to buy bullets for soldiers - we don’t have the money for monitors and analyzers” - COL, 10th Mtn Div ✗ SOF Is A Better Entry Point: “You should look at SOF (Special Operations Forces). This group has great influence over the rest of the military and is good at spreading things. There is also significant funding.” - SMU (Special Mission Unit) Officer ✗ Scalability Challenges: “Tech (like wearables) is too expensive to scale in Big Army - this would not be a priority” - COL, 10th Mtn Div ← Conventional Field Grade Minimum Viable Product (live, real-time stress tracking with recommended interventions based on current mental zone. John Roberts 10th Mtn Division US Army
- 12. Time to course correct! Back on the Beneficiary Discovery road! Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10
- 13. USSOCOM (US Special Operations Command) Demonstrated need, high interest, significant funding, ability to implement, great influencer Military Officer Too Vague Field Grade Officers Conventional Units Still Too Vague; uncertainty around need, interest, funding, and implementability 75th Ranger Regiment ✓ High willingness to experiment with tech ✓ Testbed for tech that gets adopted to the broader military ✓ Separate training pipeline ✓ Public facing ✓ Significant funding resources Moving on From Conventional Units to SOCOM
- 14. With our initial target beneficiary circled, we set off to explore environments where we could provide value and help this beneficiary. Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10
- 15. ● CQC training brings everything together → critical exercise ● CQC is a point of failure → big pain point ○ “Very common for guys to break down and not make the right decisions” - Fmr SMU Commander ○ “Special Ops CQC has a high attrition rate ” - SMU Officer ○ “CQB without a doubt is the number one thing we drop people for in our program” - Director of R&D, USASOC ● CQC training can be improved → huge benefits Big “AHa” Moment: Close Quarters Combat Training Can Be Optimized Note: CQC stands for Close Quarters Combat training. CQC is a signature course in the military. It is also referred to as CQB (Close Quarters Battle).
- 16. How does our technology that measures and improves decision making under stress provide value to the trainers and trainees of the 75th Ranger Regiment? Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10
- 17. Biometric Data = Solution? It was common to initially hear about how getting biometric data would be “hugely helpful.” “Any biometric data would be hugely helpful” -LTC, Army “If I can measure it, I will do better at it” - SMU Officer “CQC training is recorded in facilitates that are hard wired for data collection and analysis” -COL, Army
- 18. The Interpretation of that Data is the Actual Pain Point! “Being able to make the link between ‘here’s what we’re seeing live’ and ‘here’s what is showing up in the data would be amazing” -Fmr SMU Officer “Biggest mistake companies in this space make is falling in love with the data and lose sight of what it means to the user” CEO (Don Faul) “There is a lot of data being collected but the need lies in technology that can interpret this data and put it all together” -SMU Officer “We need data that actually shows us something - something that takes values and creates a tool that can impact training” -SMU Officer “We spend a lot of time collecting data but don’t know how to then use it effectively” - SMU Officer “If soldiers are just given data and didn’t know how to interpret, they wouldn’t wear the thing; dta needs to be useful and actionable” - SOF Officer “The Army has too much data and doesn’t know what to do with it” - COL, Army “It’s shocking and refreshing to hear you talk about this. Why for decades have we not used any data to drive this training?“ - SOF Officer “The team is using biometric data but the application and immediate feedback is not good“ - SMU Trainer “Data has to be analyzed and presented in an actionable way” - SOF Officer “We tried Garmin and Oura ring but are having the ‘so what?’ problem of not knowing what to do with this data” -Director of Innovation, 75th RR “The biggest hurdle with data is figuring out how to use it to improve operators’ decision making processes and not just overwhelm them with it” - SOF Officer “We have a lot of data but have not done work around what the data really means” - Director of Innovation, 75th RR “To the extent we can start explaining behavior through data, we can start saying ‘this is why’ and will then know where to start making tweaks to increase performance” - Fmr SMU Commanding Officer
- 19. NeuroSmart: Improving CQC Performance with Individualized Physiological Monitoring, Biofeedback and Interventions “Connecting the data to shot accuracy and threat responses is invaluable.” - Trainer at MVPD We link the physiological responses to relevant performance metrics using state of the art neuroscience and machine learning. KEY Metrics for CQC: ● Shot Accuracy ● Threat identification speed ● Threat recovery speed
- 20. Stress Meter: We are Feeling Good About Our Beneficiary and Value Proposition STRESS Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10
- 21. We Started Investigating Key Partners, Activities and Resources KEY RESOURCES ● Neuroscience/ biosignal expertise ● Hardware/electronics prototyping expertise ● Commercialization expertise ● Regulatory Expertise and approval needed (3216.02) KEY PARTNERS ● MTEC (Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium) ● Flexible Electronics Manufacturers (NextFlex) ● Academic Collaborators Partners (e.g. Bao Lab) ● Mental Fitness Coaches ● Smartabase (Cloud API) ● Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) ● In-Q-Tel ● Athos ● Medical Research and Development Command VALUE PROPOSITIONS Operators ● Optimized performance through improvements in: ○ Shot precision ○ Threat identification and engagement ○ Threat recovery ○ Baseline physiological stress level Trainers ● Reduce attrition / drop rates ● Increase training efficacy ● Reduction in repeated trainings (saving $ and time) Leadership ● Units are mission ready KEY ACTIVITIES ● Conduct pilots to build predictive algorithms ● Collect biosignals using existing hardware and sensors ● Leverage science to connect biosignals to stress-related performance events ● Interpret data and provide personalized training regimes MISSION ACHIEVEMENT/IMPACT FACTORS ● Increase in the number of (lower attrition), and readiness & resiliency of, special operators ● Improvement in key SOF performance metrics and combat readiness ● Reductions in critical human error and poor decision making; lives saved ● Improve effectiveness of CQC training (saving $ and time) DEPLOYMENT ● SBIR Grants: open topic Phase I (likely NSF) followed by SOF AT&L Phase II ● eSOF and other SOCOM events ● Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) ● Varios pilots (75th RR, Law Enforcement, etc.) BUY-IN & SUPPORT ● SOCOM POTFF (Preservation of the Force and Family) ● SOCOM Human Performance Program ● SOF-AT&L (Acquisitions) ● PEO-Warrior (SOF Program Executive Office) ● DEVCOM (US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command) ● 75th RR Innovation Cells (1st & 2nd Battalion) BENEFICIARIES Initial: ● SOCOM ● 75th Ranger Regiment ● Training instructors ● Mental Fitness Coaches Beyond: ● Broader military ● Law enforcement ● First responders ● Healthcare workers ● Athletes ● & More MISSION BUDGET/COSTS ● Prototype build out (UI/UX + Cloud) ● Pilot operations & software development ● Build out of data processing pipeline ● Manufacturing
- 22. Our Plan For Deployment Funding & Contract Vehicles Prototyping & Manufacturing Testing & Evaluation Integration with Existing Systems
- 23. Week 9: We Have Our First Inbound Inquiry!
- 24. “Can you talk with the medic course director about potentially using your technology next Tuesday?” - SMU medic we had previously interviewed SMU Medic Course Director Wants to Talk About Potentially Using Our Technology
- 25. Contact us for the brochure: neurosmart@lists.stanford.edu Introducing NeuroSmart
- 26. NeuroSmart is taking off… We are looking for: PILOT PARTNERS ● SOCOM units ● Law Enforcement agencies ● First responders ● Athletic teams CONTACT US neurosmart@lists.stanford.edu FUNDING ● SBIRs ● H4X Labs ● Crowdfunding ● Friends and family ● Angel investors INTERNS: Want to work in a high-paced environment and make societal impact? ● Operations ● Data Science ● Human Subject Research Regulation Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 8 Week 9 Week 7 Week 10
- 27. Our Mentors Rafi Holtzman Ed Cuevas Dr. Danielle Cummings Teaching Team Steve Weinstein Pete Newell Steve Blank Dr. Joe Felter Dr. Jeff Decker Nick Mirda Sally Egan Foster Karmon Joel Johnson & everyone who donated their time to our journey. Our Sponsors at ARL Dr. Anthony J Ries Dr. Javier Garcia Dr. Russell Hoffing neurosmart@lists.stanford.edu
Editor's Notes
- Hello, we are Team Neurosmart and thank you for joining us this evening. Our team consists of Neuroscientist Melis, Businesswoman Emily, and myself the engineer. We’re sponsored by the Army Research laboratory along with some gracious and amazing mentors in business and defense. Our original problem was that military officers need a way to regulate their stress. Through our journey, we honed and tweaked this statement to arrive at special operators regulating their stress to optimize their performance.
- NeuroSmart started out before Hacking for defense as a series of experiments run by Melis with the Mountain View, California Police Department. She explored whether and how police officers could make better decisions under stress using biofeedback.
- The success and interest of those pioneering experiments led to realization that this biofeedback tech could be used not just by police officers but in a multitude of environments, including defense. Thus, team NeuroSmart was born.
- Throughout our Journey we had over 100 interviews that cut across the DoD, commercial, industrial, and academic spaces. We weren’t pidgeon-holed into a single viewpoint and had the advantage of synthesizing perspectives from across the board. We’re gonna walk you through what we learned from those now.
- Week 1, we started out with a loose problem statement that left a lot of room for interpretation. Neither stress nor the problems it causes are really well-defined. Our early interviews brought up divergent topics and we struggled to make sense of this gargantuan problem space.
- The first realization that hit us was that the warfighters and folks with the needs and problems don’t really communicate with the researchers who investigate the solutions. We found a massive gap between the two that we’d have to jump.
- At this point, we’re about at week 2 and we’re getting increasingly lost at sea. Morale was not great. Then we had to make a really hard decision to split up the team from 4 to 3. This was very difficult, and was the hardest part of the course by far. We learned how critical it is to face communication issues early and directly.
- Our next difficult decision was realizing that we couldn’t use our tech to solve mental health problems. As we learned, the issue and its solution weren’t technical problems but cultural. It was a matter of stigma, and the antidote was culture change.
- Now It’s week 3 and we’re still completely lost on our beneficiary journey. We’re desperately looking for a way forward, and we realized that the best course of action was to make a decision and run with it. So that’s what we did.
- As a first stake in the ground, we tested Conventional Field Grade officers as a potential beneficiary. Our hypothesis was that this group needs to regulate their stress levels while making high stakes decisions, and this thesis was built on a number of things we were hearing from this community. these are individuals that are making critical decisions that can impact many units in the field, and they are making these decisions quickly under extreme stress with limited information We also heard about how this group could be a resiliency target because of the impact from combat over time and compounded stress, hindering decision making
- But when we set out and showed conventional field grade officers the minimum viable product you see on this slide, we realized that we were targeting the wrong beneficiary and needed to pivot The feedback we received centered around the fact that this type of technology would have difficulty getting funding and would be hard to enter and scale in the broader forces. However, throughout these interviews, SOF or the special operations forces continue to come up as a group we should evaluate. There were a number of characteristics about this community that made us want to explore them as a beneficiary. So while it was a miss on the conventional field grade officers, we came away with new learnings and were excited to look into the SOF community
- And this is team neurosmart getting back on the beneficiary discovery road and heading into week 4 feeling like we had a little more direction and clarity this time around
- Our beneficiary discovery journey ended up taking us to the US Special Operations Command, and we ultimately circled around a specific group within the Special Forces called the 75th Ranger Regiment. The 75th has high willingness to experiment with new tech and has greater flexibility to acquire that technology. Interviewees also highlighted the influence this group has on the rest of the military, and this last piece was especially interesting to us in conceptualizing this group as the best entry point and way to still access the broader military over the long term.
- With the 75th circled as our initial target beneficiary, we then set off and with the second half of the course remaining, started exploring environments where we could identify the biggest value propositions
- One of the biggest Aha moments for us was learning about CQC training. CQC stands for Close Quarter Combat training and it’s a critical exercise used in both selection processes and on a frequent basis when units are training. It’s known as the exercise that brings key skills together and because of the similarities to real-life combat, it serves as an extrapolation of a soldiers’ performance. The more we learned, the more we uncovered critical pain points. It was common to hear about soldiers breaking down and making poor decisions. CQC was also said to be the number one thing that soldiers get dropped for, and the biggest contribution to attrition throughout. Given the amount of time, resources and money spent on training the assets going through CQC, poor performance, and the dropping of individuals are significant problems. Given the magnitude of this exercise and the pain points we were hearing, we knew that there were opportunities to optimize CQC training
- Now that we have identified the 75th Ranger Regiment as our primary beneficiary and the CQC as the context in which we can add value, we needed to understand how our technology that measures stress and decision making under stress can create gains for trainees and trainers of the 75th Ranger Regiment.
- We first hypothesized that providing biometric data during training would be the major value add to CQC. Initially it was not uncommon to hear having extra data would be hugely helpful.
- As we dug in deeper, we overwhelmingly heard that it was the “interpretation” of that data and linking it to key performance metrics that was the actual pain point.
- Based on this feedback, we updated our solution to provide actionable insights and personalized feedback in relevant performance metrics such as shot accuracy, threat detection, and recovery using our neuroscience based algorithms.
- At this point we are feeling good about our progress having validated our beneficiary and our value proposition. However, we still had no idea how to actually deploy this solution?
- This is the point in our journey when we moved from the right side of the MMC to the left side and started investigating what we would need to do to deploy our solution.
- As part of our deployment strategy we identified contracting vehicles within SOCOM and in DoD such as SBIRs and relevant BAAs . Furthermore We found piloting partners to test our prototype that included 1st and 2nd battalions within the ranger regiment and los angeles police department and a professional baseball team! We also received interest from special mission units within joint special operations command who were interested in applying our technology to medic training courses.
- Something exciting happened in Week 9 of our journey when we got our first inbound inquiry.
- This came from a SMU Medic course director who wanted to use our technology. We actually have an exciting update on this as of 2 hours ago, when we finally talked to the director of this course and we are invited to test our prototype in the next training cycle starting next month!
- Introducing NeuroSmart: A wearable designed to provide you with unique insights into your decision making process and performance under stress. Our soution is designed to work under any high stress high performance environment to improve training outcomes.
- Folks we are taking off. We have pilots lined up with 2 units within SOCOM and LAPD. We are looking for more agencies and organizations who would like to test our prototype in the fall. If you want to learn more about us feel free to email neurosmart@lists.stanford.edu
- We would like to thank you for listening, the teaching team, our mentors and sponsors and last but not least everyone who donated their time to our learning and discovery. We will now show you a video on NeuroSmart (sally to present video)