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
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.
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
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)