Hardware considerations for remote service (part one)

Mar 24, 2021 • Features • Digital Transformation

Field Service News in partnership with RealWear, and OverIT have worked together to produce a detailed 22 page Essential Guide to Remote Service. In this next features in a series of excerpts from that guide we explore some of the key considerations that should be made when selecting hardware for a remote service solution...

There are a number of different options available when it comes to selecting the right hardware when implementing a remote-service solution for the field. While each situation is different, the following are a some important considerations all field service companies should factor into their selections...

Form vs. Function:

One of the critical questions that should be considered when selecting enterprise-grade head-worn devices has actually been around for a long time when identifying devices for use in the field. Is it fit-for-purpose and designed with a practical application of use in the field in mind?

As Dr Chris Parkinson, CTO and Founder of RealWear put it during a presentation at the RealWear Connect digital conference last year “is it a fashion accessory or is it a tool?” In the embryonic days of the emergence of Smart Glasses, this distinction was blurred. Indeed many software vendors in the field service space released pilots and demos of solutions on the ill-fated Google Glass device.

Fortunately, our understanding of the role head-worn devices can play in the field service sector has matured significantly. So too has our understanding of what functionality is vital in such a device when it used within the field. Put simply, consumer focused devices (smart glasses) are far less likely to deliver and may even lead to a failed implementation. However, investment on an enterprise-focused device (head-worn computers) could deliver considerable ROI in multiple ways as we explored in the earlier segment of this guide and can be expected to do so within an impressive time-frame.

As Parkinson states; “Consumer devices will always prioritise form over function, while the enterprise will deliver function over form.”

When selecting a tool that can empower your field service team, function has to be the priority, always.

Binocular vs. Monocular

Firstly, what do we mean by binocular and monocular? Well, very simply, it refers to the number of eyes a screen is put in front of (monocular being Latin for one eye and binocular being two). In terms of head-worn computers aimed at the field service sector there are two very distinct types of devices beginning to emerge and when it comes to selecting the right device for your field workers, it is essential to consider the end-goal you are trying to achieve - to empower the engineer to do their job effectively and with a greater focus on their safety.

An excellent and well-known example of a binocular device would be Microsoft’s HoloLens. The user here is in a highly immersive mixed reality that blends augmented content and the real world. The augmented information is combined across both eyes, which can lead to a very effective and impressive immersive world that edges us towards the Hollywood vision of the future we are presented in films like Minority Report.

These are undoubtedly impressive devices and a hugely exciting technology, but is it fit-for-purpose when it comes to use in the field?

Within a binocular AR or Merged Reality (MR) display, the engineer’s focus is very concentrated roughly a metre in front of them. This can reduce both peripheral vision and general awareness of things that are going on around them. As we will see in the final segment of this guide, a case study featuring Alessandro Borzacchi, Innovation and Continuous Improvement Manager, RailCargo, such a solution could potentially put the lives of their field technicians at risk. This could likely be the case for many other field roles where an awareness of the surroundings is critical.

"Parkinson frames the difference between binocular and monocular as ‘digital first, reality second’ in the case of binocular and ‘reality first, digital second’ in the case of monocular. This is a particularly neat summary..."

That is not to say that there aren’t valid uses for such devices within industry, there absolutely are, and some excellent use cases have been put forward particularly around training. Whether it is safe for your field engineers to have restricted awareness of their surroundings is, however, a very important consideration to be factored into selection criteria.

Parkinson frames the difference between binocular and monocular as ‘digital first, reality second’ in the case of binocular and ‘reality first, digital second’ in the case of monocular. This is a particularly neat summary.

In terms of selecting the right device for your field technicians and engineers, the question is how important it is that they have their primary focus on their environment?

To put this another way, should the augmented digital information presented to the engineer be a supporting tool for them, rather than their primary point of focus?

Additionally, what would your use case in the field be that would require the more immersive, graphically sophisticated merged reality that a binocular device can deliver over its monocular counterpart?

One final factor in this equation is if selecting a monocular device, around 30% to 40% of people are left eye dominant. Therefore, it is important to select a device that is capable of being worn on either eye otherwise the device will not be suited for approximately a third of users.

Hands-free vs. Gesture and Touch Control

Another critical factor for consideration is how the device is controlled. There are essentially three primary mechanisms for controlling a device. Again it is important to consider the work-flow and environment within which your field engineers or technicians operate in order to identify which of the three control interfaces is best suited to your needs.

The three primary means of controlling a head-worn device are:

Hands-free (voice commands),
Gesture (either hands or head gesture)
Touch control (usually a control pad on the device that allows for swiping/ tapping commands)

In a field service environment gesture, hand gestures (where you are commanding a virtual screen in front of you) could prove problematic. The last thing you would want if your engineer is working within a factory floor, for example, is for them to be distracted with their arms held out in front of them.

One of the key advantages of implementing such devices in a field service role is to provide hands-free working for the engineer. Of course, this benefit is significantly negated if that engineer has to frequently use their hands to interact with the device.

"For a device to be easily controlled in the quiet of a demonstration centre is one thing. For it to work effectively in the often very noisy industrial environments found in the field, it is another thing entirely..."

While touch control is perhaps slightly less demanding in this instance, the same fundamental issue persists.

An engineer has to put down the tools in his hands to have to use the touchpad to interact with the device is not particularly conducive to an optimal work-flow.

In addition to this, in many field service environments, the engineer or technician will be working with safety gloves, rendering a touch-pad in a challenging to use at best and inoperable at worst.

This leaves us with voice-command being the most effective means of controlling a device within the field.

However, voice itself, of course, has its own challenges.

For a device to be easily controlled in the quiet of a demonstration centre is one thing. For it to work effectively in the often very noisy industrial environments found in the field, it is another thing entirely. Therefore, for a true hand-free solution to work, voice recognition has to be coupled with noise reduction technology.

A good baseline for analysis is the RealWear HMT-1 device which has a 98% success rate with regards to voice recognition while in a 95db environment.

For reference, 95db is the output of a motorcycle engine starting, or a pneumatic drill being operated in reasonable proximity to you. It is also the level at which sustained exposure could lead to hearing loss. An additional factor for consideration when selecting a device that is perhaps less frequently referenced when discussing noise cancellation, yet is equally essential, is speaker rejection. This is where the device will stop other voices being falsely interpreted as a command for the device.

Again using the HMT-1 as a benchmark effective speaker rejection is possible at a distance of just 30cm.

A final consideration around voice commands is whether the device can operate in multiple languages and if it is designed to be accent resilient. This is an important consideration for organisations that have an international field operation.