Hardware considerations for remote service (part two)

Mar 31, 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 features in a series of excerpts from that guide we continue to explore some of the key considerations that should be made when selecting hardware for a remote service solution...

In the last feature in this series we looked at three key considerations around selecting hardware; form vs. function, binocular vs. monocular and hands-free vs. gesture or touch control. Now we shall look at three more...

Will the headset work with your existing PPE?

There are many different field service environments. Equally, there are many different types of PPE that a field service technician or engineer may need to wear, even within just one organisation. There could be multiple different types of hard hats used in different departments or different regions.

While it may not be the first question that comes to mind, when identifying a solution for your engineers, it should be raised when looking at any potential solution you may be aiming to implement.

Many solutions within the category are easily adapted to fit within a variety of hard hats and helmets. RealWear’s HMT-1 device, for example, is currently configurable with 30 different types of protective head-wear and often manufacturers will be able to produce a solution if one is not already available.

However, having identified the right headset to meet your needs and being on the verge of implementation only to find that it is not compatible with your existing PPE could be a frustrating set back in any roll-out.

Also, since the pandemic, another factor around PPE is whether wearing a mask will impact the functionality of a device that relies on voice commands.

Again, this is something that RealWear have run extensive tests on their devices to ensure that performance isn’t impacted when users are wearing a face mask. However, as we continue to face a world where the pandemic’s lasting effects remain in place, it should be an essential question to put to any manufacturer when looking at devices for remote-service solutions.

Ruggedness:

Once again, we return to the opening question of whether a device is fit-for-purpose.

As with industrial-grade tablets, the total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) is an important factor to consider, and the ruggedness of a device will have a significant impact on this.

Just as we should look at the specification of a rugged tablet or laptop when selecting a device for use in the field, we should do so with a head-mounted device.

The first thing to be aware of is what the IP rating of a device is. IP ratings are an indicator of how well a device can withstand dust and water getting into it. There are two numbers to look for in an IP rating; the first indicates how resilient it is to dust. It should be expected that a device suitable for use in the field would have an IP rating of 6 against dust ingress (how much dust can penetrate a device). This indicates a device is totally dust tight so it is fully protected.

When we look at the second number, this is an indicator of how resilient a device is to water ingress. While these numbers go up to 9, the final two categories are generally overkill for most field service applications – and if you’re working in an environment that requires one of those higher ratings you probably know all about IP ratings anyway! An IP rating of 7 indicates a device is capable of being fully submerged in water for a period of up to 30 minutes at a depth of 1 metre.

Again, unless you have a particularly clumsy and forgetful engineer who would not only drop the headset into a pool of water but also then forget about it for half an hour, this is probably not a deal-breaker.

"While use cases are different for every field service environment, if a device has an IP rating of IP66, you know it will be pretty much dust and waterproof in all but the most demanding environments..."

However, when we get down to the next rating, we are now entering the realm of what the minimum standard for a rugged device should be. At this rating (6) a device is protected from direct high-pressure jets of water, at any angle, so sufficient enough protection for most field service environments. Below this, however, we begin to see water ingress begin to occur.

While use cases are different for every field service environment, if a device has an IP rating of IP66, you know it will be pretty much dust and waterproof in all but the most demanding environments.

Of course, no matter how careful an engineer is, any device suitable in the field should also be able to survive the bumps, knocks and occasional drops that any other tool within their kitbag should take.

Therefore, another area of enquiry when looking at the rugged specifications of a device is whether it has passed a drop test. Generally, drop tests will tell you two things, the height at which the device was dropped and the material at which it was dropped onto. The height is generally around 2 meters or 6 foot depending on where the test was conducted.

With a head-mounted device, any drop test below 6 foot may not be a sufficient indicator of the device’s rugged capabilities as the chances are that the device could be knocked off an engineer’s head by accident, and many engineers in your workforce could be over 6 foot.

However, the latter part of the drop test information is particularly important.

It is industry standard to drop test onto concrete; however, occasionally, you will see drop tests undertaken on softer materials such as plywood or even cardboard.

While this doesn’t mean in and of itself that a device isn’t capable of surviving a drop in a real-life scenario it is a valid question to ask the manufacturer why the test wasn’t undertaken onto concrete.

Tether or no tether

There are two approaches in head-mounted devices regarding where both the CPU and the battery are stored, which is one of the final decisions that companies need to consider. The first is for the device to have everything cased within the frame worn on the head. The second is for the device to be tethered to a secondary component that stores both the battery and the processor.

This second option’s key advantage is that it removes almost all of the weight from the headset. If an engineer is using a headset all day, then this could certainly be advantageous.

However, this approach’s disadvantage is that the tethered system adds in the further complication of an additional wire that ‘tethers’ the two.

When we consider that the environments field service workers operate in and the key focus on health and safety, being one the primary considerations we must make when selecting tools for our engineers, then additional cabling is problematic.

"The interesting thing to note here is that the cabling will invariably become lighter and potentially a more practical solution in the future for field service applications..."

If a cable is too loose, it could snag on something while the engineer is working, if the cable is too tight, it will restrict the engineer’s free movement.

In either instance, it is easily conceivable how the tether could become detached, which would result in the engineer having to stop what they are doing, take off their gloves, reconnect the device and start where they left off – not optimal.

The option of a tethered device has potential certainly, and it does resolve the issue of additional weight within a device. Still, currently, most tethered devices rely on quite thick cabling, which is a major factor in the problems we’ve outlined.

The interesting thing to note here is that the cabling will invariably become lighter and potentially a more practical solution in the future for field service applications.

However, when looking at devices that are currently available such as RealWear’s HMT-1 which currently weighs in at 380 grams, the weight of the device is probably less of a factor than the addition of more cumbersome cabling currently from both a productivity and health and safety perspective.