Presented by: For:

© ETSI 2018

ETSI Industry Specification Group on Augmented Reality Framework (ISG ARF)

Use Case Survey Results

Muriel Deschanel and Nicole Le MinousChairman and secretary of ISG ARF

ISMAR Enterprise AR functional requirements workshop

© ETSI 2018 2

The context

AR is a growing and promising market with high revenue forecast e.g. 110$B by 2021

Clear and long-term RoI benefits based on improvements and efficiency gains

Acquisition of AR solutions by large companiesRisk of control of AR technologies by only a few large actors -> siloes

A set of common key components: Tracking, localization, pose estimation, 3D reconstruction, cloud storage and more

Lack of standards adoption:Adoption of standards bring interoperability

Creation of an Industry Specification Group at ETSI - a European standards organisation with a global impact

© ETSI 2018 3

Overall Objective of the ISG ARF

ADD SECTION NAME

Defining a framework for the interoperability of AR applications and services, in order to prevent market fragmentation and enable providers to offer part of an overall AR solution

To encourage an ecosystem with a diverse range of solution providers including smaller players, new entrants and academicsTo define a modular architecture and achieve interoperability at the interface of building blocks

The focus is on interfaces, no standardisation of core technologiesThe building blocks can be open source, proprietary or standardised technologies

Achieving Interoperability:Will give end-users confidence to invest in and use (future proof) AR solutionsCan prevent lock-in situation with a single vendorCan ease technology swapping, e.g. to improve applications performance and services

© ETSI 2018 4

ARF Members and Participants

BasinLogic

© ETSI 2018 5

ISG ARF Workplan

RequirementsFor

Interoperability

Needs for standards

Work item 1AR standards

Landscape

Work Item 3 AR Framework

Architecture

Use Case Survey

Work item 2AR industrialUse cases

Define new ETSI Specifications

Recommendexistingstandards

Definerequirements to extend existingstandards

© ETSI 2018 6

Benefits to the ecosystem

A reference interoperability framework for AR applications and services taking into account existing AR models and compliant with relevant AR specifications

Availability of high performance AR components portable between different hardware vendors, different providers of software solutions and platforms

A diverse range of solution providers including smaller players, new entrants and academics

AR services and platforms simpler to design, deploy and operate

© ETSI 2018 7

Do get involved!

ToR : Terms of Reference

If your company is an ETSI member, you can join the ISG ARF after signing the ARF member agreement; no additional cost

If your company is not an ETSI member, you can participate after signing the ARF participant agreement

Participation to online conference calls and subscription to mailing list are freeA fee of 200€ per day per physical meeting (F2F/online participation) per delegate; (capped to 700€)

Initial duration of the ISG is 2 years

© ETSI 2018

Questionnaire on AR use

cases

© ETSI 2018 9

Questionnaire analysis : table of contents

• Context and participants profiles

• Focus on predominant use cases

• AR Challenges according to participants

© ETSI 2018

Context and Participants

profiles

© ETSI 2018 11

Context

• Survey online using Surveymonkey.com

• Published by ETSI

• Online between 28/02/2018 – 01/05/2018

© ETSI 2018 12

Participants profileWithout academics

55% of the participants define themselves as Technology PROVIDERS over Technology USERS

AR technology user38%

AR technology provider

55%

None7%

AR technology user AR technology provider None

© ETSI 2018 13

A rather homogeneous distributionof responses that illustrates theholistic nature of the uses ofaugmented reality.

Training is identified as the mainbenefit of Augmented Reality.

Participants AR expected benefitsWithout academics

© ETSI 2018

Use cases

© ETSI 2018 15

AR use-cases identified as the most relevantWithout academics

Logist

ics

Inspecti

on / Quali

ty

Man

ufacturin

gSale

s

Mark

eting

Training

Worke

r safety

Main

tenance

Factory

layout

Innovation

Operation

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

Among those possible use-cases please select the most relevant for your company/institution

Maintenance & Inspection Quality are identified as the top two use cases for AR in the Industry

© ETSI 2018 16

AR use-cases Profiles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

inspection / quality Maintenance Training ManufacturingTech Provider Tech User

Without academics

© ETSI 2018 17

AR use-cases - Accuracy

Do the augmentations need to be precisely located relatively to a real equipment or object ?

14%

40%

88%43%

100%

60%43%

13%

inspection / quality Maintenance Training Manufacturing

under 1 millimeter a few millimeter a few centimeter up to 10 centimeter

Without academics

© ETSI 2018 18

From which type of sources will the augmentations come from?

ADD SECTION NAME

AR use-cases - DataWithout academics

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

inspection / quality

Maintenance

Training

Manufacturing

Office Document Knowledge Base ERP DCC CAD

© ETSI 2018 19

Does this use-case involve collaboration or sharing of the screen between multiple users ?

ADD SECTION NAME

AR use-cases - Sharing

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

inspection /quality

Maintenance Training Manufacturing

Yes No I don't know

Without academics

© ETSI 2018 20

AR use-cases – Hands-free

Without academics

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

inspection /quality

Maintenance Training Manufacturing

Yes No

Is it mandatory for the user of the AR system to have his hands free ?

© ETSI 2018 21

Please describe the size of the area of interest (space where augmentations may occur).

AR use-cases – Scale

Without academics

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

inspection /quality

Maintenance Training Manufacturing

World scaleWarehouse scaleRoom ScaleDesktop ScaleLetter scale

© ETSI 2018 22

Please describe the size of the area of interest (space where augmentations may occur).

AR use-cases – Scale

Without academics

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

inspection /quality

Maintenance Training Manufacturing

World scaleWarehouse scaleRoom ScaleDesktop ScaleLetter scale

Predominant size

© ETSI 2018 23

AR use-cases – Operating systems

iOS Android Windows Linux Other / I don't know

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

If some mobile devices (tablets, smartphone, smartglasses...) are already deployed for AR applications in

your company, what are the corresponding operating systems?

Responses Total

Android is the most deployed operating systemsupporting AR experiences

Without academics

© ETSI 2018

Challenges

© ETSI 2018 25

1.38%

2.07%

3.45%

4.14%

4.14%

6.90%

6.90%

8.97%

8.97%

8.97%

9.66%

10.34%

11.72%

12.41%

Other (please specify)Equipment cost

User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness

Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system

User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues

Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…

Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations

Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues

Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics

© ETSI 2018 26

1.38%

2.07%

3.45%

4.14%

4.14%

6.90%

6.90%

8.97%

8.97%

8.97%

9.66%

10.34%

11.72%

12.41%

Other (please specify)Equipment cost

User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness

Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system

User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues

Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…

Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations

Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues

Tracking30%

Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics

© ETSI 2018 27

1.38%

2.07%

3.45%

4.14%

4.14%

6.90%

6.90%

8.97%

8.97%

8.97%

9.66%

10.34%

11.72%

12.41%

Other (please specify)Equipment cost

User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness

Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system

User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues

Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…

Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations

Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues

Ergonomy27%

Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics

© ETSI 2018 28

1.38%

2.07%

3.45%

4.14%

4.14%

6.90%

6.90%

8.97%

8.97%

8.97%

9.66%

10.34%

11.72%

12.41%

Other (please specify)Equipment cost

User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness

Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system

User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues

Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…

Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentations

Ergonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort ...)Tracking accuracy issues

Cost : 11%

Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics

© ETSI 2018 29

1.38%

2.07%

3.45%

4.14%

4.14%

6.90%

6.90%

8.97%

8.97%

8.97%

9.66%

10.34%

11.72%

12.41%

Other (please specify)Equipment cost

User security while using AR solutionAR Devices robustness

Incompatibility with protective equipmentsBattery lifetime of the AR system

User interaction methods with the AR solutionTracking robustness issues

Availability or adaptation of the data (3D models, 2D…User acceptance (perceived reliability, utility, usability,…

Authoring time/cost of the AR applicationMethods for initial spatial positioning of augmentationsErgonomics of the AR display solution (weight, comfort…

Tracking accuracy issues

-Tracking30%-Ergonomy27%

-Cost : 11%-Data availability: 9%

Mentioned challenges of ARWithout academics

© ETSI 2018 30

THANK YOUand let’s keep in touch

Muriel Deschanel: Chairman of the Industry Specification Group ARF muriel.deschanel@b-com.com

Nicole Le Minous: Secretary of the Industry Specification Group ARF Nicole.leminous@b-com.com

© ETSI 2018 31ADD SECTION NAME

Participants• 77 participants

• Location :

43% from Germany

24% from France

5% from Canada

5% from USA

5% from Spain

5% from Italy

…

• 85% of them have an interest in implementing an AR based device use case

• ~60% of the participants started their AR activities in 2015 or later (oldest : 1990)

• The average number of people working on AR in their company or institution is 12 (min : 1 / max : 100)