Project Garden Gnome

Interview write ups and summary

October, 2016

Contents
Team summary

Individual write ups

Ashley Varma
Jake George
Timothy Sun
Trish Hoy
Jesus Arredondo

4
5
6
7
8

Team Summary
The original concept of improving network connectivity by having devices contribute
towards the strength of a network has expanded to an even bolder one such that consumers
will be able to access this type of technology through their very own mobile devices through
a Wi-Fi emitting chip or sticker. The physical form of the network strengthener is still being
decided upon, whether it be manufactured into the device or sold separately as an individual
attachment. Going into these interviews, we sought to nd answers to this question and
many more, such as the feasibility of the actual product, concerns of partnering with big
name tech manufacturers, and how to protect our technology and its users from a cyber
security standpoint.
A common theme throughout the interviews was their reaction to our seemingly
boisterous claim of the capabilities we are envisioning for the nal product. Overall, the
interviewees were pleased to see our group have an idea that could well be possible in the
next decade, claiming it showed our forward thinking and initiative to focus our project on
the capabilities of external network connectivity, but there was much criticism that followed
the praise. It became apparent that the optimistic solution to our problem was characterized
in a way that was too complex to realistically be functional. As we later learned, the practical
solutions given by these IT professionals were easier for us to understand and, in the end,
deemed less problematic in terms of the obstacles we would have to face when coming up
with a prototype for our product. As noted by Li Hui Palevich, we should focus our eorts onto
a single device and work with it until success in terms of keeping our device functional and
secure in order to make it the best that it can be. However, in another discussion, Kajal Rohilla
suggested approaching a dierent problem entirely due to our time restraint and the
complexity of solving the task at hand. Kathleen Jungck also added the point that as long as
what we do with our technology adheres to standard encryption protocols and is produced
either here or in an ally country that would hold our own privacy above their spying interests,
we should be in good production shape. Jan Eveleth cautioned that the technology should
not disrupt the network connectivity of other users. Additionally, through our interviews we
furthered our understanding of who we are trying to sell to and how our means of doings so
would aect not only our market, but also our own business. It was interesting how Stacy
Peterson suggested that we not only seek prot by retailing the device itself, but also make
money from secondary users who are connected to the primary users strong signal. It is an
enticing idea, no doubt, however that may lead to more complications in terms of how we
monetize that aspect of our product and how our primary users may feel about charging
those around them for their better signal.
Going forward, we are going to have to come to a decision on the aspect of the device
becoming an external or internal feature. Throughout the interviews, there were many
dierent perspectives brought up on this aspect by the range of professionals. Because of
this, our deliverable could be presented towards either tech manufacturers capable of putting
our chip into devices, or towards big box retailers or cell phone companies to whom we can
sell it as an external add on to a device. As with any innovation, there will be drawbacks and
skepticism in the actual creation of the product; however, with the information that was
presented to us we have furthered our knowledge and will focus our product accordingly to
position this endeavor strategically.
3

Ashley Varma: interview with Kajal Rohilla

Further pursuing our teams goal of creating a hardware product that brings the days
of weak network connectivity to an end, I was able to interview a Senior Project Manager at
Amazon on October 23rd, 2016 at 8:00 pm. As a professional woman in the information
technology sector, Kajal Rohilla mainly deals with transportation technology at Amazon but is
no stranger to tasks beyond that realm. Because of this, I decided she would be perfect to
interview for the business structure and investment feasibility aspect of our product model. I
wanted to see if this was a product even she would be interested in when I was explaining the
concept to her. This however, as I will explain later, was not the concluding outcome.
The purpose of this interview was to learn more about the way we should go about
presenting our product to consumers and/or businesses, what types and how many
employees we should be looking for and hiring, and ask about the potential roles that could
be held in our business all from a project managers perspective. An additional objective was
seeking the logistics of our business design to conrm that we are doing something that
could make a dierence to many people and at rate with which we could turn a prot.
Even though I presented our market as mobile device and smartphone users, Kajal
presented the idea of constricting our market even more, and this led me to the idea of
focusing our marketing eorts on those in rural areas who go through extended periods of
time with little or no internet connection. In this way, our product would not only be
benetting those already with complete access to internet (although their connection may
not currently be the best) in an urban environment, we could be able to stretch our reach to
communities which are out of reach to service to keep them in touch with the world around
around them and other information systems which the internet provides. Furthermore, a
nding that interested me was the way Mrs. Rohilla immediately took our idea and could
apply it to real situations (such as locational use) and had an idea of how customers would
react to its placement either inside or outside of their devices. One thing our group was
pondering to do was work directly with phone manufacturers to have the chip built into the
phone for the users ease; however, Kajal pointed out that it may be better to keep it as an
external attachment only in the form of a dual USB/sticker/chip and price it as such so people
would not avoid trying to buy a pricier phone for a product with which they are unfamiliar
with. Although I came into the interview with questions focused on the logistics of our
potential product, Kajal and I moved into discussing the use of the product itself and its
feasibility in todays tech world. It was interesting to hear what she thought of our product,
but even though she was pleasantly surprised by the innovativeness of it, she clearly saw
aws in our projects idea. I learned about her focus/obsession on limiting human to human
interaction because she continued to stress that we should create something reective of this.
To me, it seems obvious that Mrs. Rohilla was steering me away from pursuing this
current model of Project Garden Gnome. She clearly expressed her concerns over the actual
usability of it and for the sake of our timeline for the project, suggested we go with more of a
software approach to a product (such as an App). Therefore, I am concluding that we should
potentially be changing our business case for one that is less complex due to its roughly
dened solution to a very broad problem of connectivity. Although the concept may be solid,
continuing with this idea may become limited in future areas of the project by all the
challenging aspects Kajal had pointed out to me.
4

Jake George: interview with Kathleen Jungck

I interviewed Kathleen Jungck, who many should remember as the rst guest speaker
we had in our class. Our interview was the afternoon of Sunday, October 23rd. After
exchanging pleasantries we discussed Project Garden Gnome. Project Garden Gnome (in its
current form) seeks to improve internet connectivity for everyone by enhancing the
capabilities of cell phones to rebroadcast WiFi signals.
Kathleen is the Cybersecurity Engineering Manager at Premera Blue Cross. I wanted to
talk to her primarily about security concerns with our project, but our conversation covered a
variety of topics, mostly about how the device itself would work, and surprisingly little about
security.
Going into the interview, I felt that Project Garden Gnome was a pretty far-fetched
idea. It was cool, but ultimately, sci-. However, the rst thing she talked about were places
that were working with very similar ideas right now. For instance, the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Communications Society is a group with a chapter here in
Seattle that works with ideas much like this one. They do something very similar to what we
are doing for Info 102; they gather people of dierent skills and from dierent areas of
expertise and of a diverse background and they all work together towards a common goal
(except in their case it is much more technically focused and they actually create/launch the
technology). They also have a branch here at the University of Washington (http://
www.uwhknieee.com/).
Kathleen also talked about dierent ways the product could work. For example,
instead of extending WiFi signals, the device could create a sort of mesh where everything
within it could connect. She did mention a drawback of this could be bandwidth issues. 4G
speeds may be too slow to handle this much data, so we may need to look into 5G. The 5G
conference is coming to the Seattle area in a week, so checking out what comes of that would
be useful. 5G data rates would mean up to gigabit speeds, which would be more than enough
for right now, but would need to be improved as data sizes and transfer speeds increase.
Kathleen also talked about the diculties a chip would bring. The main problem is that the
chip would need access to many dierent components of the device: the battery, the
antenna, and the WiFi transmitter. Depending on the make and model of the phone,
accessing all the components could be a challenge or even be impossible. We also talked a bit
about how the actual transmissions would work and how the radio frequencies would have to
be modulated, but most of that would be beyond what is necessary to mention here. Suce
to say, implementing this type of technology into devices would not be nearly as dicult as I
originally anticipated.
Finally, we discussed security. Kathleen said that as long as standard communication
encryption protocols are observed (such as WPA2), there really should not be much to worry
about. At least no more than with any other router or access point. The main issue is if we
actually had chips mass produced in a county like China. There are issues there with security
of technology being compromised by the Chinese government (see Lenovo laptops and
CISCO routers).
The discussion with Kathleen went very well. It raised my hopes that our approach and
type of problem were fairly realistic. It was a great opportunity to explore dierent avenues of
approach to the problem. I was also relieved to know that security issues were few to none.
5

Timothy Sun: interview with Li Hui Palevich

I interviewed Li Hui Palevich, a software engineer at Apple on October 25, 2016 at 6:26
PM. Ultimately, my objective was to better understand the feasibility of our proposal from a
technical perspective as well as a commercial one. I came to the interview with very grandiose
plans about our technology. I imagined our wi emitting chip being in all mobile devices with
handset manufacturers embracing the new part with open arms and commitment. Through
the course of our interaction, Palevich tempered my oversimplied optimism with caution
and pragmatism stemming from her earlier experiences at startups and smaller enterprises.
First, Palevich encouraged me to focus on the scope of our project very deliberately. I
had been determined to usher our chip into all future mobile devices but Palevich advised
that it would be nearly impossible for that to happen with version 1.0. Instead, she suggested
that we spend time researching dierent categories of devices on the market and determine a
single device that would allow for the easiest and most viable integration of our technology.
Once we established a working model in a low stakes product category, we could then work
to bring our equipment to more integral products that consumers use and rely on more
heavily e.g. mobile phones and tablets. I think this approach makes sense because version 1.0
will obviously be awed in many ways. Therefore, if we put it in a low stakes product and fail,
the penalties will be minimized in comparison to failure in a high stakes product.
Second, we talked about the potential for adverse eects when too many ad hoc
connections exist under a network. She raised the possibility that if all our devices are both
connecting and receiving, there would be much greater likelihood for interference between
devices which would ultimately result in suering performance, thus undermining our entire
operation. It goes without saying that substantive research into wireless networking will be
fundamental for how we tune our idea. This is where I feel most uncomfortable because my
understanding of wireless networks and frequencies is primitive at best. Palevich strongly
advised me to learn more about how the technology would work so that later on, we avoid
claiming things that would be refuted by physics.
Third, we focused on the implementation of our hardware solution. I felt that it would
be most benecial to end users if handset manufacturers actually built our chip directly into
the devices. That way, as users gradually adopted new handsets, they would automatically get
the benets of our technology without having to congure any settings or set anything up. It
would be the simplest solution on the front end. Palevich agreed, but pointed out the
immense diculty of work that would need to be done on the backend. We would have to
convince the major handset manufacturers to give up enough space inside their products for
the sake of one chip with no demonstrated success so far. Furthermore, Palevich pointed out
that manufacturers would probably want to use the chip exclusively to leapfrog ahead of their
competition. I was frustrated by how she was characterizing the process but I understood the
importance of considering it.
In conclusion, if we want to make a meaningful contribution to the information
technology industry with our proposal, I believe we should narrow the scope of the product's
initial reach, really focus on understanding the technical and physical problems that the
product will inevitably encounter, and think critically about developing a viable go-to-market
strategy.

Trish Hoy: interview with Jan Eveleth

On the afternoon of October 26, I conducted an interview with Jan Eveleth, the
director of Network Design and Architecture in the UW IT Department. I felt that Jans
experience network design would help provide valuable insight about our project, since the
goal of our project is to develop a device for network extension. With respect to the core
theme of gender diversity in INFO 102, I also wanted to choose a woman in technology to
provide a valuable and diverse perspective. My goal for my interview with Jan was to learn
about the estimated success of our product and the commercial/business aspects of
launching the product as well.
After explaining to Jan the purpose of our chip and showing her the diagrams of our
projected network extension, I found myself wondering if our product was better in theory
than in real-life applications. Jan explained the factors and limitations that I should consider.
She suggested that if we built the chip into the phone, there should be a wireless method of
turning on and o the network extension as needed. Otherwise, the chip could potentially
disrupt other networks. We would need to work on having safeguards as well, because its an
extended network which might also extended opportunities to hackers. Personal information
might be more easily accessible as well. Jan pointed out that the chip shouldnt ever take
away from wi networks of others, and our biggest consideration to start with should be the
physical limitations of the wi network.
In regard to our teams debate over whether or not the chip should be manufactured
as hardware or software, Jan said that either could work, but we would have to develop our
project rst to sell to existing technology companies for greater success. She pointed out that
if we decided to create a hardware version of our project, there would be more questions
from providers and we would have to get a patent before contacting manufacturers. In terms
of the business side, Jan mentioned that this is the type of product that wed have to consider
how much money we need to spend on developing it before making it big with top
manufacturing/technology companies, such as Apple.
My interview with Jan left me with much to consider. As with all startups, our team
would have to consider how much time wed spend developing the project and where to get
funding from, and from there, we would want to project our product onto bigger businesses
to be more protable. Jan said that our idea will most likely be a reality in about twenty years,
as some companies are working on developing network extension devices. I do believe that
we should work on clarifying the hardware/software development of our device, consider the
security aspects, and start thinking about how to project it well for protability in business.

Jesus Arredondo: interview with Stacy

Peterson
For this interview I wanted to get the business side of things so I decided to interview
Stacy Peterson. Peterson is a teacher of economics at Chief Sealth International High School.
With a degree in economics and being in expert in her eld the goal of this interview was to
gure out whether this Garden gnome idea was worth investing in. Since our Garden gnome
idea revolved around having a chip be attached or installed I wanted to take into account the
decisions manufactures would take, since it is in their best interest to make a prot.
In the beginning of the project I thought it was something that no company would
ever want invest in but after interviewing Peterson the Information provided made me realize
how this could be something which could actually be done.
To begin I asked Peterson if this was something that consumers could possibly want
and she began talking about how this is something that could be easier than having a router
and having people gather around it, increasing eciency. In todays day in age everyone has a
smartphone so rms could take advantage of this great opportunity Peterson also mentioned
that most people would not want an attachment to their phones. Having it manufactured
inside the phone makes everything easier and better for consumers. An interesting point that
Peterson said was being able to charge people for using the extended network. For example,
after you reach a certain distance from the router you could start charging a reasonable
amount of money for the people who want to use it. This way rms are inclined to produce
chips inside the phones since there could be potential prots.
Secondly, I wanted to gure out if this was something manufactures wanted to
produce, since it would require for phones to have an extra chip installed and I guess redesign
the phone. In the world of economics, it is about making a prot and Peterson had a great
idea, for people who had an older phone with no chip she mentioned to give a discount, buy
this new device with the chip and we'll give you a discount. This would be a great way to
market the new devices with the chip since people are given an option of getting a deal for an
upgrade.
The nal topic I touched with Peterson was about cost, she said it would be best if we
partnered with a big rm such Verizon. The reason for partnering with a big rm would be
able to meet our expectations. This is a big network and big rms have the technology and
advantage over little rms. Although it may be costlier, the benets of a much smoother
network outweighs the little chance a small rm who wont be able to meet or exceed
expectations.
Overall the interview with Stacy Peterson was better than expected she gave me hope
in our project, she provided more than enough information from the business side of things
than I needed to be able to complete this interview. If we had any plans to move forward with
this I was pretty content that there were not as many obstacles.