The best GPR equipment ever is a three-fold problem

6 minute read
observation
, , ,

I’m three-years-removed from my work in the market for GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) equipment, but the market is still an interesting one, primarily due to the interplay between the radar equipment used and the operators that wield it and derive insights from the data it delivers.

Equipment is important, people are important, but you know what’s most important? A total UX (User eXperience) that reduces the impact of the operator’s skill level and interpretation subjectivity from the equation, potentially (long-term vision?) removing these factors almost entirely from the picture.

I understand that it can be a hard pill to swallow for GPR operators, but it’s not any different to the hard pill that e.g. draftsmen had to swallow as they saw their manual labor getting eaten by CAD, or the one that classically-trained development engineers had to swallow as they saw FEA and CFD make rules of thumb and design rules (for stress, LCF, HCF, etc.) less relevant every year.

In the market for GPR scanning and interpretation services you don’t win anymore because you a) were there earlier, b) have the best antenna for the job, and/or c) make your life more difficult than it has to be as a proxy for how valuable the job is.

The best GPR (because yes, there is a “best one”) is the one that “grounds” the human-factors argument by making insights delivery increasingly independent of operator/analyst skills, intuition and subjectivity.

Will the value delivered ever become entirely independent of those factors?

Most likely no, but it for sure cannot remain tied up in outdated modes of thinking caused by a historical lack of focus on the equipment’s/task’s UX, and an emphasis on #gatekeeping by the old-hats in the business.

GPR professionals on LinkedIn (expectedly) tend to overvalue the importance of the skillset of the radar device’s operator versus the quality of the radar equipment utilized. The “leveling” argument that maintains this illusion of self-importance for the operator is sometimes expressed as “there is no best GPR unit”, “many could be considered the best”, “it depends on the application”, and “the operator is the greatest factor in determining the success of a GPR investigation”.

These views are biased in the favor of those holding them, but in reality they are conflating two things and leaving one thing out of the story.

They are conflating two things:

  1. What the GPR delivers in terms of data in a specific use case, and

  2. what the GPR operator and/or the person who derives insights can achieve with (1).

There is also a third aspect: 3) the UX of the GPR unit, and how it impacts (1) and in particular (2).

Regarding (1): for any specific GPR scanning application, there will be a varying match between the “fitness” (“goodness”) of any given radar system and the application in terms of the quality of data it can deliver. This is the technical, objective part of the story, i.e. SNR and depth penetration, resolution, etc.

Regarding (2): among a set of GPR users there will be a wide variance of intuition, skill and attention to detail w.r.t. how the data are gathered and how they are interpreted. This is the subjective part, and, surprise-surprise, most GPR users prefer to believe in the superiority of the human factor vs. the quality or choice of GPR equipment and its UX.

Regarding (3) (a “convolution” of (1) and (2)): the best antenna coupled with the most skilled operator might still lead to subpar interpretations, if the UX is abysmal, thus making (1) data difficult to gather in the manner intended and (2) the operator make mistakes impact interpretation.

Vice versa, a system with great electronics and great UX enables even a newbie to ramp up their learning much, much faster than before, which means that the old-hat’s superior experience in subjective interpretation does not anymore constitute a sustainable competitive advantage in the market for GPR scanning services.

The problem is manyfold:

  • Systems with terrible UX prevent both experts and non-experts from delivering the highest value to the scanning service’s beneficiaries.

  • Operators who ride on their high-horse regarding their superior subjective interpretation skills might discard superior UX as “too easy”, because they might value labor-intensive analysis as some kind of badge of pride (“back in my day / uphill both ways”, etc.)

  • Systems with outdated electronics being used by old-hats do not deliver the same quality of insights anymore, they are slower in acquisition, etc., thus increasing the “time to insight” too.

It’s the same old argument of Formula 1; is it the driver or the car that makes the difference? The answer is “yes”; both matter. In GPR all three factors matter:

  1. the electronics,
  2. the operator/analyst, and
  3. the overall UX.

The market for GPR devices has historically been a stolid, oligopolistic one, dominated by less-than-a-handful of equipment suppliers peddling less-than-stellar electronics to old-hats riding their high-horse of “I used to GPR scan in the 1980s”, and the attention to the overall UX was truly abysmal.

The reality is that nowadays you can be a total “noob” in GPR scanning and still make good money by starting out with a system that delivers high-quality data with a solid, user-friendly UX, and you will not remain a “noob” for too long, because modern on-site software enables you to analyze, iterate, evaluate and learn way, way, WAY faster than what the old-hats have gotten used to.

It takes all three elements, but the only thing that doesn’t remain static is the experience of the operator.

Investing into a unit with outdated electronics and a UX inspired by Windows 3.1 will only hold back an ambitious, learning-focused operator, and that’s a pity.

Ergo, there are better or worse units and better or worse operators, and better or worse outcomes depending on a combination of (1) and (2), and the historically forgotten/abysmal/unconsidered (3).

The best equipment is the one that enables solid insights faster, while also leveling the playing field across operators, i.e. it removes the operator’s skill (and possibly, hubris) from the equation.

The worst equipment lets noobs down by being too complex, and keeps old-hats proud to still be wasting their time on things better done easier than before, thus feeding their ego as supreme determinants of the service provided.

The main Job To Be Done for a disruptive player in the GPR equipment market is not merely to deliver (1) a great antenna and electronics, but to also make (3) so compelling, so straightforward, so intuitive and capable, that factor (2) becomes less and less the major determinant it has historically been.

Conclusions

  1. The best GPR equipment is the one that reduces the impact of the operator’s skill level and interpretation subjectivity on the outcome of the service provided (the insights).

  2. It is no longer sufficient to win in the market for GPR scanning services based on being an early adopter of GPR technology, having the “best” equipment from an electronics standpoint, or making the process of data gathering and interpretation unnecessarily difficult or time-consuming.

  3. The importance of the operator’s skillset and the quality of the radar equipment used are often conflated, while the UX is a massive, crucial factor in determining the success of a GPR investigation from the point of view of the service’s beneficiary.

  4. A great UX can enable even a novice operator to quickly learn and produce high-quality results faster than in the “good old days”, while a poor UX can hinder even a skilled operator’s performance; therefore, UX is the forgotten factor.

  5. For a GPR equipment supplier it is not enough to provide a high-performance radar antenna; it is imperative to turn the UX into a differentiating component in order to remain competitive in the market and make spec-driven comparisons to other suppliers into a moot point.

Note: views are entirely my own; I haven’t been affiliated with any GPR manufacturer since February 2020.