Electronic cigarette : evaluating and maximising the performance of IoT project

The project and its performance challenges

Rtone supported Enovap in developing the latest version (V2) of its product. The project began with a clear deadline: a certification constraint set for a specific date. It started with a technical workshop to understand the target and the product’s challenges. The prioritized value attributes defined during the workshop guided the organization of development “sprints.”

Behind Enovap lie several innovations:

• AI research in collaboration with the CNRS
• Deep Learning and Machine Learning algorithms to adjust nicotine concentration

Ambitious goals

The ambition for this V2 was to meet three key criteria:

• Energy autonomy: aim for a minimum autonomy of 400 puffs.
• Quality: measured notably through power: 10W for vaping.
• Compactness: deliver a less bulky product, more compact than V1. Reference dimensions were set at the project’s launch.

To organize development sprints while ensuring Enovap’s priorities, we created an intentions list. This list detailed all performance criteria for Enovap, with minimum thresholds to be achieved.

Our recommendations:

• Each value attribute should be measurable.
• Provide a range (minimum and goal) to allow room for overperformance.

The Rtone approach: 50/50

Rtone had already developed Enovap’s V1. On the technological front, there were no surprises as Enovap was already familiar with our IoT expertise.

To address the scheduling challenges posed by this V2, Rtone proposed an agile approach through a 50/50 contract.

• We agreed on a premise: finalize V2 in 33 weeks (11 sprints of 3 weeks).
• If the project finishes early, both parties share the savings (50% of the saved budget is returned to the client).
• If the deadline is exceeded, we share the additional investment (the client covers 50% of the extra time).

Technical challenges

To meet the deadline, Rtone deployed a task force composed of experienced resources in project development, hardware, and firmware. Technological choices were made based on value attributes. For instance, BLE development was excluded to avoid impacting the product’s autonomy goal.

1. Aligning on the challenges and performance criteria

For an ambitious project like this, a critical mistake would have been to start too quickly. Although we already knew the Enovap team from working on V1, the technical workshop was essential to ensure we fully understood and measured the challenges of the new features.

2. Mastery of all IoT competencies

While this project “only” involved our Hardware and Firmware expertise, having all IoT competencies within the Rtone team helped minimize project risks. For example, we anticipated potential delays linked to mechanics and integrated the mobile application’s requirements into the Firmware’s technological decisions.