top of page
Play with Purpose
Design Option #1: User Safety vs. Extended Stakeholder Sessions
Team A directive: prioritise user safety
This design option recommends limiting VR sessions to a maximum of 30 minutes in order to minimise health risks and ensure legal compliance. The goal is to prioritise non-functional requirements related to operational safety, regulatory compliance, and reputational risk.
Supporting Arguments:
• Internal studies suggest prolonged VR use leads to eye strain, dizziness, and could carry health risks.
• Legal risk exposure is too high if we ignore known health warnings—this could damage the brand.
• A 30-minute window encourages concise, focused discussions and reduces the chance of stakeholder disengagement.
Team A objective: recommend this design option to Team B and influence them to prioritise user safety over extended stakeholder sessions.
Design Option #3: Wired Stability vs. Wireless Freedom
Team A directive: prioritise wired headsets
This design option recommends using wired headsets to maximise system reliability and reduce technical failure. For an AI-powered platform, performance consistency is critical, even if it means sacrificing some user convenience. The goal is to prioritise non-functional requirements such as availability, performance stability, and security.
Supporting Arguments:
• Wired connectivity offers a consistent experience and avoids lag or disconnection issues during critical moments.
• It eliminates interference risks common with wireless setups, especially in device-heavy environments.
• Wired networks provide greater control over data security and reduce the likelihood of unauthorised access.
Team A objective: recommend this design option to Team B and influence them to prioritise system stability over user mobility.
Design Option #5: Feature-Rich Design vs. User Comfort
Team A directive: prioritise feature-rich design
This design option recommends building a feature-rich headset that showcases the full capabilities of the Mindbridge platform. The goal is to deliver a high-impact MVP that attracts investment, differentiates the product in the market, and demonstrates value early. This approach prioritises non-functional requirements related to system capability, stakeholder perception, and future scalability.
Supporting Arguments:
• A feature-rich MVP builds confidence among sponsors and stakeholders.
• A feature-rich MVP sends a message of strength and vision. Cutting features could make the MVP look underwhelming or incomplete.
• Competitive advantage depends on showcasing innovation, even in early releases.
Team A objective: recommend this design option to Team B and influence them to prioritise feature-rich design over simplified comfort.
bottom of page