Matt Fitzgerald

Modified Agile for Electronics Development Electronics development has never been more complex—or more critical. Traditional waterfall methods often slow teams down with long cycles, costly redesigns, and missed deadlines. While software teams have thrived with agile, hardware development requires a different approach. This white paper introduces the Modified Agile for Hardware Development (MAHD) Framework™, designed specifically for electronics teams. By adapting agile principles to hardware’s unique challenges, MAHD enables faster timelines, reduced risk, and higher-value solutions. If your organization struggles with shifting requirements, late-stage changes, or cross-disciplinary silos, this guide provides a smarter way forward.   Why Download This White Paper?   Understand why traditional methods fall short and how hardware-specific agile solves the challenges waterfall and “faux agile” can’t. Get a clear introduction to the MAHD Framework™, a proven model that accelerates development by 25–50% while reducing costly risk. Learn practical strategies and tools—from system-level user stories and tailored prototyping to Altium’s solutions for agile electronics success.   What You’ll Take Away:   A framework purpose-built for hardware and electronics – not a software agile retrofit Practical methods to reduce wated effort, improve predictability, and accelerate time-to-market Real-world examples of how electronics teams can align strategy, execution, and customer…

Brought to you in partnership with the Journal of Business Logistics   Companies are investing heavily in safety technology. Trucking fleets now rely on cameras, collision warnings, lane alerts, adaptive cruise control, and automated braking to reduce crashes and protect drivers. That investment assumes a straightforward outcome. More technology should lead to safer behavior. It does not always work that way. Research in the Journal of Business Logistics shows that the same technologies designed to improve safety can also undermine it. The difference comes down to how drivers experience the tools and how managers use them. The problem is not the system. It is the interaction around it.   How safety technology fails in practice The study points to two common patterns that show up across fleets. The first is avoidance. Some drivers ignore or disable alerts. They cover inward-facing cameras or override automated features. This behavior shows up when the system feels intrusive or disconnected from real driving conditions. Frequent warnings and false alarms create frustration. Experienced drivers, in particular, may feel the technology challenges their judgment rather than supports it. When that happens, drivers do not adapt to the system. They route around it. The second pattern is…