It’s one of the core tenets of any business or technological initiative: In order to achieve mainstream success and widespread adoption, the primary concept must be able to scale. Sure, it is a great proof of concept if you can effectively deploy a technology in one location, but if you want to make a major impact, you have to be able to replicate that ability across many places.
Unfortunately, achieving scale often does not come easy — or at all.
Because of often minor (and sometimes major) differences between locations, environments, equipment, personnel, processes and many other factors, the solutions put together in one context often do not work in another.
Early adopters of Internet of Things products and technologies in business environments have started to discover that these scale challenges are very real. As a result, their IoT deployments are moving at a much slower pace than they originally hoped. In fact, many organizations are still in the POC (proof of concept) stage for IoT, even after several years of trying.
[...]
IoT in business environments is not a product or even a technology, it’s a process. That makes it extremely challenging to scal
[...]
So, does this mean all is lost when it comes to Enterprise IoT and that we’ll one day look back on it as yet another technological passing fad? Hardly. There is a reason the vision of billions of connected devices and all the potential information and capabilities they can enable is such a compelling concept. There is a real "there" there, and the prospective value IoT offers is an attractive proposition that will keep smart people and smart companies working toward bringing at least some of its potential to life for some time to come.
The timelines for when any meaningful payoffs arrive and the pace at which the technology will actually be deployed, however, are in need of some serious reexamination. Achieving scale in a process-driven business will not come quickly, and companies at all levels of the IoT value chain need to adjust their expectations accordingly.
See more at: recode.net
No comments:
Post a Comment