IoT triggering some thoughts

A few weeks ago, I mentioned my initial foray into IoT for the home.  I now have my Ring Doorbell installed and a few Wemo switches.

It wasn’t hard to do and with IFTTT integration I can set up actions for numerous triggers like:

  • Turning on the lights at sunset
  • Log when someone comes to the door in a spreadsheet
  • Turn on the house lights when my phone is getting close to home
  • Use Google assistant to do a variety of things

My only complaint is that IFTTT is a bit slow in recognizing a triggering event (like motion) from the Ring doorbell. It takes a minute or more for the action to occur.

It is great that I can have my devices talk to each other, I just wish there was a bit more for them to say. A number of years ago I put together the following illustration:

IoT Value

It seems that IoT is like Metcalfe’s law for the internet:  the value generated is  proportional to the square of the number of connected devices in the system. The one thing that’s true though is that there are more devices with more interfaces all the time.

Advertisements

Shifting perspectives of value generation

resultsAs I was getting ready for the SAP conference this week, I listened to a speaker from Gartner discuss the Internet of Things. They went through the normal discussion about the number of devices, the need to use the data in new ways and then they said something that I’ve been saying for a very long time.

It is not about the things it is about the people.

I have another statement that is related.

It is not about the data it’s about the context.

Both of these perspectives are focused on the value side of what businesses are trying to do, not the technology side, still motivating so many in IT.

Last week, I was talking with a number of technologists who were enamored with problem solving — looking at new ways to address situations using technology. That’s great and a foundational element of any technical services organization, but it is not sufficient. By the time you may see the problem, the real opportunity may be lost. Today, organizations need to look deeper and not from a technologist’s perspective, but from the business. The CFO is likely to be the greatest ally to using technology for growth and impact. Organizations need to make the business case that they can internalize and the possibilities of Big Data, IoT, security and whatever is coming next will be realized.

There are software companies whose customers seem unwilling to take the next release (or worse uninterested). This is not an issue your typical sales person can address anymore. In today’s business, many clients are far into their internal sales process before their interest may even show up on the service or software sales organization’s radar. The context of their decision is developed through the organization’s social interactions and understanding of the business objectives. If organizations need to be “sold”, it is likely too late.

To address this, service and software companies need a real assessment of how these decisions are made (possibly by industry) and what capabilities will be impacting the value generation approach. They should float balloons of possibility early. Fund some projects that bring diverse perspectives together to see what other possibilities are out there. Just because your software has a feature map and investment plan, doesn’t necessarily mean that is it is actually used. Find those alternative perspectives and cultivate them.

We live in an unpredictable and ever changing world. Both the business leaders and technologists need to look for those serendipitous accidents that shift perspectives and buying behaviors. Make them happen.

Going to be at SAP SapphireNow this week

This is going to be an interesting week for me. Last month, the SAP media folks asked me if I’d be interested in covering SAP SapphireNow as a blogger. Since I didn’t really have anything better to do right now, I said ‘sure’. I’ve been to many a technical convention over the years, but this is the first time I’ve been to one by SAP and it definitely looks big.

I don’t think anyone will deny the importance of SAP as a software company. So I am definitely interested in their perspectives about the future trends of both business and technology. I’ll be looking for how they plan to address the current and upcoming shifts as well as shape demand and define new elements of business value today.

I hope to dig into their efforts with Big Data (HANA), the Internet of Things as well as what and how they can enable new approaches to business automation. One thing that surprised me about the invitation to attend was the lack of commitments on my part related to blogging… I guess they know if something interests me, I can’t help myself.

It should be an exciting week, since I’ll likely run into some folks that I’ve not seen in years and others I’ve talked with for over a decade and never actually seen – ever.

The ‘Who Moved My Cheese?’ of Legacy Systems

Having recently gone through a personal disruption related to employment, I dusted off my copy of Who Moved My Cheese? After re-reading the book, I thought about how this applies to the life of the CIO and application portfolio management. We are all too often with the world we understand and the 80% (or more) of the budget it consumes – failing to Sniff out opportunities.

Recently there was a post: CIOs make the tough call on legacy systems by Mary K. Pratt that delved into the issue of managing the layer upon layer of project success that builds up to calcify an organization’s ability to respond, that I found a worthwhile read.

Even in this day of IaaS and SaaS, the basics of optimizing the application portfolio of an organization remains relatively unchanged. It gets down to where the organization is headed and an assessment of costs vs. value generation.

Organizations need to ask some fundamental questions like:

  1. What needs to be done and why?
  2. How is it going to be accomplished?
  3. What is the expected outcome?
  4. When will it be needed or done?
  5. How will we measure outcomes, so we can validate that the task is complete and effective?
  6. What resources will be required? ($$, people…)

Essentially an assessment of leading and lagging indicators and how the portfolio can support them.

A simple view of the assessment is summed up in this quadrant chart:

Apps Portfolio Assessment

I am sure there are other complex and wonderful interpretations of this, but to me this view is the simplest. Keep what adds value and has a low cost to operate. Refactor those programs (where possible) that have a high cost to maintain and also add high value. Validate the need for anything that delivers low value – you may be surprised how many of these you can turn off. Finally, replace those that have business support and high cost.

In this age of automation, the concepts of cost need to be holistic and not just the IT maintenance costs… For a parity of Who Moved My Cheese? touching on automation look to this Abstruse Goose illustration.

It is not hard to start but it is constantly changing so it may never be done.

What should be in an IoT conference??

conference2I had a long conversation this morning with someone who is defining an IoT conference. We were talking about industry trends and the various needs for effective adoption. He mentioned that his conference was going to have at least three tracks:

That made me ask what kind of target audience his organization was actually going after. I expressed that was there was no real business value in just those tracks. No reason for those with the funding to attend. There is no real reason to adopt IoT when I look at this technology-based conference agenda, that would have to take place before and outside his conference – was he satisfied with that??? I know I wouldn’t be.

I mentioned that technology is a side-effect of the value generation process. In an industry like oil and gas for example, if you can find more oil or extract it from the ground more efficiently using an IoT approach, there is a near infinite supply of funding to be had – but only if you can convince the business it’s real.

IoT needs to be viewed as a strategic problem, not an IT one. It needs to be part of thinking about turning products into relationship platforms that affect the quality and impact of the experience. This may be the Achilles Heel of IoT – the focus on the things, instead of why the things exist and the holistic environment view of that existence.

What other areas are missing from the conference that needs to be addressed for effective IoT adoption??