Protecting Your Brand in the Secondary Channel

A True Case Study

This week’s blog is a guest post by Fizah Jadhavji, CEO of Vivitech Solutions, Inc. — a major player in Reverse Logistics, closeout, excess and obsolete products marketplace.

Every major OEM brand selling to big box retailers such as Walmart, Target and Costco must accept customer returns- this is a challenge that all companies in today’s marketplace face. Poor return management practices can easily eat up your bottom line as well as damage a brand’s reputation. Many OEM’s are apprehensive about liquidating returned products due to fear of channel conflict, interference with sales of new products and dilution to the brand’s reputation.  In fact, top-tier branded products that are sold within online channels deeply discounted as “new open-box” often are the result of ineffective return procedures.

When these “at-risk” and returned inventory stocks that are liquidated for 10 cents on a dollar show up on Amazon and eBay, it opens the door for the end-user to claim warranty for a product that you already liquidated! Consequently, many OEMs are left in a position where they may issue return credit on the same item twice!

How do you efficiently manage the product return cycle if you are a major brand selling thousands of products and multiple categories across the USA? How can you best handle returns without having to spend more capital just trying to control your exposure in the market?

THE MILLION DOLLAR PROBLEM
This was the million-dollar question an OEM client of Vivitech Solutions was facing in managing their returns. At issue, the OEM was offering advance return allowance to retailers, which in-turn allows the retailer to charge back a certain percentage to the OEM on every invoice to cover returns. This initially seemed like an economically feasible solution because the OEM was able to cut costs. Retailers constantly need space and by receiving advance return allowance, they have the right to dispose of unwanted returns anywhere they choose. However, the OEM soon realized their product kept popping up everywhere at extremely low prices. They were constantly competing against themselves, and they were being double-dipped on the warranty side as well.

The OEM also noticed that some products being returned that had already come through their return center once, meaning that the OEM issued a refund or exchange twice for the same unit. Their legal team did some research and found that returned products were starting to show up online as “new open box” products with prices below market value. Thus, the OEM’s warranty center started receiving phone calls from customers who were misled into buying a used product as new. The OEM’s’s first reaction was to immediately stop the bleeding – so they stop offering advance allowance and asked all their customers to start shipping the product back to the OEM’s distribution center. The OEM would audit the RMA’s to ensure accuracy, and then destroy the units – allocating additional time, labor and financial resources to ensure that returned products were being properly reported and disposed of.  The OEM quickly realized that this process was not financially feasible, and was directly cutting into their profit margin. As pressure started building for our OEM client, top management realized they needed to find a creative solution.

THE MILLION DOLLAR SOLUTION
Vivitech Solutions solved the OEM’s problem by creating an end to end solution for managing returns. Vivitech was appointed the exclusive National Return Center and authorized repair center for the OEM.  All shipments from the retailers where sent directly to this location where they were audited.   In addition, Vivitech provided  a data-driven approach which allowed for  a triage analysis of the product, costs, and market prices to achieve the highest return by refurbishment and servicing. Vivitech also remarketed  these refurbished goods in secondary channels and smaller retailers. This helped to prevent channel conflict and protected the OEM’s primary product line.

THE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR RESULT
This solution has been in place for  three years and the OEM is very pleased with the program’s performance. The OEM was once spending six figures annually just to handle the logistics of the return process, only to end up destroying these products in landfills afterwards. They have now off-loaded the headaches of handling returns themselves and  significantly reduced overhead costs in exchange for benefiting annually from a seven-figure secondary source of revenue.

Basically, Vivitech created a secondary market and constant revenue stream for their OEM partner. In fact, the OEM’s sales team & outside reps now offer and sell Vivitechs’ “factory-serviced” products to customers as second-chance discounted products.  This case study shows how by outsourcing the reverse logistic function, a process that was once depleting profit margins,can result in a higher profit margin, recurring  revenue, and higher ROI.  Truly a win-win for all parties involved.

Would you like to submit a Guest Blog, Click Here

 

Strategies for Reducing Warranty Costs

171sb-toyota-used-cars-warranty-940x529

Warranty obligations represent both an expense and a liability to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). As a result, anything that an OEM can do to minimize warranty expenses and liabilities will have a significant impact on the balance sheet and bottom line. In the high-tech industry, warranty coverage often includes repairing defective products as opposed to crediting or replacing them. Warranties of this nature involve three (3) cost components: 1) Warranty Terms & Conditions, 2) Service Delivery, and 3) Product Reliability and Maintainability.

Service Delivery represents the largest of these three components and comprises approximately two-thirds of warranty costs. Approximately 55% of service delivery costs are attributed to repair activities. The remaining 45% of costs are evenly distributed between parts, logistics, and overhead (e.g., customer service, IT, etc.).

Among the three (3) different categories of warranty costs, service¬–delivery costs are the most difficult to manage and improve. By comparison, costs associated with warranty terms and conditions and product reliability and maintainability are easier to manage. OEMs can reduce warranty expense and liabilities by adjusting terms and conditions to make them more favorable from a cost-burden perspective. OEMs can also design and engineer better products thus reducing product reliability and maintainability costs. In addition, the time frame and investment required to plan and implement these types of improvements are smaller when compared to service delivery. On the other hand, these improvements may have a limited life span. In other words, an OEM needs to revisit terms and conditions as well as product reliability and maintainability issues with every new product release.

In contrast, a significant amount of time and investment is required to improve costs associated with service delivery. For example, it may take months or years of planning and hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment to realize service-delivery cost savings. However, the improvements are sustainable over a longer period of time because they don’t just affect costs associated with one-time product launches. Instead, they benefit subsequent product launches over a multi-year period.

The reason it takes more time to implement and greater investment to achieve cost savings in the area of service delivery is because it typically requires improvements in processes, infrastructure, and people (i.e., training). Examples of the types of strategies for reducing service delivery costs include but are not limited to:
Automating warranty claims-management processes to reduce warranty processing costs
Improving call management procedures to validate entitlement, troubleshoot and diagnose calls remotely, and avoid costly field service visits
Implementing dynamic scheduling software to improve field-engineer productivity and reduce travel costs
Adopting a Variable Workforce (VWF) model to lower field-service and associated overhead labor costs
Utilizing knowledge-management tools to improve resolution times, reduce No Fault Found rates, increase first time fix rate, and improve labor efficiency
Implementing advanced planning and forecasting tools to optimize spare parts stock levels and reduce inventory costs
Making it easier for field engineers to identify, locate and order spare parts thereby improving service efficiency and avoiding repeat calls due to lack of parts

In summary, the challenges associated with reducing service-delivery costs should not prevent a company from making the necessary systemic and procedural improvements since the gains in cost savings, service productivity, operating efficiency, and customer experience can be significant.

Service in the Sharing Economy

share

The sharing economy is on the rise as more and more consumers conduct business transactions through platforms like Airbnb to find lodging and Uber for transportation services. These companies have experienced explosive growth in the last couple of years and their financial value is skyrocketing among the investor community.  Indeed, Airbnb’s valuation is at $25.5Billion in their attempt raise an additional $1.5 Billion in funding and Uber’s valuation of $50B is higher than 80% of the S & P 500 companies.

A sharing economy platform is one that leverages information to empower individuals and organizations with information that enables distribution, sharing and reuse of excess capacity in goods and services.

Sharing economy platforms take many different forms, including:

  • Product-service systems – privately owned goods that are shared or rented out via peer to peer market places.
  • Redistribution markets – pre-owned good are passed on from someone who does not want them to someone who does.
  • Collaborative lifestyles – people with similar needs and interests banding together to share and exchange less-tangible assets such as time, space, skills, and money.

 

I also think of a sharing economy platform as having a number of basic elements. First, it uses technology to create a peer to peer marketplace.  Second, they are “open” meaning anyone can exchange goods and services with anyone else.  Third, goods and services are available on demand.  Fourth, payment in full is often made only after the service is delivered in many sharing economy platforms. Fifth, fixed costs are converted into variable expense through the sharing of resources.

The success of Airbnb and Uber has not only led to the emergence of competitors in the lodging and transportation market but also the creation of sharing economy platforms in other industries.  “Uberized” has become a commonly used buzz word in the business world by industry analysts and thought leaders.  This word is often juxtaposed within the question… Is our industry the next to be Uberized?

To a large extent, High Tech Service & Support is far along the path to becoming Uberized. For example, product – service systems like Rolls Royce’s “power by the hour” form that basis of the “Servitization” trend which is gaining appeal in the High Tech Industry.   In addition, redistribution markets have existed for decades within our industry; just think about all the businesses in the IT, Telecom, and Medical Electronics industries that trade used and refurbished equipment.  Collaborative lifestyle solutions are provided through companies like Field Nation, Work Market, and PC-SOS that enable individual field service engineers and small businesses to become a contingent workforce for larger companies.

However, in many ways the High-Tech Service & Support Industry is not truly “Uberized”.  For example, the platforms/solutions I’ve identified above are not truly peer to peer.  They typically involve an intermediary or aggregator that manages the redistribution of products and services. Equipment owners (i.e., end-users) are not leasing or renting unused capacity to other users.  Second, some of these models are not truly open.  There is often a thorough vetting process involved in becoming a member or user of these platforms and solutions.  On the other hand, the on-demand, pay for performance, and conversion of fixed cost to variable expense elements of the sharing economy do exist today within the High-Tech Service & Support Industry

Regardless of where you think our industry is on the sharing economy spectrum there is certainly room for new innovation.   Now it is your turn.  I’d love to get you answer to this question…. Is our industry (i.e., field service, reverse logistics) the next to be Uberized? Please cite examples and share your thoughts on why or why not the sharing economy can work in our industry.  You can also feel free to schedule a strategy session if you have a great idea you’d like to vet or discuss with me in more depth.

Enterprise Service Management System Trends

 

enterprise-service-management2There has been a lot of attention given in recent years to the need to automate field service and related logistical processes through the implementation of Enterprise Service Management (ESM) systems.   Although the benefits from improved automation are well documented, there is still a segment of the market that is facing challenges to achieving measurable productivity and efficiency gains associated with key service performance metrics.  This shortcoming is due in part to lack of integration between Field Service and Reverse/Service Logistics functions.  The growing trend toward remote support combined with the increasing reliance on spare parts in the service resolution process places even greater demands on equipment service providers to ensure their field service and related logistical process are both integrated and optimized.   We conducted a survey among a cross representative sample of companies in the High Technology Service & Support Industry to validate these assumptions.  Over 250 respondents participated in the survey.  The survey results reveal a number of very interesting trends:

  • Greater reliance on Remote Support: The survey results support the fact that more and more service requests are being resolved remotely without the need to dispatch a field service engineer. More importantly, a large percentage of these remote activities are resolved by sending a replacement part to the customer site.
  • Best of Breed Solutions outperform Integrated Solutions: Despite the breadth of functionality found within integrated enterprise systems, our results indicated a higher level of satisfaction with Best of Breed solutions than with Integrated ESM platforms. We believe this is because best of breed solutions are more focused on the detailed processes and transactions involved in managing a field service and/or reverse logistics operation.
  • Perceived Gaps in Reverse Logistics functionality: Many companies perceive their ESM solutions have gaps in the ability to deal with Reverse/Service Logistics issues particularly when it comes to depot repair activities.
  • Integrated Automation is critical to success: The level of integrated automation between Field Service and Reverse/Service Logistics functionality has a direct impact on ESM effectiveness. More importantly companies with a high level of integrated automation perform better on key service performance metrics than those who do not.

 

In summary, our research findings reveal that companies who have been able to successfully integrate Field Service and Reverse/Service Logistics processes report a higher level of service performance than those who have not.  The most effective integrated solutions are those that incorporate best of breed functionality for both Field Service and Reverse/Service Logistics processes.  More importantly, the data reveals that these integrated solutions are not only highly effective in managing ongoing service requirements but essential to overcoming critical business challenges.

We’d like to thank IFS, a leading provider of Enterprise Service Management systems, for sponsoring our research study.  IFS has made available the results of our study in a 14 page whitepaper that can be downloaded at Whitepaper Download.   To better understand the implications of these findings to your organization or to define requirements for a best of breed, integrated solution, schedule a free strategy session with us today by clicking here.

The Five Most Important Trends Impacting the ITAD Market

Recycle

In my last blog post, I provided a high level summary of key findings from the recent market research study we conducted for Arrow Electronics on the topic of IT Asset Disposition Trends.   Now that I’ve piqued your interest, I thought I’d share five important data points from the survey results:

  1. 9 out of 10 companies in 2014 have a formal end-of-life ITAD strategy
  2. Nearly 2 out of 3 companies surveyed choose to have a 3rd party service provider manage their end-of-life assets
  3. The most important factors in selecting a 3rd party service provider are adoption of compliance standards, well documented chain of custody, and high quality reporting
  4. 95% of companies feel that R2 and/or e-Stewards are the most important environmental standards related to ITAD
  5. Nearly 9 out of 10 companies feel that R2 and e-Stewards should be combined into a single standard

 

These findings validate the fact the ITAD has gained increased attention among not only IT Managers but C-suite executives as well.  However, these findings reveal that most companies do not view ITAD as a core competency.  Instead they choose to outsource it to 3rd Party Service providers.  This explains the increased level of competition within the ITAD market as more and more companies enter this space.  It is not just start-up specialized ITAD vendors that are pursing this opportunity but well established IT Service providers and distributors like Arrow Electronics who view ITAD as a natural extension of their product and service offerings.

Given the large playing field of competitors, end-customers are becoming increasingly selective about who they choose to conduct business with.  Among the most important factors are compliance standards, documented chain of custody, and IT reporting and analytics.  It is interesting that while R2 and e-Stewards are perceived as the most important environmental standards, an overwhelming majority of end-customers believe that they should be combined into one, single standard. This suggests that these standards are used interchangeably by end-customers.  Possessing one or both of these industry standards is simply not enough for an ITAD service provider to differentiate itself in the marketplace. While many companies can lay claim to a well-documented chain of custody and superior reporting capabilities, we believe that its additional industry standards such as RIOS, ADISA, NIST, and knowledge of best practices to minimize risk, reduce waste, and maximize recovery values that set one ITAD vendor apart from one another.  If you haven’t read the Arrow IT Asset Disposition Trends Report, we suggest you obtain a copy, click here.    To discuss the implications of this report on your company or business, feel free to schedule a free 30-minute strategy session with us today.

A Strategic Analysis of ITAD Trends

ITAD

The data is now in from our large scale market survey conducted on behalf of Arrow Electronics on the subject of IT Asset Disposition (ITAD) trends.  The results validate a popularly held view among IT industry practitioners that ITAD considerations continue to be a top concern for all size companies.   In fact, knowledge of ITAD best practices continues to evolve and improve among C-suite and IT Executives.  However, as one might expect the issues and concerns between the two groups vary somewhat.

Our research also indicates that all companies, regardless of size, are more likely today than in the past to budget for the ITAD process.  In addition, corporations are becoming more aware of penalties arising from improper disposal of IT assets, which has led to an increased implementation of formal ITAD strategies.  While the most important factors for creating an ITAD strategy have remained the same over the last few years (data security concerns, commitment to “Green” business practices, and mitigating legal and financial risks), companies are far less likely to apply their ITAD strategy outside of North America.  It is also clear that companies who have developed a formal end-of-life ITAD strategy are far more likely to have an ITAD provider handle their IT assets when compared with companies who do not have a formal ITAD strategy.

Companies using a 3rd party service provider to manage their end-of-life IT assets are currently very satisfied with their providers.  When choosing these providers, ISO industry certifications are particularly important, with R2 and e-Stewards being the most important environmental standards.  Due to their equal level of importance and credibility, most companies feel that R2 and e-Stewards should be combined into one standard.

While most companies have a data security policy regarding their end-of-life assets, data security concerns are still prevalent.  Data security concerns are particularly high among companies with a formal ITAD strategy as well as companies who use 3rd party service providers.  Most companies use multiple tactics to alleviate data security concerns, which includes using 3rd party service providers.  However, with nearly 2 out of 3 companies selecting a method such as “Delete the file directory on the hard drive” which does not fully eliminate the potential for data security breaches, there remains some uncertainty as to which methods are truly effective.

With most companies adopting a BYOD policy that allows employees to bring at least one device to work, there has been a dramatic increase in the implementation of policies to ensure that company data on BYOD devices is secure during active use.  The vast majority of companies are also implementing policies to ensure that company data on BYOD devices is eradicated once those devices are no longer active on the company network.

Corporate social responsibility/sustainability has also become increasingly important, with approximately 93% of companies expected to have a program in place by the end of 2015.  Companies who currently have a corporate social responsibility/sustainability program in place typically report their program’s progress in their annual report and/or other forms of corporate communication, both public and private.

The cloud is having a significant impact on the purchase of IT assets, with a majority of companies purchasing more assets to support the cloud.  Some of these additional assets purchased likely include tablets, whose use continues to increase.  As a result, ITAD practices and policies will continue a critical topic among C-suite executives and ITAD Managers.

Details of our survey results can be found in the Arrow IT Asset Disposition Trends Report. To obtain a copy, click here.

Key Performance Indicators and their impact on your business

kpi1

I gave a presentation a couple of years ago to a group of service managers and executives on the subject of key performance indicators (KPIs).  I was surprised by the fact that most of the audience could not give an accurate explanation of what a KPI is.  Most people thought it was a data point that was used to measure business performance.   However, this is not entirely accurate.

The true definition of a KPI is that it is a quantifiable measure of how successful an organization’s strategies are in meeting their goals.   To be effective, KPIs must be specific to your business needs, align with strategic goals, and bring overall benefit to your business.  Most importantly, it must inspire you to set new goals.

Unfortunately, many service managers confuse KPIs with industry performance benchmarks.  They are not the same thing.  In contrast to a KPI, a benchmark is a point of reference against which things may be compared or assessed. While a company might want to benchmark their KPIs against competitors in their industry, they shouldn’t assume that they must adopt the same KPIs as their competitors.  They might want to do this if their goal is to outperform competitors on every KPI they measure.  This may be neither practical nor feasible if their business needs and strategic goals differ from those of their competitors.

Let’s look at this from another perspective.  While there maybe dozens of different field service or reverse logistics activities that your company can measure, you’ll find that there are only a handful that ultimately drive the success of your company’s business strategy.  You’ll want to make these specific measurements your KPIs.   For example, your strategic goal may be to consistently meet your customers’ expectations for timely service.  There could be multiple factors to consider when measuring this outcome like response time, wait time, resolution time, call drive time, etc.  However, you may determine that SLA Compliance is the KPI that best measures your success or failure in meeting this strategic goal.  On the other hand, your strategic goal might be to deliver high quality service to your customers.  While this could be determined through factors like trunk stock fill rate or calls closed incomplete due to lack of parts, you determine that First Time Fix Rate is the best KPI measuring service quality.

When establishing KPIs, it is important that you answer these four questions:

  1. How will I know when my goals are reached?  This is a quantitative target that you want to establish for your KPI. It could be expressed as a raw number (i.e., 4 hour average response time), a progress measure (e.g. 98% SLA compliance), or incremental change (i.e., 10% improvement in Customer Satisfaction).
  2. What are the key success factors in reaching this goal?   A description of the core functions, activities, or business practices that must be performed in order to reach this goal.
  3. What critical actions do I want to take from the KPIs? It is important to anticipate how your company will react to the KPI measurement that it actually achieves. What steps do you take if you miss your target? What if you meet or exceed it? For example, hire more resources, retrain personnel, improve processes, implement new systems, etc.
  4. What results do I achieve through these actions?  Examine how these actions will impact your business.  In what timeframe will they impact your KPI and at what cost?  Are there other aspects of your business that will be impacted?

 

By answering these questions, you’ll have a strategic road map for achieving operational excellence in your business.  It’s all about getting clear about your goals, making sure you measure the right things, tracking results on a consistent basis, taking corrective action when needed and, of course, celebrating success. Do you want to learn more about how to achieve geometric results in your field service or reverse logistics business?  Schedule a free strategy session today.

The Gift of Competition

competition1

I received a very interesting email last week from a manufacturer of industrial automation equipment. It was a marketing piece promoting the use of their “original” spare parts over “generic” parts sold by third party providers.  I gather this manufacturer was losing market share in the Aftermarket and was taking steps to rectify.  I don’t know how I got on this mailing list because I don’t own any of their equipment.  Nevertheless, what I found so troubling about the email was that it attempted to discredit “generic” parts by claiming that they were cheaper in price because they were of inferior quality.

I find these types of claims troubling for three reasons.  First, they “trash the competition”.   Effective marketers and sales people know that going negative is not good for business.  Most manufacturers would not use this approach when it comes to selling their equipment in their primary market. Yet some believe anything is fair game in the Aftermarket.  The second reason why I oppose this type of advertising is because it’s just not accurate.  The truth is that generic spare parts can be more reliable than original parts. This is because third party manufacturers often spend many hours reverse engineering original parts in order to learn how to design and manufacture new ones.  In doing so, they can find ways to improve upon the design and reliability of the original part. This is particularly true of remanufactured parts.  Third, in some markets the parts used by OEMs and Third Parties are the exact same parts.   For example, a device assembled with commercially available off the shelf (COTS) parts.

The bigger issue is not about false advertising but about what role Third Party Maintainers (TPMs) also known as Independent Service Organizations (ISOs) and Generic Parts Manufacturers play in the Aftermarket.  Obviously, these providers create competition for OEMs.  However, this type of competition is really not a bad thing for a number of reasons:

  • It legitimizes the market – – Markets are defined by the presence of competition. In order to win business, competitors must actively market their products and services. As a result, customers become more aware of the options available to them and purchase more quantities and more frequently.
  • It creates choice – Competition offers customers the freedom of choice. The theories of capitalism and free trade are built on this basic premise.
  • It improves quality & efficiency – Competition in the Aftermarket forces third parties and OEMs to continue find ways to improve the quality of products and services offered while at the same time finding ways to cut costs and improve efficiency.   In other words, competition raises the bar and results in better prices for customers.
  • It leads to innovation – In addition to raising quality and improving costs, competition drives service providers to become more innovative. Without competition, it is hard to know whether or not service providers would focus on finding ways to add value. Would service providers be just as compelled to invest in new systems and technology like SaaS, Mobility, and IoT if not for the impact that competition has on innovation?
  • It leads to greater cooperation – OEMs also have the choice to subcontract service to TPMs/ISOs. This can help them improve their own cost structure, fill in white space in service delivery, and obtain access to capabilities that they may not otherwise be able to build themselves. Under this scenario, OEMs and ISOs can learn from each other and use this knowledge to drive innovation, reduce costs, and improve quality

In summary, competition in the Aftermarket is good for all parties concerned.  Everyone benefits; from the customers to the OEMs and third party providers. Even the technology vendors benefit from competition in the Aftermarket.  Quite frankly, any company that feels that is has to trash their competition is probably troubled in some way.  Rather than resort to this tactic, a company that is very concerned about their competition is advised to look within their own organization to find ways to leverage competitive forces to their strategic advantage.

Please share your thoughts and reactions to this post.

5 New opportunities created by IoT and the challenges they present

new-jobs-internet-1

There has been some excitement in the media these days about the Internet of Things (IoT) and the promise it creates for businesses, consumers, and governments.  John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, said on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria that IoT will create approximately $19 Trillion in economic value over the next 5 years.  As an example of the opportunities that are possible, Chambers points to the fact that the city of Barcelona created 40,000 new jobs through its connected city initiative.

While the upside potential is great, there are still many who believe that the disruptive force of IoT will have a negative impact on certain industries; eliminating jobs and destroying businesses instead of creating them. The proponents of IoT remind us that similar claims were made about the internet in its early days. However, according to a 2014 study by McKinsey and Company, 2.6 new jobs were created by the internet for every 1 job it eliminated. Will the same be true for IoT?

To answer this question, I think we have to look at how IoT will impact specific industries.  For example, let’s look at five (5) new opportunities that IoT creates for the High-Technology Service & Support Industry and the challenges they present.

  1. Facilitation of Remote Monitoring & Diagnostics: IoT makes it possible for manufacturers to implement remote monitoring and diagnostics solutions on a low cost and rapid basis. Of course, these solutions are as effective as the knowledge management tools behind them. Nevertheless, remote diagnostics can eliminate the number of emergency dispatches which in turn could have an impact on Field Service Engineer staffing levels. On the other hand, it is likely that new jobs will be created to monitor and analyze the data collected by these solutions as well as respond to the actions that are generated by this analysis.
  2. Greater integration with the supply chain: One the largest beneficiaries of IoT will be the service supply chain. By monitoring service related events, the service supply chain can have more visibility into the demand for spare parts and be more effective in planning and forecasting inventory stock levels. In addition, supply chain mangers can be more proactive in anticipating demands on forward stocking locations and depot repair & refurbishment centers. The net impact of IoT on the supply chain is an enhanced level of productivity and efficiency which is great for profits and job creation.
  3. Creation of barriers to entry: It is very possible that IoT will create new barriers to entry for service competitors. That is because once you control access to a device, you control the device itself. Manufacturers will need to think through how their channel partners participate in IoT solutions. Will channel partners participate in the revenue stream that comes from managing connected networks or will they simply resell the solution on behalf of the OEM? What options will be available when it comes to service & support? Will manufacturers implement open systems which make it possible for anyone to service the network or will be a closed solution keeping out competition?
  4. Collaboration between business partners: It is also likely that IoT solutions will be comprised of products and components from multiple suppliers. This will require greater collaboration between business partners. Manufacturers will need to establish new business protocols and rules of engagement when it comes to supporting IoT solutions involving third party products. This is likely to result in new job creation.
  5. Need for new business models:  IoT makes it possible for manufacturers to offer new added value services to their customers. At issue, these services are most likely to be monetized through subscription based models. New financial KPIs will be needed to manage these models. Instead of focusing on attach rates and gross margins, manufacturers will need to pay attention to monthly recurring revenue (MRR) and customer churn rates.   Revenue ramps up slowly under these scenarios and customer attrition rates are high so manufacturers will need to create marketing and onboarding programs to facilitate growth of MRR and reduce churn.

 

In summary, IoT will have a positive impact on the High Tech Service & Support Industry in terms of job creation and financial returns.  Indeed, IoT is likely to create multiple new jobs and businesses for everyone that it replaces.  While some companies and individuals may be at risk, they can mitigate the downside by taking a proactive approach to strategic planning.  Furthermore, companies who stand to benefit from IoT the most can ensure maximum returns, and thus double down on their investment, by incorporating fundamental strategic design principles into the development of IoT solutions.  To learn more, schedule a free consultation.

Strategic forces shaping the deployment of IoT & M2M

The Internet of Things

News about the Internet of Things (IoT) is everywhere. Indeed, IoT is one of the largest and fastest growing segments of the Information Technology industry.  The number of deployments of connected devices is forecasted to increase by 30% in 2015 from last year, according to The Gartner Group, with the total number of connected devices to reach 25 billion in 2020.

Those of us who have been involved with the High-Tech Service & Support Industry for some time will tell you that the concept of IoT and its cousin Machine to Machine (M2M) are nothing new. Remote Monitoring & Diagnostic tools have been around for decades.  As early as the mid-1980s, capital equipment manufacturers like Honeywell, Texas Instruments, and AT&T had deployed these solutions to improve the troubleshooting and maintenance of their systems.

At issue, it is only within the last couple of years that the number of IoT and M2M deployments has begun to sky-rocket.  Let’s look at some of the forces that are making this possible:

  • Social Forces: One of the reasons why I believe we are seeing a surge in connected devices within the High-Tech Service Industry is the recognition that data drives business. For service providers, it is no longer just about finding ways to reduce the time and cost associated with troubleshooting and maintenance. In order to optimize productivity and efficiency, and to facilitate innovation in a service business, you need data. While service executives have understood this for some time, end-customers now understand and appreciate that they also need access to this same data in order to optimize the operations and processes that comprise their enterprise. In essence, data about the condition of assets and machine performance is part of a larger system of systems which need to work in tandem to ensure that that the entire system works smoothly and efficiently.
  • Economic Forces: The cost of implementing IoT and M2M solutions has reduced significantly over the last decade. In the past, remote monitoring was achieved through dedicated land line data communications which were very costly to implement and maintain. Today communication is much more accessible and affordable through technologies like Internet Protocol, ZigBee, and Wireless. Furthermore, the cost of collecting data has improved significantly. Earlier solutions required expensive and clunky Programmable Logic Control (PLC) platforms. Now data collection is possible through low-cost, disposable sensors. Furthermore, the financial justification for IoT has improved. Not only is access to investment capital cheaper than ever but manufacturers are now finding ways to monetize IoT solutions resulting in a profitable revenue stream, higher ROI, and faster payback period. More importantly, the financial model associated with IoT deployments is changing. In the past, manufacturers would first attempt to sell individual customers on the benefit of adding remote monitoring to their capital equipment purchase. In turn, the customer needed to incorporate the cost of a Remote Monitoring solution into their capital expenditure and cash flow projections. The economics of IoT have now made it possible for service providers to make IoT solutions available as a subscription model, thus enabling end-customers to turn a high fixed cost investment into a variable expense.
  • Technology Forces: As noted above, the technology (e.g., data communications, sensors, etc.) associated with IoT and M2M is becoming cheaper, easier to implement, more secure, and flexible. In addition, we now have access to much more robust, cheaper, and flexible data repositories. Not only has the cost of storage improved but the advent of Big Data solutions enables us to leverage information collected by IoT in ways we have never known before.

 

For service executives who are dissatisfied with service being an afterthought in their organization, now is the time to look toward M2M and IoT as platforms for innovation and new sources of profitable revenue.    To achieve this outcome, service providers need to develop an overall service business strategy around IoT as opposed to merely a technology plan for connecting devices with back-end systems.   While addressing concerns with respect to security and risk are critical to any IoT deployment, the optimal strategy must incorporate a service centric philosophy, receive full endorsement by C-suite executives, and be formulated with active participation of the service leadership team.  Strategic design is critical to IoT success. For more information, schedule a free consultation.