Benefits of Integrating IoT and Field Service

Owing to the complexity of its definition, many people loosely use the phrase Internet of Things (IoT) without having a solid grasp of its true meaning. A majority in this category take IoT to be nothing more than the automation of home gadgets, where the internet is used to interconnect computing components embedded in everyday devices.

Granted, the whole idea of IoT got its roots from the home setting. Nevertheless, IoT has outgrown that spectrum and has since penetrated into almost every area of business and industry. By employing IoT, you can literally take full control of everything in your business using a single device. From assigning tasks to monitoring security, managing bills to tracking time, IoT has revolutionized the way business is done.

Interestingly, not so long ago, most technology experts limited their forecasts to machine-to-machine (M2M) integration and Augmented Reality (AR), which also, admittedly, hit the technology industry with an admirable suave. Back then, it could have been laughable for anyone to have suggested that IoT would be so commanding in almost every industry, including real estate, medicine, automobile, and more.

It’s not for nothing, therefore, that the field service industry has also embraced IoT, integrating it in the daily running of business activities, including tracking machine diagnostics, detecting breakdowns, and assigning field engineers to attend to customer needs.

How the Field Service Industry is Benefiting from IoT

Machine uptime has remained an ongoing concern for many customers. In the traditional approach, whenever a machine breaks down, the customer alerts the service provider and then the field service manager checks to see if there is any field engineer available for a new task. Once an engineer has been identified, he?s then dispatched to the site. This worked, but it resulted in an extended machine downtime, a terrible experience for customers.

Thanks to IoT, things are now happening differently.

IoT is now integrating machines to a central communications centre, where all alerts and status updates are sent. The notifications are instant. The field service manager, therefore, gets to learn of the status of machines at the exact time of status change. An engineer who?s not engaged would then be immediately assigned to undertake any needed servicing or repair.

By employing IoT, the service provider receives timely reports relating to diagnostics, machine uptime, part failures, and more. The field manager can, as a result, foretell and forestall any possible downtime.

How has this been helpful?

Before giving a definite answer to that question, it’s crucial to note that more than half of all field service organizations now employ IoT in their Asset Management Systems and Field Service Management. And to answer the question, all the organizations that have the two systems integrated using IoT experience twice as much efficiency as those that don’t, states an Aberdeen Group report. As you already know, improved efficiency results in a corresponding upshot in customer satisfaction.

Apps Making a Difference in IoT-Field Service

The integration of IoT into almost every aspect of business prompted the design and development of different applications to link computing devices. Since the advent of IoT, the software development for the technology has come of age. Powerful and lightweight apps that don simple yet beautiful user interfaces are now readily available at affordable price tags.

A good example of such an App is ecoVaro by Denizon.

ecoVaro not only helps businesses to monitor energy and other relevant environmental data such as Electricity, Gas, Water, Oil, Carbon, Temperature, Humidity, Solar Power, and more, but also provides analytics and comprehensive yet easy to understand reports. The data received from devices such as meters is converted into useful information that’s then presented in figures and graphs, thus allowing you to make decisions based on laid down controls.

The focus of the app is to instantly alert service engineers to go on site to fix issues.

With ecoVaro, field service engineers no longer have to return to the office to get new instructions. Also, customers don’t have to manually fire alerts to the service provider whenever something isn’t working correctly. By employing the latest in IoT, ecoVaro sends notifications to field service managers and engineers about respective customers that need support.

How ecoVaro Helps

Best-in-class companies aren’t ready to compromise on customer satisfaction. Therefore, every available avenue is used to address customer concerns with the deserved agility. By using IoT, ecoVaro makes it possible for field service providers to foresee and foreclose any possible breakdowns.

The inter-connectivity among the devices and the central communications centre results in increased revenue and improved interactivity between the system and the field engineers. This results in greater efficiency and lower downtime, which translates into improved productivity, accountability, and customer satisfaction, as well as creating a platform for a possible expansion of your customer base.

ecoVaro isn’t just about failed machines and fixes. It also provides diagnostics about connected systems and devices. With this, the diagnostics centre receives system reports in a timely manner, allowing for ease of planning and despatch of field officers where necessary.

Clearly, but using the right application, IoT can transform your business into an excellently performing field service company.

Check our similar posts

IT Security and the Threats from Within

When the economy makes a downturn, companies, then eventually, employees suffer. Now, I’m sure you’re wary of frustrated laid-off employees stealing valuable data. Who knows? That information might end up in the hands of your competitors. Then as if that threat weren’t enough, there may be jobless IT specialists who turn to rogue activities either to earn a quick buck or simply out of lack of anything productive to do.

That’s not all, as we’ve got more news for you. When we think of IT Security, what instantly comes to mind are hackers and acts laced with mal-intent. However, a recent worldwide survey on IT security showed organisations were more inclined to expect data leakage as a result of accidental exposure by employees (45%) than of anything maliciously performed by an external entity (15%).

If you’re not aware of this, you’ll be focusing your spending on protection against incoming attacks while exposing your innards through accidental leakages. Our solution? While we’ll naturally provide your data with protection from outside threats, we’ll also put special attention in protecting it from the inside.

The defences we’ll put up include:

Data Loss Prevention
Network Security
Firewalls
Malware
Authentication and Access Control
Mobile Security
Forensics

How to Reduce Costs when Complying with SOX 404

Section 404 contains the most onerous and most costly requirements you’ll ever encounter in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). In this article, we?ll take a closer look at the salient points of this contentious piece of legislation as it relates to IT. We?ll also explain why companies are encountering difficulties in complying with it.

Then as soon as we’ve tackled the main issues of this section and identify the pitfalls of compliance, we can then proceed with a discussion of what successful CIOs have done to eliminate those difficulties and consequently bring down their organisation’s IT compliance costs. From this post, you can glean insights that can help you plan a cost-effective way of achieving IT compliance with SOX.

SOX 404 in a nutshell

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, entitled Management Assessment of Internal Controls, requires public companies covered by the Act to submit an annual report featuring an assessment of their company?s internal controls.

This ?internal control report? should state management’s responsibility in establishing/maintaining an adequate structure and a set of procedures for internal control over your company?s financial reporting processes. It should also contain an assessment of the effectiveness of those controls as of the end of your most recent fiscal year.

Because SOX also requires the public accounting firm that conducts your audit reports to attest to and report on your assessments, you can’t just make baseless claims regarding the effectiveness of your internal controls. As a matter of fact, you are mandated by both SEC and PCAOB to follow widely accepted control frameworks like COSO and COBIT. This framework will serve as a uniform guide for the internal controls you set up, the assessments you arrive at, and the attestation your external auditor reports on.

Why compliance of Section 404 is costly

Regardless which of the widely acceptable control frameworks you end up using, you will always be asked to document and test your controls. These activities can consume a considerable amount of man-hours and bring about additional expenses. Even the mere act of studying the control framework and figuring out how to align your current practices with it can be very tricky and can consume precious time; time that can be used for more productive endeavours.

Of course, there are exceptions. An organisation with highly centralised operations can experience relative ease and low costs while implementing SOX 404. But if your organisation follows a largely decentralised operation model, e.g. if you still make extensive use of spreadsheets in all your offices, then you’ll surely encounter many obstacles.

According to one survey conducted by FEI (Financial Executives International), an organisation that carried out a series of SOX-compliance-related surveys since the first year of SOX adoption, respondents with centralised operations enjoyed lower costs of compliance compared to those with decentralised operations. For example, in 2007, those with decentralised operations spent 30.1 % more for compliance than those with centralised operations.

The main reason for this disparity lies in the disorganised and complicated nature of spreadsheet systems.

Read why spreadsheets post a burden when complying with SOX and other regulations.

Unfortunately, a large number of companies still rely heavily on spreadsheets. Even those with expensive BI (Business Intelligence) systems still use spreadsheets as an ad-hoc tool for data processing and reporting.

Because compliance with Section 404 involves a significant amount of fixed costs, smaller companies tend to feel the impact more. This has been highlighted in the ?Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies? published on April 23, 2006. In that report, which can be downloaded from the official website of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, it was shown that:

Companies with over $5 Billion revenues spent only about 0.06% of revenues on Section 404 implementation
Companies with revenues between $1B – $4.9B spent about 0.16%
Companies with revenues between $500M – $999M spent about 0.27%
Companies with revenues between $100M – $499M spent about 0.53%
Companies with revenues less than $100M spent a whopping 2.55% on Section 404

Therefore, not only can you discern a relationship between the size of a company and the amount that the company ends up spending for SOX 404 relative to its revenues, but you can also clearly see that the unfavourable impact of Section 404 spending is considerably more pronounced in the smallest companies. Hence, the smaller the company is, the more crucial it is for that company to find ways that can bring down the costs of Section 404 implementation.

How to alleviate costs of section 404

If you recall the FEI survey mentioned earlier, it was shown that organisations with decentralised operations usually ended up spending more for SOX 404 implementation than those that had a more centralized model. Then in the ?Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies?, it was also shown that public companies with the smallest revenues suffered a similar fate.

Can we draw a line connecting those two? Does it simply mean that large spending on SOX affects two sets of companies, i.e., those that have decentralised operations and those that are small? Or can there be an even deeper implication? Might it not be possible that these two sets are actually one and the same?

From our experience, small companies are less inclined to spend on server based solutions compared to the big ones. As a result, it is within this group of small companies where you can find a proliferation of spreadsheet systems. In other words, small companies are more likely to follow a decentralised model. Spreadsheets were not designed to implement strict control features, so if you want to apply a control framework on a spreadsheet-based system, it won’t be easy.

For example, how are you going to conduct testing on every single spreadsheet cell that plays a role in financial reporting when the spreadsheets involved in the financial reporting process are distributed across different workstations in different offices in an organisation with a countrywide operation?

It’s really not a trivial problem.

Based on the FEI survey however, the big companies have already found a solution – employing a server-based system.

Typical server based systems, which of course espouse a centralised model, already come with built-in controls. If you need to modify or add more controls, then you can do so with relative ease because practically everything you need to do can be carried out in just one place.

For instance, if you need to implement high availability or perform backups, you can easily apply redundancy in a cost-effective way – e.g. through virtualisation – if you already have a server-based system. Aside from cost-savings in SOX 404 implementation, server-based systems also offer a host of other benefits. Click that link to learn more.

Not sure how to get started on a cost-effective IT compliance initiative for SOX? You might want to read our post How To Get Started With Your IT Compliance Efforts for SOX.?

Introduction to Matrix Management

A leader is responsible to empower his people and get the best out of them. Yet an organisational structure can either help or hamper performance. Worst, it can make or break success.

Looking at the fast-changing world of the global economy, whatsoever slows up and obstructs decision-making is a challenge. Hierarchical management is rather unattractive and functional silos are unlikable. Instead, employees desire to create teams equipped with flexibility, cooperation and coordination.

Recognising that companies have both vertical and horizontal chains of command, the matrix model is created. The concept of this principle lies in the ability to manage the collaboration of people across various functions and achieve strategic objectives through key projects.

Consider this scenario:

Ian is a sales executive of a company. His role is to sell a new product under the supervision of a product manager. The manager is expert about the product and she is accountable to coordinate the people across the organisation, making sure the product is achieved.

Moreover, Ian also reports to the sales manager who oversees his overall performance, monitors his pay and benefits and guides his personal development.

Complicated it may seem but this set-up is common to companies that seek to maximise the effect of expert product managers, without compromising the function of the staffing overhead in control of the organisation. This is a successful approach to management known as Matrix Management.

Matrix Management Defined

Matrix management is a type of organisational management wherein employees of similar skills are shared for work assignments. Simply stated, it is a structure in which the workforce reports to multiple managers of different roles.

For example, a team of engineers work under the supervision of their department head, which is the engineering manager. However, the same people from the engineering department may be assigned to other projects where they report to the project manager. Thus, while working on a designated project, each engineer has to work under various managers to accomplish the job.

Historical Background

Although some critics say that matrix management was first adopted in the Second World War, its origins can be traced more reliably to the US space programme of the 1960’s when President Kennedy has drawn his vision of putting a man on the moon. In order to accomplish the objective, NASA revolutionised its approach on the project leading to the consequent birth of ?matrix organisation?. This strategic method facilitated the energy, creativity and decision-making to triumph the grand vision.

In the 1970’s, matrix organisation received huge attention as the only new form of organisation in the twentieth century. In fact it was applied by Digital Equipment, Xerox, and Citibank. Despite its initial success, the enthusiasm of corporations with regards to matrix organisation declined in the 1980’s, largely because it was complex.

Furthermore, the drive for motivating people to work creatively and flexibly has only strengthened. And by the 1990’s, the evolution of matrix management geared towards creation and empowerment of virtual teams that focused on customer service and speedy delivery.

Although all forms of matrix has loopholes and flaws, research says that until today, matrix management is still the leading approach used by companies to achieve organisational goals.