Key takeaways:
- Technological evolution increases a user’s expectation towards IoT, supply chain solutions and industrial digitalization at large.
- The precision of geo-location, interpretation of “real-time” and amount of transferred data are simply incomparable in cell phone and IoT devices.
- The shape and size of IoT Telematics Devices are not just the result of market preference.
- The user interface should never be “unfriendly”, but the expectations should be focused on functionalities.
- Collaboration and competition among telematics providers is key to improving the technology further and eliminating dangerous corner-cutting solutions.
- It is the responsibility of service providers and clients to clarify the needs of all stakeholders.
In an era of rapid technological change, we are used to fast-evolving digital services. Our mobile phones are constantly competing with each other when it comes to speed, functionality, memory and hardware. Nowadays, it is possible to dive with our devices in hand, and visualize countless data in real-time on kaleidoscopic dashboards.
This evolution increases a user’s expectation towards the Internet of Things, supply chain solutions and industrial digitalization at large.
Geolocation tracking is now almost always possible, regardless of the power source. Unpowered transportation units, cargo pallets, and even the smallest envelopes can “send” detailed information on its location, condition and ownership status. The biggest differentiator between regular smartphones and smart devices is in the amount of transferred data per unit of time, and our perception of “real-time”.
A modern client’s vision and expectations for the IoT applications in transport and logistics are sometimes stimulated by the “civil” digitalization and related services. Yet even if the applied technologies in a cell phone and IoT track and trace devices are similar (i.e. use GSM Sim-Card and GNSS antenna, for instance), the precision of geo-location, the interpretation of “real-time” and the amount of data transferred per hour are simply incomparable.
On one hand, unrealistic expectations could be a challenge for service providers. They can easily lead to a dead-end in commercial or technical negotiations. An attempt to satisfy such demands could increase the prices of services and the market could not cover the costs of these so-called “solutions” would not fit the market’s abilities to pay for it. On the other hand, in theory, everything is possible.
So, as we can see, what is key is a clear understanding of market needs and technological capabilities.
To manage expectations and increase the understanding of IoT hardware, it is critical to underline a few principles as the logical basis for any technology from a telematics service provider to a client.
- IoT Telematics Devices have a special design due to the size requirements, such as batteries, sensors, antennas and electronic components inside. Designing such a device depends on the availability of alternative technology for all these components, as well as the physical installation and operation conditions. So shape and size are a combination of different parameters, and not just the result of market preference.
- IoT Telematics Devices are usually low power. This is due to energy source restrictions. A regular cell phone can be charged multiple times during a day, while an IoT device’s battery should be charged for at least a few weeks, and sometimes even up to 10 years. For instance, the Google Maps application, depending on the usage, could transfer 250MB of data a month, but an IoT device could only transfer 0.5.MB. This low data traffic carefully consumes battery and guarantees sustainable energy usage – and therefore the longevity of the device.
- Based on battery capacity, the sending intervals distinguish themselves in frequency and accuracy. Compared with a mobile phone and “maps” services based on GNSS navigation system, industrial “real-time” data is actually “almost real-time”, anticipating certain delays and lack of precisions. These gaps will be closed the moment the back-end processes, and map matching, are complete. So a mobile application of the IoT device can not be compared to a GNSS navigation and used as a reliable GPS navigator, for example.
- Today, track and trace goes far beyond the scope of what we used to trace. As a result of this, the machine learning of the patterns is an adaptive process that takes time.
- User Interfaces are intuitive and comfortable to use, but they are different from the “regular” social platforms. The user interface is there to provide data visualization and all the necessary information for business optimization, rather than attract a user with colorful design and entertaining features. This does not mean the user interface should be “unfriendly”, but the expectations should be focused on functionalities.
- Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) depends on the cooperation with the involved stakeholders of the supply chain. IoT services can provide a client with an ETA when a destination (and preferred mode of transportation) have been defined. Knowing which type of asset is tracked, i.e. a tank container or a wagon, helps the system predict the route and calculate the ETA with higher precision.
Despite all these principles and factors, the development of IoT technology for supply chain visibility and efficiency is an enviable result of all the efforts poured into digitalization today. Any company joining these efforts commits to investing in the long-term progress of the industry, and will gain benefits from this move along the way.
A strong alignment between clients and service providers is crucial at this stage to create tailor-made solutions, answering the real needs of the industry. This process of trial and error requires patience on both sides – it is key for high-quality products and services.
At the same, so-called “coopetition” – collaboration and competition among telematic providers – is also key to improving the technology further. This is important to eliminate dangerous “short-term”, corner-cutting solutions that lack the necessary quality.
Digitalization and technology-based fleet management brings transparency and increases globalization, so working in silos is simply not beneficial in the long run. A lack of feedback from the market, along with a lack of insights into global technological trends, can waste an IoT service provider’s resources. It is the responsibility of both service providers and clients to clarify the needs and benefits of all stakeholders.
