Tag: IIoT

The Paradox in the Industrial IoT Outcome Economy: Collaborating with Partners, Mistrusting Customers | Sherpas in Blue Shirts

The fundamental principle of the Industrial IoT (IIoT) outcome economy is that the customer pays for outcomes, not assets. One example is that a mining company would pay an equipment vendor for the amount of coal it mines, instead of buying the capital expensive equipment itself. Another example is a car tire company getting compensated for the fuel efficiency its tires deliver – the outcome – instead of selling the tires themselves. Both of these are already a reality in the world of IIoT.

We’re seeing an increasing number of these aspirational outcome economy examples in our IoT research. Out of 150 IIoT adoption use cases, 20 percent had some element of outcome-led engagement.

But we also see a major paradoxical challenge. In such engagements, the seller needs to strongly collaborate with its partners to deliver a product in an outcome model. At the same time, however, the seller needs to have a watertight contract with its customers to eliminate any type of legal liability. And yes, this, to a certain extent, equates to mistrusting customers.

For example, think about a company that provides drilling-as-a-service. Under the agreement, the customer pays, say, $10 per five holes drilled. In this scenario, the drilling-as-a-service company must meticulously define in a legal contract the size and depth of the hole, the type of surface, when a hole is considered “to pay” versus “not to pay,” maintenance charges, etc. This is an extremely complex contractual engagement, as compared to the general practice of a customer buying a drill and the seller booking the revenue in its books.

Four Key Issues to Address for Success

  1. Strong seller balance sheet: The cost of developing the asset itself – the drill, the tire – needs to be funded. As the seller is not selling the asset anymore, it needs to put this cost in its own balance sheet. This essentially implies that the seller must have a strong balance sheet depth; otherwise, the arrangement won’t work or will push the seller out of business. This depth of balance sheet requirement also holds true in cases in which the seller pays its partners – e.g., the company that supplies the rubber used in tires – in the “traditional” manner yet only gets paid by its customers based on outcomes
  2. Simple catalogue contracting: The customer must have a simple contract to go through, clear T&Cs, and a catalogue of offerings that are, and are not, available in an outcome model. Sellers should not try to customize their offerings or create innovative contracts, at least initially, as they won’t be scalable or sustainable
  3. Definition of outcome: Unless the seller clearly defines, in the contract, the outcome the customer is buying – and includes guardrails for scenarios that fall into gray areas –legal and financial issues will absolutely, without question, arise. And that would spell potential disaster not only for the given seller, but also for the promises of the outcome economy
  4. Use case identification: Some industrial assets are better sold under a traditional model – and some are well-capable of being delivered via an outcome-based model. Sellers must carefully examine which of their assets are appropriate for an as-a-service delivery model. Once they decide, they must educate their customers on what it is, how it works, and what its upsides and downsides are.

The IIoT outcome economy holds great promise. And if the above four issues are sufficiently addressed, it can succeed. But if sellers fail to do so, and, instead, treat their customers as just consumers instead of partners in the journey, they will be doing this once in a generation opportunity a great disservice.

Enterprises Warming to IoT According to Everest Group Research | Press Release

Industrial IoT offers faster return on investment for global service providers striving to meet enterprise demand

Internet of Things (IoT) is among the top three priorities for digital transformation for enterprises across industries; however, to move forward, companies will have to overcome key challenges, among them a complex ecosystem, data privacy and security issues, critical infrastructure and platform decisions, and investment challenges, according to Everest Group.

Currently, enterprises in the manufacturing and energy & utility sectors are the leading IoT adoptors. Industrial applications of IoT (commonly referred to as IIoT) are instrumental in increasing machinery uptime, enabling end-to-end supply chain visibility, reducing energy costs and preventing infrastructure failures. Service providers, too, have a high interest in IIoT, because IIoT offers faster return on investment than consumer IoT such as wearables and smart home devices.

Everest Group describes IoT and IIoT trends and the investments that service providers are making to capitalize on this new growth opportunity in its recently released Market Vista™: Q2 2017 report.

In addition, the report discusses outsourcing transaction trends, GIC-related developments, global offshoring dynamics, location risks and opportunities, and key service provider developments.

“Although transaction activity declined slightly in Q2 compared to Q1, it was a good quarter for the sourcing industry in many other aspects,” said H. Karthik, partner at Everest Group. “GIC market activity increased; location activity in Q2 was at an all-time high, with Europe, in particular, witnessing significant growth in activity compared to Q1; and most service providers reported sequential growth in revenues.”

*** Download Presentation Slides ***

Everest Group held a webinar on August 17 in which the findings of the “Market Vista: Q2 2017” report were reviewed. During this one-hour webinar, Everest Group experts discussed the factors disrupting the sourcing market—including digital technologies, regulatory changes and geo-political dynamics—and shared how multiple startups have emerged to fill the innovation gaps with new solutions and platforms. A particular focus of the webinar was the increasing adoption of U.S. domestic sourcing. Everest Group experts described the drivers behind increasing adoption and the experiences of firms in managing their domestic sourcing strategies.

Key Market Trends in Q2 2017

  • GIC activity continues to be driven by existing adopters, with focus on establishing R&D centers for next-generation technologies.
  • Outsourcing demand from the United Kingdom continued to remain low due to uncertainty with Brexit and reduced outsourcing by cash-strapped healthcare and government sectors.
  • Reduced revenue growth is pushing service providers to form partnerships rather than invest in acquisitions.
  • Leading locations—India in Asia Pacific, Northern Ireland and Romania in nearshore Europe, and Brazil in Latin America—witnessed a spike in new delivery center setups

***A complimentary 4-page preview of the report is available for download here.*** (Registration required.)

Request a briefing with our experts to discuss the 2022 key issues presented in our 12 days of insights.

Request a briefing with our experts to discuss our 2022 key issues

How can we engage?

Please let us know how we can help you on your journey.

Contact Us

  • Please review our Privacy Notice and check the box below to consent to the use of Personal Data that you provide.