Successful IoT business: just a question of standards?

There are days the little things in life make me happy. When my microwave broke last week and even a repair couldn’t save it, it took me less than five minutes to solve the problem: simply selected a new model on the manufacturer’s site using my smartphone, ordered it and paid via PayPal. Three days later it was unpacked, plugged in and running. The ease of this process illustrates two things:

  1. digitization makes it incredibly easy for us to handle even extensive processes quickly.
  2. I didn’t ask myself whether the microwave would also fit into my power socket and whether it would meet the usual standards for radio interference suppression, hazardous substances, etc.

Anyone who has ever traveled abroad knows that this lack of concern is not a matter of course. In the case of power sockets, the right time was simply missed to ensure global standards. In the meantime, the implementation of a standard would cause so much cost and electrical waste that it is no longer practicable.

Unimaginable that something like this could happen again to our highly developed society… or could it?

Digitization is opening up new business potential. The focus is shifting from the exchange of physical goods to the exchange of information. When I buy my microwave, it’s not just the manufacturer who earns money, but also the online payment service PayPal. And that is solely through the exchange of information. Digitization is also creating the basis for new business models in industrial companies. This is shown by a recent study by Sopra Steria and the F.A.Z. Institute. More and more machines and systems are being networked via IoT platforms in the industrial Internet of Things in order to determine performance data or offer product-related services. This is a development that has taken hold around the globe and is thus giving rise to many solutions with different data models and integration options. This allows us to draw a worrying parallel to the connector mess mentioned above. Companies that want to drive their digital business forward quickly lose their orientation here when choosing an IoT solution that is suitable for them. After all, how future-proof it is depends largely on how well it can be connected to other systems and data sources.

Global standards for sustainable digitization

Serious initiatives here give hope for an international standard in the industrial Internet of Things. The Plattform Industrie 4.0, for example, has developed the concept of the management shell, which is to be understood as the digital representation of a device. It makes it possible to address machines with all the necessary information and functions. For example, I could develop an app for my microwave, interact with it, display the instructions for use, and set the power intensity or duration via smartphone. If the manufacturer of my washing machine also provides the information and functions of this device according to the management shell concept, it is no effort for app developers to integrate other devices into their application. This manufacturer- and system-independent interoperability paves the way for the future of Industry 4.0.

Complicated vs. Complex: the human factor in project management

Classic, agile or hybrid project management – what do I choose in a project?  The Stacey Matrix (after the organizational theorist Ralph D. Stacey) can provide a decision support. A criteria catalog is used to assess how well a project plan is already understood – in terms of requirements on the one hand and the solution approach on the other. Are the requirements clear or are we moving into a new, as yet unknown market? Are you using a well mastered technology or a new one with which you have no experience?

Simple, complicated, chaotic?

Along these two axes, the Stacey matrix divides a project into the categories simple, complicated, complex and chaotic. According to the so-called Cynefin framework, simple systems are ordered so clearly that they can be understood immediately. Complicated systems are difficult to understand. With expert knowledge, however, it is possible to understand and predict their cause-effect relationships in advance.

Although complex systems are also determined by clear causalities, they exhibit so many interactions that even experts are no longer able to analyze them sufficiently in advance. The correlations can only be recognized and understood afterwards. A system is described as chaotic if there are no clear causal relationships and one and the same cause can produce completely different effects.

A small example illustrates this:
For a meteorologist, for example, a weather forecast for the next hour may be simple, one for the next day complicated. A forecast for the next week, on the other hand, might be a complex problem, while the forecast for one day of the next year is certainly a chaotic one.

As long as project plans are simple or complicated, they can be well mastered with a waterfall like, firmly predefined procedure depending on the expertise. However, the more they tend towards complexity, the more an agile, flexible approach with many feedback loops and the possibility of trial and error is recommended. I think this is a plausible approach, which, by the way, can be applied not only to entire projects, but also selectively to individual areas in a project.

The social dimension

But perhaps this approach is not quite enough. We have talked about requirements and about approaches to solutions, but not yet about the people who work together in the project. Isn’t their organizational and social interaction also simple, complicated or complex to chaotic? And doesn’t this factor have the same major impact on the success of the project? In my opinion, this is precisely the point at which one must speak of unpredictability, i.e. complexity.

A well-rehearsed team that has been working together for years can certainly be classified as easy. However, it is often forgotten that hardly predictable dynamics can occur in a newly assembled team or in a new cooperation of different departments with different interests. Here, agile methods with their focus on results-oriented communication can be the key to mastering the project.

So perhaps we should add a third dimension, “social interaction”, to the two axes “requirements” and “solution approach” in order to complete the decision model and lay the foundation for project success.

MBSE is too important not to have a podcast

It’s September 2020 – a lazy late summer evening: Tim Weilkiens and I are holding a virtual meeting to discuss what we would like to present in our joint contribution to Systems Engineering 2020. It will boil down to an example from the current development status of SysMLv2 – something new – a live demo would be great – hardly anyone in Germany knows this yet. But why? You should actually start a podcast!

That’ s how you can summarize the birth of our podcast idea “The MBSE Podcast – Trust us we are Systems Engineers”

Why choose MBSE?

But what is it all about? Tim, author and board member of oose e.G. and I, MBSE & PLM consultant and team leader at CONTACT Software, are both passionate about systems engineering. With this podcast we set out on a mission to spread the word about MBSE (Model-based Systems Engineering). MBSE has gained momentum in Germany over the last ten years. This means that it has arrived in many industries or at least the awareness that systems engineering is a key competence for mastering the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary product systems.

However, finding a solution to a complexity problem is certainly not easy in itself. This applies very well to the topic MBSE. MBSE is very multifaceted and not very easy for newcomers to grasp: Methods, processes, languages, roles, architectures, frameworks, tools and training – to name just a few.

MBSE from A to Z – for beginners and advanced

This is where we start to explore the topic piece by piece in a relaxed atmosphere. There are plenty of books, training courses and tools available. But in our podcast we would also like to take a look behind the scenes and pass on our knowledge between the lines of specifications. We benefit from our private and professional engagement with the Gesellschaft für Systems Engineering (GfSE), the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) and the Object Management Group (OMG). Thus, we are very close to current developments in the (MB)SE field and are in close exchange with national and international key players from application, consulting, research and tools.

The start of the continuous podcast

On October 30, 2020 the podcast started with a teaser on YouTube. The first content episode entitled “The History of SysML” followed on November 5, 2020. We plan to publish one or two episodes per month.

Why on YouTube?
The platform offers extensive infrastructure for us and very easy access for viewers.

Why live?
Tim and I run the podcast in our spare time. We simply do not have the time to cut episodes for evenings. The live stream and the recording available afterwards are as they are: 100 percent authentic. In the future, we plan to include interaction with the listeners via live chat.

For those who prefer to listen to a podcast, we publish in addition to YouTube the audio track on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.