Watch Out for the Industrial App Economy as the Battle for the Industrial Internet Heats Up

About six months ago I wrote a blog entitled "GE, The Industrial Internet and the Battle to Come" - in which I asked the question "will GE be the equivalent of Apple, Facebook and Google for the industrial internet or will someone else seize this market?". Its clear the battle for the industrial interne is heating up.

Last week (on 5th March) Caterpillar announced it was extending its partnership with Uptake, a Chicago based predictive analytics company. Uptake have been developing predictive diagnostic and fleet optimisation solutions for Caterpillar's the locomotive business. Under the new agreement Caterpillar and Uptake will "develop an end-to-end platform for predictive diagnostics to help Caterpillar customers monitor and optimise their fleets more effectively". Notably the new technology will be available for both Cat and non-Cat products.

Today (12th March) Siemens announced it was creating an open cloud platform for industrial customers based on the SAP HANA cloud platform. Siemens will offer Apps for predictive maintenance, asset and data energy management. They are also opening their platform so other Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) or indeed Apps developers can create their own applications to exploit the open infrastructure for data analytics.

Separately I've had conversations with half a dozen different firms, from a variety of sectors, in the last couple of weeks all of which have centered around the idea of an Industrial App Economy. It seems that there's a groundswell of opinion that the future for industrial services lies in open, cloud based platforms, where developers can offer Apps to make the end users service and support experience as seamless as possible.

There's an interesting question with all of these developments - namely how will the investments be monitisied? Is it through sale of the Apps? Provision of the insights that can be derived from the data? Or sales of new products and support services - as customers are tied in to particular OEMs? It'll be interesting to see how this battle evolves as other potential competitors for the industrial internet declare their hands.

Rethinking Competition and Collaboration in Ecosystems: Who Should You Work With?

One of the themes that keeps emerging in the work of the Cambridge Service Alliance is the importance of the ecosystem. We define an ecosystem as the wider network of firms and organisations that can or could influence the way the focal firm creates and captures value through the provision of its products and services. Members of this wider network might include, but are not limited to: collaborators, regulators, clients, customers and consumers, their stakeholders, suppliers and competitors.

Why does an ecosystem perspective matter? The first reason is that thinking about ecosystems encourages executives to take a broader view on the opportunities they face. This argument was first made by Moore in his Harvard Business Review article - "Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition". As the boundaries between traditional industrial sectors break down organisations change the way the create value for their customers. Take a simple example - airlines. Are they in the travel business? After all their primary function is to transport people from A to B. Are they in the entertainment and catering business - they feed and entertain people while on their planes. Are they in the holiday business? Witness the emergence of BA and Virgin holidays. Are they in the telecoms business - think about in flight telecoms and wireless services. Even more extreme examples are seen in electronics and telecommunications. Phone companies now double as internet service providers. They offer on demand TV and video services. They are debating what else they can do given the cables they have running into your house. Utilities companies in general are blurring - water companies will provide gas and electricity. Gas companies will reduce the price you pay if you buy electricity from them as well. An even more radical example is provided by electric vehicles - some are exploring how they might be used as energy storage devices when not being driven. Boundaries between sectors are blurring and disappearing. As they do new opportunities emerge. Being constrained by a logic that says "we are an automotive firm" or "we are a pharmaceutical firm" simply limits innovation and creativity.

This theme of innovation and creativity is a second reason why ecosystem thinking is so important. Firms define often themselves in terms of their markets, customers and competitors. Yet one thing we have seen in our work is the increasingly complex nature of inter-organisational relationships. It is common to see firms competing for some contracts, while collaborating on others. IBM, for example, competes with software vendors such as Oracle and SAP, yet also installs Oracle and SAP systems when their customers want them to. BAE Systems partners with Babcock to deliver services at Portsmouth Naval Base, yet competes with Babcock for other MoD contracts. This complex and nested set of relationships raises some interesting questions. If you define another organisation solely as your competitor there's a danger you miss opportunities for innovation and collaboration. The car industry provides an excellent example. Many car manufacturers have close relationships with (or in some cases own) Dealer networks. They see the Dealer as the primary route to market and the obvious choice for all after-sales service and support. Yet there are loads of small, independent garages that offer vehicle service and support. Often customers prefer these independent garages - they are cheaper, operate with lower overheads and only use genuine original equipment spares when needed. Traditionally the automotive manufacturers have seen these independent garages as the enemy. They take work from the Dealer network, build direct relationships with the end customer and generally disrupt the industry.

But if you draw a broader circle and include these "annoying independent garages" in your ecosystem, you could - as an original equipment manufacturer - start to ask how might we collaborate with these independent garages? Should we offer to manage their spare parts inventories through consignment stocks? Should we provide them specialist tooling and equipment, creating a larger market for proprietary technologies? As the use of telematics and remote monitoring increases, should we - the original equipment manufacturer - sell the engine diagnostic data to independent garages to help them provide better service to their customers? Perhaps the original equipment manufacturer can create a more seamless, integrated and lower cost service for their customers by collaborating with their traditional competitors.

Its only when you start to challenges the assumptions that you hold about how your industry operates and where the boundaries lie that you start to think creatively about the opportunities that are open to you. Taking an ecosystem perspective and broadening your horizon is a great way of thinking about how you might innovate your business model.

Business Model Innovation and the Evolving Market for Electric Vehicles

Much has been written in recent years - both about business model innovation and electric vehicles. One of the Cambridge Service Alliance PhD students, Claire Weiller, has been studying the evolving market for electric vehicles - looking at the business models adopted by Better Place in California, TEPCO in Japan, Autolib' in Paris and Move About in Norway. Claire's just finished her PhD thesis and I thought it was timely to create a short summary of her research insights. Of course if you want the full story you'll have to: (i) talk to Claire, (ii) read her thesis and/or (iii) have a look at the various reports available on the Cambridge Service Alliance website. For the sake of efficiency, however, here's a short summary of Claire's key findings...

There's no uniform business model for electric vehicles...
The first thing that the research shows is that there is no uniform business model for electric vehicles. The different firms studied adopted different models - ranging from battery swapping (Better Place), fast charging (TEPCO) through to mobility as a service (Autolib' and Move About). Clearly there are different pros and cons to each of these business models.

Battery swapping as a business model...
The battery swapping business model is based on the premise that the cost of the battery is a significant deterrent to customers buying electric vehicles. So Better Place experimented with a model where customers bought cars, but then leased batteries from Better Place. The idea was that when the battery was running out of charge you could call into a battery swapping station and replace the discharged battery with a fully charged one in less than five minutes. Customers pay a monthly fee for the privilege of using Better Place's services, as well as a charge "per mile".

Better Place filed for bankruptcy in May 2013 despite having raised $850 million investment. The fundamental flaw in the model was the failure to create a standard battery adopted by multiple auto manufacturers. Because the Better Place battery was not widely adopted it became impossible to efficiently manage the range of inventory - different batteries for different marks of vehicle. The battery swapping model could still work, but it requires coordination across the ecosystem, with the vehicle manufacturers agreeing a standard for batteries that would simplify the challenges of logistics and distribution.

Fast charging as a business model...
One of the barriers to consumer adoption of Electric Vehicles is the issue of range anxiety - the fear that the car won't go as far as you need it to. Couple with this is the time taken to refuel the car (or recharge the battery). If it takes too long and you have to recharge too frequently then clearly Electric Vehicles offering significantly worse performance than regular cars. To address these concerns an alternative business model is fast charging - firms like TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) are investing in technologies to speed up the time take to recharge batteries. Today's fast-charging technology allow a 100-mile electronic vehicle with 24kWh of storage to fully charge in less than 30 minutes. Even 20 minutes gives an 80% recharge. TEPCO - through its CHAdeMO fast-charging connector - have been trying to shape an international standard for fast-charging technologies. They appeared to be making good progress, but were blown off course by the Fukushima tsunami that severely damaged four of TEPCO's six nuclear reactors. The subsequent clean up costs and the decision to shut down nuclear reactors in Japan have put an enormous financial burden on TEPCO and so their efforts recently have been diverted. 

Mobility as a service... 
The final business model studied concerned mobility as a service. Both Move About (Norway) and Autolib' (Paris) were examples of this. Under the mobility as a service business model customers does not take ownership of the product, but instead pay for the right to use the product - through a monthly subscription fee - supplemented by a time-based usage fee. The context for both Autolib' and Move About is interesting. Autolib' is heavily supported by the Marie de Paris and focuses its service on Paris and the surrounding 63 municipalities. Bolloré, an industrial conglomerate with activities in transport, infrastructure and logistics, won the contract to support Autolib' and provides the cars, as well as the charging infrastructure. The density of Paris - 105 km² versus London with 1,570 km² - means that a car with a 250 km range covers almost 100% of daily drivers needs. Move About, based in Norway, also benefit from natural resources that make electric vehicles more appealing. In Norway's case there is a significant over-capacity in hydro-electric power. This means that spare electricity is relatively cheap and so the costs of operating electric vehicles drop significantly. 

Fit between business model, ecosystem and environment is the key to success... 
One of my key take aways from this research is the importance of the fit between the business model, the ecosystem and the broader natural environment. Autolib' and Move About's relative success are a function of small and dense distances for travel - e.g. Paris and its immediate surroundings - coupled with cheap (or subsidised) and plentiful energy supply. Better Place failed because it didn't engage its ecosystem partners - it could not create the standard battery. TEPCO failed because of a natural disaster which diverted attention elsewhere. Without these interesting experiments and forays into new business models we'd never learn which worked best, but without alignment between the business model, the ecosystem and the broader environment, its clear that firms struggle to survive.

GE, The Industrial Internet and the Battle to Come

During Cambridge Service Week this year we heard from Stefan Bungart, Leader of GE Software Europe. Stefan talked about GE's development of a new services platform - Predix. Think of the iStore, but for the industrial internet. GE's position is that it wants Predix to become an openly available platform that can host apps developed by others - apps that are used to remotely monitor and manage machines and equipment, indeed any device connected to the internet - hence the industrial internet.

You could argue that Apple, Facebook and Google have largely sewn up the business to consumer internet - they are the dominant platforms. Other platforms may emerge, but they face an uphill battle to overcome the incumbent players. The industrial internet, however, is still wide open. We don't yet have any dominant players and they may never emerge. However, manufacturing firms across all sectors recognise the way the world is moving. More and more devices are being connected to the internet. These devices are feeding data back to central control hubs and the best of these are using the data to make predictions about product performance and how this can be optimized, as well as using the data to inform future generations of product design. The question - hence the battle to come - is which firms will dominate the industrial internet.

GE has already declared its intent - in 2015 the Predix platform will be made publicly available. Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of GE is quoted as saying "the more we can connect, monitor, and manage the world’s machines, the more insight and visibility we can give our customers to reduce unplanned downtime and increase predictability. By opening up Predix to the world, companies of any size and in any industry can benefit from the investments GE has made by eliminating the barrier to entry". What he doesn't say is what happens to the data that all of these devices generate as it passes through the GE platform. GE is reported to use 10 million sensors to monitor daily 50 million data points across $1 trillion of managed assets. The businesses order backlog is around $180 billion - a number that continues to grow as the installed base of GE assets and those that GE helps monitor increases in size. Will GE be the equivalent of Apple, Facebook and Google for the industrial internet or will someone else seize this market? Potential competitors from the software, applications and consulting industry might include IBM, Microsoft or Tata. From an industrial perspective the smart money might be on Hitachi, Samsung or Siemens. How about Apple, Google or Facebook? Can and will they make the transition to the industrial internet?

The jury's out on how this opportunity will develop, but one thing is clear. The battle for the industrial internet will heat up in the next few years. The potential for innovation and greater efficiency in product and service design, as well as operation and maintenance is too great. The winners of this race will have access to unparalleled data that if used insightfully will drive significant service efficiency and innovation. Firms will still have to deliver great service - they'll have to get the basics right - but they'll do so from a rich and data-informed position that will put them ahead of the rest of the pack and so confer significant competitive advantage.

Creating Great Service Experiences: United (not even close) versus BA (great, eventually)

One of the great things about researching services is that every interaction I have with an organisation offers a new opportunity to observe what services they deliver and how well they deliver them. The last 24 hours has been one long lesson in service excellence (or the lack of it). Yesterday I had to fly from Denver to Chicago and then on to London. The Denver to Chicago leg was with United. The Chicago to London leg with BA. Just to give a sneak preview of where this is going - although I left for Denver airport around 30 hours ago, I am still in Chicago! Let me explain why and then ask what we can learn from this experience.

I arrived at Denver Airport at around 12:30pm on Monday, managed to clear security and get to my gate area by around 12:45pm. After a quick lunch, I made my way to the gate and was invited to board the United flight shortly after 14:00. Once everyone had got on the plane and sat down a member of cabin crew announced "the pilots for this plane have been held up. They are not going to be here for another hour so we are going to deplane you all. If you have connecting flights we suggest you go to the United help desk". Having just boarded 300 people, United then deplaned 300 people. You can imagine the queue at United customer services - strange that they only had two people on the desk. At one stage one of the reps left the desk and walked passed me. I said, "excuse me" and he just said, "I have to go to the bathroom and ran away". When he came back he walked right past me, so I said once again "excuse me". This time he had no choice but to stop and I asked why there were only two people on the service desk. He replied, "I don't control staffing". I said, "So is there a manager we can talk to". He said, "I don't know where she's at" and walked away.

I never made the front of the queue to talk to customer services as we were called away to board the plane again at around 15:30. By 15:40 I was back in my seat and at 15:45 the cabin crew announced the pilots had arrived and were getting the plane ready. At 16:00 the captain came on the tannoy - he was the first (and only) person from United to apologise for the earlier mess up and the delay. Then he said, "I've got bad news, they've closed Chicago, so we are going to be sitting here for 50 minutes. I am going to keep you on the plane until I get another update from Chicago and then we'll decide whether to deplane you for a second time".

Thirty minutes later and we've got a new route to Chicago, so the plane starts moving. While we've been waiting I've been trying to get the gate agent to get a message to British Airways saying I'm going to be pushed to catch the flight, but the gate agent is not interested in helping me - after all British Airways are in a different alliance to United! To make up for the delay the pilot enabled "free TV" on the plane, but every time an announcement was made the announcement drowned out the movies and the film didn't pause. That coupled with the incessant advertising breaks didn't make free TV a great experience either.

We finally arrive at Chicago at 20:03 (amazingly the time that one member of cabin crew hinted we were going to arrive about four hours earlier, when we kept getting told that we would be there by 19:00 and then 19:30, etc) - promise after broken promise. As soon as we arrive I turned on my phone to be greeted by a series of texts from United telling me the plane was going to be late. I knew that - I was on the plane. What a great system United flight updates is - what's the point of sending flight updates by text to passengers who are flying on planes and therefore have to have their phones turned off?

On arrival at Chicago I got off the plane, made my way to terminal 5 as fast as I could to find no British Airways staff available (they'd gone home) and although I cleared security, they BA staff had also left the lounge and shut up shop for the night. So I was stranded at Chicago. No way of re-booking a flight - the BA call centre was closed (I checked). No interest from United - they'd got to Chicago and now I wasn't their problem anymore.

Given the general chaos finding a hotel with a spare room was not straightforward, but I finally found one, made my way there and went to sleep at around 1:00am. At 4:00am I work up and called British Airways in the UK - their first response was "sorry, you've missed your flight, but we can't do anything. You didn't show up so we off loaded you. You'll have to buy a new ticket". I pointed out that flew with BA a lot, had a gold card for their frequent flier programme and could easily take my business elsewhere. At which point the guy I was speaking to went off to talk to his boss and came back a couple of minutes later saying "on this occasion and in recognition of your loyalty to British Airways, we'll get you on another flight. There's no space today (Tuesday), but we can get you out on Wednesday.

So now I'm in my hotel, I've checked in for tomorrow's flight and I'm wondering what BA and United come have done differently. Let's start with United - it’s not just the raft of broken promises. They were compounded by the operational chaos - not having pilots, not realising that when pilots came in on a delayed flight they might be "illegal" and not allowed to fly anymore. Predicting this isn't hard and then you enact your contingency plans to get spare pilots to the airport. United just didn't seem to have any contingency plans. It was as if they'd never encountered bad weather before - everything was a surprise to them and they just hadn't thought about how to manage service recovery. Having two staff to deal with 100 people trying to rebook flights is ridiculous. As for British Airways, I was really frustrated that nobody from the airline was in the airport to help passengers who were bound to have missed their flights. I was really frustrated, although not surprised, when they told me it was my problem and I'd have to book another flight. But I was really delighted when they relented and booked the flight for me - they've increased my loyalty to the airline. As for United - well they claim they are great at social media - just look at the stream of complaints they deal with daily on Twitter! The problem is I want my airlines to be good at delivering their core service - getting me from A to B when they promise to and when things go wrong recovering the situation fast. Maybe United should spend a little less on social media and a little more on being brilliant at the basics - getting their service right.

A postscript - so what could have made this a fantastic customer experience? Imagine one simple thing. BA knew I was planning to catch the flight to London - I'd already checked in online and accessed my boarding pass. If you miss a plane that you've checked in for chances are something untoward had happened. How would I have felt if upon arrival at Chicago I'd received a text from BA saying - really sorry to have to inform you that we have offloaded you from the London flight because we had to leave without you. We hope everything is OK, as its unusual for you to miss flights (I have never missed a BA flight before and they know this from their records. They also have all of my contacts details on file so the text would have been easy). The final part of the message could have said - "if there's anything we can do to help please call us. That simply act of communication would have changed my mood and attitude completely. I still think British Airways did a great job in the end, but with one small additional act they could have converted me to a customer for life.

Is servitization for everyone?

One of the questions I have been asking my students recently is whether "servitization is a strategy for everyone". Effectively I ask them to take any product they wish and develop an idea for a service that is directly related to the product. The students have come up with some great ideas. One group developed a business model for renting umbrellas. Imagine having umbrella rental kiosks at busy main line stations in London. You arrive at Kings Cross, without an umbrella, only to find it is raining. Rather than buying an overpriced umbrella in a local store, you can rent one for a day and if you don't return it, you forfeit your deposit, but are then allowed to keep the umbrella. Another group developed a business model for exchanging baby products - a store where you could buy second hand cots, toys and prams (all of which had been fully refurbished and reconditioned). As your baby grows older and bigger the store would take back products you no longer needed and sell you a new set - a child's bed rather than a cot or toys for a three year old, rather than a new born baby. Any products you returned to the shop would be refurbished, reconditioned and sold on to a new set of parents. Yet other groups have suggested technologically enabled services. One team came up with the idea of machine tool manufacturers offering environmental monitoring services. This group proposed that firms should couple an energy monitoring service with the machine tools they sell. In essence the manufacturer of the machine tool would provide guidance and advice on how to reduce energy consumption of capital equipment.

While the ideas themselves are interesting, one of the things that I have found most fascinating is that nobody has yet come up with a product that could not be accompanied by a service. Luxury goods - where ownership might confer status - are appealing as rental items. Why own that fantastic diamond necklace (and carry the risks and costs associated with ownership of a very valuable piece of jewellery) when you can rent whatever jewellery you want for particular events. A counter argument might be that jewellery as a gift is important. If I told my wife that I had rented our wedding ring rather than bought it for her I might get short shrift. But the jeweller who sold me the ring offers a reconditioning service, a personalisation service and could offer a consultancy service, providing advice on which product to select.

Move to the other end of the scale and think about commodity products. Take something as simple as a paperclip. What service could be associated with paperclips? At first blush this appears to be a more challenging question. Paperclips are so plentiful and cheap that it is more difficult to conceive a service. But think about how many paperclips are wasted, taken off sheets of paper and dropped in the bin or put in that jar that sits on your desk and gradually fills to overflowing. What about a service centred around paperclip recycling, where unwanted paperclips (like spent batteries) are collected and returned to source. What about paperclips with RFID tags on them - paperclips that could provide location information so you would never again lose that important document in a pile of paperwork!

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the world of services and solutions is endless. Some of my academic colleagues argue that products are only ever a means to deliver services. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think it is right to say that all products can be supported or supplemented by services. I'd be interested to hear of examples of products that you think it would be difficult to support or supplement with services.

The Big Data Revolution: What Happened to Data Quality?

There's a wonderful irony in the world of Big Data Analytics. At a time when interest in Big Data appears to be growing exponentially, it appears that some are forgetting the fundamental challenges of Data Quality. A quick Google Trends analysis highlights the point. The chart below shows two trend lines extracted from Google Trends. The line in blue reflects the popularity of searches for Big Data, while the line in red shows the popularity of searches for Data Quality. It is important to note that the lines show relative popularity, not absolute volumes of search terms. In fact, Google Keywords suggests that in absolute terms searches for Big Data are about 20 times as popular as searches for Data Quality.

This raises an interesting question - what's happened to Data Quality? At a time when organisations are becoming ever more interested in using their data to create performance insights and predictions, interest the Data Quality appears to be declining. Is this because Data Quality is no longer an issue?

I don't think so. On three separate occasions in the last week alone I have been involved in discussions with senior managers from some of the world's leading manufacturing and service businesses. Each time, the issue of Data Quality has come up loud and clear. These firms recognise the potential of Big Data and Analytics, but are realistic enough to know that unless they sort out their data fundamentals - unless the track the right things and make sure the raw data if accessible and of high quality, all of the Big Data Analytics in the world is not going to help them. That's why - in the Cambridge Service Alliance - one of our projects this year is focusing on creating a data diagnostic - a methodology that can be used to check whether the data you have access to is appropriate and can be better used to optimise the delivery of your services and solutions. We're in the process of testing this data diagnostic at the moment and would love to hear from you if you'd be interested in being one of the pilot test sites.