IoT implementation practices:

The value of
experience
We surveyed more than 600 business
execs, IT professionals, engineers and
other IoT stakeholders to learn about
their companies’ IoT projects and share
their experiences by project phase,
company size and success level.

By Sue Troy




 


3
4
AUTHOR’S PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FIGURES

7 Figure 1: Practice makes perfect?

19 APPENDIX
19 
Figure 10: Production-scale projects:
Results vs. expectations
TABLE OF

CONTENTS
8 Figure 2: Project length estimates
5 RESEARCH SYNOPSIS
20 
Figure 11: Production-scale projects:
9 Figure 3: Stakeholder sponsorship is key Time to implement
6 INTRODUCTION
10 Figure 4: Primary benefits 21 
Figure 12: Production-scale projects:
7 Project phase: At production scale Secondary benefits
11 Figure 5: Factors impacting project success
8 
About half of firms underestimate 22 
Figure 13: In-testing projects:
IoT timelines 12 Figure 6: Project challenges Primary benefits
9 What it takes to drive an IoT project forward 14 
Figure 7: How well are results aligning 23 
Figure 14: In-testing projects:
with expectations? Secondary benefits
10 Primary and secondary IoT benefits
16 
Figure 8: Project challenges 24 
Figure 15: In-testing projects:
12 
For many, data and platform security (projects being tested) Success factors
is a top priority
17 
Figure 9: Expected benefits 25 
Figure 16: In-research projects:
13 In focus: University of Southern California (projects being researched) Stakeholder participation factors
14 Project phase: Testing 26 
Figure 17: No organizational action
16 Project phase: In research taken: Why?

18 Interest in IoT? 27 Figure 18: Vertical industry

18 In focus: Dun & Bradstreet 28 Figure 19: Company size: Employee count
29 Figure 20: Company size: Revenue
30 Figure 21: Business location
31 Figure 22: Job function
32 Figure 23: Job level

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 2

 

 


AUTHOR’S
Sue Troy
The IoT Institute

Sue Troy is executive editor of The IoT Institute, where

she writes and edits articles about the IoT ecosystem.
She has spent more than 25 years writing and editing
IT-focused content, with long stints at companies such
as TechTarget and Ziff Davis Publishing. Her most recent
role was as editorial director of TechTarget’s CIO, IT
Strategy and Channel Media Group, where she was
most inspired by emerging technologies such as IoT,
blockchain and artificial intelligence.

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience

PAGE 3
 

 


EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
Companies around the globe have high hopes for the In- Some highlights from that group:
ternet of Things and are eager to reap the profits projected
Respondents who reported excellent results tended
by vendors and analysts. But, of course, it’s not a simple
to have more projects under their belts.
process of installing some sensors, collecting the data and
raking in (or saving) the money (or efficiencies or improved Respondents reporting excellent results were more
data). There’s much research, planning and testing, and af- likely to say that the results far exceeded their
ter that comes the heavy lifting of implementation. expectations.
Though it’s still early days of IoT, many companies have Those reporting excellent results were more likely
already gone down this road, whether at full production to say that their project took much less time, less
scale, testing IoT pilots or just researching IoT. We conducted time or about as much time as planned than those
research on those experiences, analyzing survey responses without excellent results.
from more than 600 professionals either directly involved
Those with C-level sponsorship of IoT projects–as
with or interested in IoT, comparing and contrasting
well as involvement from all stakeholders–were
results from the overall respondent base vs. those from
much more likely to report excellent results.
large companies, those from small companies, those from
manufacturing and those who reported “excellent” results Respondents who reported excellent results
from their production-scale IoT projects. The differences typically were less challenged by factors impact-
among these groups point to valuable insights about the ing their projects.
state of IoT implementation. And those with “excellent”
results from their production-scale projects may have the Below we dive into these details and
most important lessons to share. offer explanations for the survey findings…

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 4


Survey name IoT Implementation Practices Survey
Survey date July and August 2017
Region Global
Number of respondents 618
Purpose To gauge the state of IoT projects and implementation
practices within businesses
Methodology The IoT Institute surveyed 618 professionals. To
encourage prompt response and increase the response rate overall,
the following marketing research techniques were used:
A live link was included in the e-mail invitation to route
respondents directly to the online survey.
The invitations and survey were branded with The IoT Insti- Pacific followed next, at 10.4% and 7.6%, respectively), with the
tute name and logo, in an effort to capitalize on subscriber overwhelming majority of North American respondents coming
affinity for this valued brand.
A reminder email was sent to non-respondents.
Each respondent was invited to participate in a drawing
for one of four $100 gift cards.
IoT implementation practices: The value of experience


 

RESEARCH
SYNOPSIS
Survey respondents came from across a range of vertical indus-
tries, with manufacturing having the largest share, at 19.6% of re-
spondents, followed by, in order, information technology; energy,
power and utilities; education; government/public administration;
construction; aviation/aerospace; warehousing, distribution and lo-
gistics; healthcare; agriculture; financial services; ground transpor-
tation; retail trade; and real estate, rental and leasing. Respondents
to the survey were about evenly split between companies with few-
er than 100 employees and those with more than 100 employees.
About 18% of respondents came from companies with 5,000 or
more employees. More than half of survey respondents (56.5%)
came from companies with less than $100 million in revenue, and
9.4% came from organizations without revenue figures (govern-
ment entities and other non-revenue-based organizations). About
75% of respondents hailed from North America (Europe and Asia/
from the United States. The largest group of respondents (26.7%)
were from the business/organizational management job function.
Following that was engineering, at 23.7%; IT, at 12.2%; product
management/R&D, at 7.6%; and operations/facilities, at 6.9%. In
terms of job level, the greatest share of survey respondents classi-
fied themselves as managerial level, at 24%, followed by director,
individual contributor, owner, president/C-level, senior vice presi-
dent or vice president, and supervisor.
5

The wave of initial hype surrounding the Internet of Things is
arguably behind us now. Many intrepid IoT voyagers have al-
ready set sail for a new realm where physical objects, ranging
from factories to fields, become digitized. Some businesses have
already weathered their passage, avoiding marauders intent on
plundering their riches on the open sea, and arrived on shore at
their destinations, discovering new riches there. A sizable num-
ber of those who have begun the journey, however, have run
into unforeseen obstacles or delays, while others, awaiting de-
parture from the old world and preparing navigation charts for
their own journeys, have much to learn from the explorers.
To help you incorporate lessons from these pioneers, we are
researching the state of IoT projects around the globe. The first
research study in our new series examines IoT implementation
practices at three phases: the early-planning stage, proof-of-
concept step and final deployment.
Here we present detailed information about those projects, such
as their benefits, project length, how well the results aligned
with expectations and who the primary stakeholders were. We
IoT implementation practices: The value of experience


 

INTRODUCTION
look at the overall respondent base, as well as how small-com-
pany respondents’ answers differ from those at large organiza-
tions. We also consider what sets apart manufacturing-sector
respondents’ answers (manufacturing respondents represented
the largest vertical industry in our survey, and we had enough
data from that group to report on it as a segment).
We hope you use this report to guide your own IoT projects
and build out best practices to smooth the way for your fu-
ture IoT endeavors. Of particular interest should be the findings
from survey respondents who had excellent results in produc-
tion-scale projects. These companies have learned valuable les-
sons, and your organization can benefit from their experience.
In general, these firms are happier with the results of their IoT
initiatives. They have a good sense of how long they will take,
know who should be involved and an understanding of what it
takes to succeed.
6
 

 


Project phase: At production scale
The IoT Implementation Practices Survey, which surveyed 618
business and technology professionals about their companies’ IoT
projects, indicates that enterprise and industrial IoT is on track to
becoming mainstream. Roughly a quarter, or 160, of respondents’
companies had widely deployed an IoT project or projects at pro-
duction scale. A total of 37.5% of those respondents reported
between one and five IoT projects and 26% reported between
six and 15 projects. Eleven percent of respondents with produc-
tion-scale IoT initiatives reported having more than 100 projects.
And, it seems, practice makes perfect, or better, anyway. Those
respondents who reported excellent results tended to have more
projects under their belts: 56% of this group had more than 15
production-scale projects, versus only 25% of those whose results
were less than excellent.
Respondents from large companies appeared more likely than
smaller firms to have a production-scale IoT project, with 32.7%
answering in the affirmative, compared with only 19.1% from
those with fewer than 100 employees. The number of projects
skewed higher for larger companies. Seventy-five percent of small
companies with IoT projects had 15 or fewer projects at scale,
compared with only 54% of those at organizations with more
than a hundred employees.
A total of 14% of large companies already have more than a hun-
dred IoT projects under their belt. Only 5.2% of small companies
said the same.
Analyst Kurt Marko described having such a percentage of
large-company respondents reporting more than 100 projects as
“shocking” and, he said, it points to a lack of consistency in the
definition of an IoT project. “I find it very hard to believe that even
large companies have completed over 100 significant IoT proj-
ects. Thus, I suspect most respondents are including many small
instrumentation projects, such as adding a new type of sensor or
data collection to a manufacturing line or upgrading HVAC equip-
ment with smart thermostats or controllers,” he said. “There’s an
enormous difference between ‘projects’ like these and a major expectations (at 15.6% of those surveyed), somewhat exceeded
IoT effort like collecting, aggregating and analyzing terabytes or expectations (25.6%) or met expectations (49.4%). Within the
petabytes of data from aircraft engines or railroad cars.” Among manufacturing sector, about 21% of the 119 respondents said
respondents with production-scale IoT projects, most seemed that their project fell somewhat below expectations, higher than
to be content with the results. Only 7.5% said that the results the overall respondent base. Respondents from large companies
were fair, and less than a percent characterized the results as were more likely to say that the results of their projects far ex-
poor. The largest chunk (41%) rated the results as very good. ceeded their expectations (18.4% vs. 8.6%). As you might ex-
pect, those reporting excellent results were more likely to say that
Respondents with production-scale IoT projects mostly found the results far exceeded their expectations: 59% vs. just 5% of
that their initiatives met their expectations. Ninety-one percent those without excellent results.
of respondents said that their projects either far exceeded their
Figure 1
Practice makes perfect?
How many distinct IoT-related projects has your company widely deployed at production scale?
45%
40%
Respondents with “excellent” results
35%
All other respondents
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
1–5 6–15 16–50 51–100 More than 100 Don’t know
Base: 34 ("excellent") and 127 (all other respondents)
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 7

 

 


About half of firms underestimate IoT timelines

About half of the organizations with production-scale IoT proj-
ects ran into delays. A total of 39% reported that it took longer
than expected. Another 10% said it took much longer.
Figure 2
Respondents from large companies were more likely than those
with fewer than 100 employees to say that their project took Project length estimates
longer than planned (44.9% vs. 28.1%). Those at smaller com- How would you describe the time it took to implement this production-scale IoT project?
panies were more likely to say that the project took much longer
than anticipated (19.3% vs. 6.1%). One possibility for the dis-
crepancy is that larger companies can devote more resources to
making sure that IoT projects stay on track. Took much more time than planned Respondents with “excellent” results

The manufacturing segment seems to have worse luck with de-

All other respondents
lays than other sectors. About 55% of respondents from that Took much longer than planned
sector reported that their project took longer (45.5%) or much
longer (9.1%) than expected. Process complexity in conjunction
with the challenges related to information technology (IT) and
Took longer than planned
operational technology (OT) integration in manufacturing could
explain that finding.
Manufacturing-segment respondents were on average more like- Took about as much time as planned
ly to work for larger companies than the typical survey respon-
dent, and therefore liable to be involved with projects involving
more stakeholders and more parts of the business. Took less time than planned
Those reporting excellent results were more likely to say that their
project took much less time, less time or about as much time
as planned than those without excellent results: 65% vs. 46%. Took much less time than planned
What might explain that sizable difference? Marko said, “The
‘excellent’ group had more IoT expertise (about twice the per- 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 45% 50%
centage in the ‘excellent’ group reported having 100 or more Base: 34 ("excellent") and 126 (all other respondents)
projects, compared with the non-‘excellent’ respondents) and Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017
better project governance processes. Thus, they knew what they
were doing and getting into and did more upfront planning to
create realistic schedules and allocate enough staff at the right
times to complete the job.”

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 8

 

 


What it takes to drive an IoT project forward
So how long did these projects take? The largest group (41.5%)
said that it took six months to a year, and a quarter reported the
project took between 12 and 18 months. About 17% reported
their projects took less than six months. At small companies, al-
most two-thirds said it took less than a year, while that group was
only about 55% at large enterprises. Within the manufacturing
sector, only 45% said it took less than a year. And project length
doesn’t appear to have an impact on the success of the project:
We didn’t find significant differences on this metric among those
who had excellent results.
As for stakeholders involved in the projects, C-level execs tended
to be the primary sponsor (in 29% of cases but in 42.5% of cases
in the manufacturing sector) and the budgetary approver (cited
by 32% of respondents). Perhaps C-level execs at manufacturing
companies take an expanded role in IoT initiatives because spe-
cialized technical companies tend to have leaders with engineer-
ing experience. Line-of-business specialists (cited by 30.5% of re-
Perhaps most interesting is that those with C-level sponsorship and those who did not report excellent results.) The same held
of IoT projects are much more likely to report excellent results. In true when we considered those reporting excellent and very good
fact, all primary sponsor stakeholders we asked about showed a results, compared with those who did not, but the difference be-
similar correlation. (The one exception to this were line-of-busi- tween those two groups was less stark. These findings seem to
ness leaders, which were described as primary sponsor in about indicate that the path to success in an IoT project calls for having
equal percentages by both those who reported excellent results more rather than fewer stakeholders involved as primary project
Figure 3
Stakeholder sponsorship is key
Were each of the following involved in this production-scale IoT project as a primary sponsor?
(Select all that apply.)
70%
60%
Respondents with “excellent” results
50%
All other respondents

spondents) were more likely than other roles to be the technology

approver of the project, while IT leaders were more likely to be 40%
the project architect/specifier (cited by 24% of respondents), and
IT staff were more likely to be the project implementer (cited by
30%
43% of respondents). At smaller companies, C-level execs were
less frequently cited as a primary sponsor than at larger com-
panies (21.7% vs. 33.3%). Also at smaller companies, converse- 20%
ly, C-level execs were more likely to be a technology approver
than at larger companies (22.9% vs. 14.3%). This expanded role
is likely a function of the fluid responsibilities common at small 10%
companies.
At smaller companies, CEOs tend to be more involved in day-to- 0
day operations than at larger organizations. That fact is likely part C-level execs Line-of-business Line-of-business Operations team IT leaders IT staff Consultants
of the reason why fewer C-level execs (4.8%) at large firms were leaders
involved in IoT projects than at smaller firms, where 10.3% were.
Base: 33 ("excellent") and 127 (all other respondents)
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 9

 

 


Figure 4 sponsors. This is an important lesson for businesses that

are researching or planning IoT projects: When it comes to
Primary benefits having a variety of stakeholders support IoT projects, less
What would you consider the primary benefit of this production-scale IoT project? is not more.
Marko was not surprised by the fact that projects with
C-level and other stakeholder participation were more
Other likely to succeed, but, he said, “It’s telling that having
more stakeholders improves the chance of success. IoT
projects touch many parts of the organization; data is of-
Cost savings ten collected by one organization, processed and analyzed
by another and used by yet different business groups. Hav-
Fewer than 100 employees
ing everyone involved in the project ensures that import-
Improved production output quality ant details aren’t left out, the data ends up being useful
100 or more employees
(and used) and when resources are needed, the relevant
department will be more likely to pony up since they have
Improved employee efficiency Manufacturing already committed to the project.”

Primary and secondary IoT benefits

Improved production output quality
The primary benefits of at-production-scale IoT projects
were improved operational efficiency, cited by 37.5% of
respondents, improved customer experience (20%), im-
Improved business awareness proved business awareness (10%), improved customer
data (9.4%) and cost savings (6.9%). Small-company re-
spondents were more likely than large-company respon-
Improved customer data dents to cite cost savings as a primary benefit (15.5% vs.
2%). Small-company respondents were also less likely to
cite improved customer data than respondents from large
Improved customer experience companies (5.2% vs. 12.2%).
Marko was not surprised by the survey’s finding that im-
Improved operational efficiency proved operational efficiency is a major benefit of IoT. “IoT
data is often used to find production or workflow prob-
lems, predict failures (replace reactive problem fixes with
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
proactive maintenance) and tune machine parameters,”
Base: 58 (fewer than 100 employees), 98 (100 or more employees) and 33 (manufacturing) he said.
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 10

 

 


Among secondary benefits, cost savings topped the list, cited Figure 5
by 29.4% of respondents. Improved operational efficiency was
right behind at 26.9%, followed by improved customer data Factors impacting project success
(24.4%) and improved production output quality (23.8%). Again, How important are/were each of the following to the success of this production-scale IoT project?
small-company respondents were more likely to name cost savings
as a secondary benefit (37.9% vs. 24.5%). And, small-company
respondents were more likely to list improved production output Project business value
quantity as a secondary benefit, compared with large-company
respondents (22.4% vs. 15.5%).
Data relevance
Considering both primary and secondary benefits together, the
top outcomes for IoT projects were in the following order: Data integrity Not at all important

1. Operational efficiency.
Platform security Not very important
2. Customer experience.
Data security Somewhat important
3. Cost savings.
4. Customer data. Platform ability to meet future needs Very important

5. Production output quality.

Platform ability to meet present needs Critical
6. Business awareness.
7. Employee efficiency. Project cost of ownership

8. Production output quantity.

Functionality of edge devices

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base: 156
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 11

 

 


For many, data and platform security
is the top priority
For respondents with production-scale IoT projects, data security
and platform security were more likely to be considered critical to
the success of the project than the other factors, cited by 45.8%
and 43.1% of respondents, respectively. Manufacturing-sector
respondents also placed high value on platform business value,
with 43.8% of respondents saying that it was a critical factor.
Respondents tended to believe that the following factors were
very important:
● Functionality of edge devices.
Perhaps most interesting is that respondents with excellent results
were more likely to say that all of these factors – with the excep-
tion of data integrity – were either critical or very important to the
success of their project. It seems that taking these factors more
seriously can lead to decisions that improve project outcomes.
Figure 6
Project challenges
How challenging are/were each of the following with regard to this production-scale IoT project?
Not at all challenging Not very challenging
We then asked survey respondents how challenging the above
factors were in their projects. Respondents were more likely to say
that each of the factors were somewhat challenging than other
options with one exception: The same percentage of respondents
(32.9%) reported that data integrity was somewhat challenging
and very challenging.
Very challenging Somewhat challenging Extremely challenging

● Project cost of ownership.

Project business value
● Platform’s ability to meet present needs.
● Platform’s ability to meet future needs Data relevance

● Data integrity.
Data integrity
● Data relevance.
● Project business value. Platform security

Within small companies, platform security appears to be the most

critical concern, identified as such by 43.4% of those respondents. Data security
About an equal amount of large-company respondents cited plat-
form security as a critical concern, but it wasn’t the largest one: Platform ability to meet future needs
A full 50% of large-company respondents named data security
as a critical concern (compared with 39.6% of small-company
Platform ability to meet present needs
respondents).
There could be multiple drivers that explain why large companies Project cost of ownership
are more focused on data security. For one thing, they are more
likely to be publicly held and face greater public scrutiny on their
data security practices. In addition, larger companies tend to sim- Functionality of edge devices
ply be more visible and valuable targets from the perspective of
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
cybercriminals.
Base: 152
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 12


The manufacturing sector has unique IoT needs and must often
deal with linking brownfield and greenfield technologies togeth-
er while also driving unprecedented collaboration among differ-
ent organizational divisions. This fact was likely the reason why
respondents in this sector tended to be very challenged by the
functionality of edge devices, which are often critical in such set-
tings, and project business value. Consequently, manufacturing
professionals reported not being as challenged by factors such as
data security, platform security, data integrity and data relevance.
Among all production-scale respondents, taking those who re-
ported the above factors to be anywhere from “somewhat” to
“extremely” challenging all together, respondents rated the chal-
lenges in the following order, from most challenging to least chal-
lenging:
● Functionality of edge devices.
● Cost of ownership.
● Project business value.
● Platform’s ability to meet future needs.
● Platform security.
● Platform’s ability to meet present needs.
● Data security.
● Data integrity and data relevance.
Marko said that the functionality of edge devices tended to be
more problematic for survey respondents because “the heart of
IoT is adding intelligence to edge devices, whether these are a
manufacturing machine, HVAC controller, shipping container or
delivery truck. The technology for adding intelligence is in many
cases quite new, rapidly changing and not necessarily designed to
interoperate with other IoT devices.”
IoT implementation practices: The value of experience
Marko was surprised that data “cleanliness” (integrity and rele-
vance) ranked last in terms of project challenges. He said, “It’s a
significant challenge given the diversity of formats, frequent lack
of metadata and complexity of designing big data analytics soft-
ware where the old maxim ‘garbage in, garbage out’ is more im-
portant than ever.” The low ranking of data security also surprised
him since, he said, “many IoT devices are a security nightmare
-- routinely hacked and used to spread malware. Security is often
not designed into the device, making it difficult (or impossible)
to either harden the device or encrypt the data as it’s in transit.”
Among small-company respondents, project business value was
more likely than at large companies to be considered extreme-
ly challenging (24.1% vs. 10.6%). In fact, project business val-
ue was the most frequently named as extremely challenging by
small-company respondents. In general, large companies seemed
to find extreme challenges more often, but not with regard to
project business value.
Marko said: "This is probably due to large organizations having
a more sophisticated understanding of the capabilities and out-
comes of an IoT project. Deriving business value doesn’t happen
automatically just by sprinkling some smart sensors or connect-
ed devices around your production floor or in your products.
You need a plan on the data you want to collect, what it is mea-
suring, the range of expected data and the implications and the
decisions you can make based on the data. I expect that large
companies thought these factors through in more detail before
the IoT project.”
Respondents who reported excellent results typically were less
challenged by these factors – perhaps because they tend to be
more experienced.


 

In focus: University of
Southern California
The University of Southern California
has more than a hundred production-
scale IoT projects, launched among
the various schools that make up the
university system. The university’s
president, C.L. Max Nikias, has
identified IoT as a major opportunity
in the years ahead. Among the projects at the school are one at
the Stochastic Semi-Autonomous Systems Lab, where research is
aimed at such things as figuring out ways to reduce energy use in
supermarket refrigeration systems and improve storage of energy.
Another IoT project at the university is chartered with researching
ways in which IoT can be a part of neighborhood-based augmented
reality tours. Yet another project looks to employ wearable devices
to help educators gather real-time data about how students are
learning, which project sponsors hope will lead to better information
around how to personalize instruction for each student.
In addition, Gregory Sorensen, supervising computer engineer at USC,
said that the university is installing smart network devices between
buildings; edge networks will replace current technology. Facilities
personnel get real-time alerts of air supply, temperature and humidity
readings in all area of the campus, he said. “This information …
enables us … to collect and exchange data by the second,” he said.
The data is sent to an operations center, and if there is a problem,
service personnel typically diagnose it in minutes rather than hours.
Gregory Sorensen. Photo source: LinkedIn
13
 

 


Project phase: Testing

Among survey respondents whose companies did not have pro-
duction-scale IoT projects, about 18% (112 respondents) were
testing IoT projects. A majority of those respondents (54.5%) Figure 7
expected the projects to be widely deployed within a year, and
almost two-thirds were testing two or three IoT projects. How well are results aligning with expectations?
In terms of how well expectations aligned with reality, about 15% Thus far, how have the results of this IoT project test aligned with your expectations?
said it was too soon to judge, and about 20% said that the proj-
ect results either fell somewhat short of expectations or fell far Fewer than 100 employees
short of expectations – suggesting that those testing IoT projects Don’t know; too soon to tell
had a bigger disconnect between expectations and reality than 100 or more employees
those with completed, production-scale projects. And within the
manufacturing sector, the gap was larger: About 33% said sur- Falling short of expectations Manufacturing
vey results fell somewhat or far short of expectations. This gap in
manufacturing is likely the result of the clash between the hype
in this sector with all of its bluster of a coming industrial revo-
Falling somewhat short of expectations
lution versus the reality: It is difficult to get transformative gains
from a piecemeal IoT solution and it is expensive to simply build
a cutting-edge facility from scratch. In addition, there is often
Meeting expectations
a culture clash between manufacturing professionals who are
trained to focus on incremental improvements and the promise
of technology vendors claiming to help transform their business.
Somewhat exceeding expectations
Marko suggested that the discrepancy between manufacturing
respondents and large-company respondents (24% of whom
said the projects fell somewhat or far short of expectations) re- Far exceeding expectations
lates to the complexity of the projects. “Manufacturing projects
likely entail more pieces of sophisticated production equipment
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
from different manufacturers where both the difficulty of get-
ting each individual IoT system to work properly is higher and Base: 52 (fewer than 100 employees), 58 (100 or more employees) and 33 (manufacturing)
the integration challenge of getting all the components to work Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

together and interact (that is, readings from machine A cause

changes in the operation of machine B) is great.”

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 14


About 38% of respondents — the most sizable group — expect
their IoT project to take from six months to a year to complete,
about the same as among those with production-scale projects.
In terms of stakeholder participation, the active testers had a
roughly similar breakdown to production-scale project respon-
dents, with one exception: Among active testers, line-of-busi-
ness specialists were less likely to be involved as technology
approver than among production-scale respondents (18.6% vs.
30.5%).
In terms of primary benefit of the in-testing IoT project respon-
dents, there were no big differences with the production-scale
respondents: Both sets of respondents cited improved opera-
tional efficiency most frequently. The testers did look to have
higher expectations around customer experience, with 29.5%
citing that as a primary benefit, compared with only 20% of
production-scale respondents, who reported with the benefit
of actual results rather than expectations. Among respondents
at companies with fewer than a hundred employees, the most
frequently mentioned primary benefit was improved custom-
er experience, at 34.6%, which compares with just 25.9% of
large-company respondents.
In terms of secondary benefits mentioned by the in-testing IoT
project respondents, cost savings was the most cited response,
like with the production-scale respondents.
With regard to the factors that contribute to the success of IoT
projects, those in testing had a similar profile to those respon-
dents at production scale: Data security and platform security
were more likely to be considered critical to the success of the
project than the other factors, cited as critical by 44.5% and
40.9% of respondents, respectively. Small-company respon-
dents were less likely to cite any of these factors as not at all
important or not very important, suggesting that for small-com-
pany respondents, the IoT project stakes are high, and each proj-
ect is more important to the company than at larger companies.
IoT implementation practices: The value of experience


 

At a small company, failure in a single project might kill the IoT
initiative in its entirety.
Diving a little deeper into that data, project cost of ownership
and platform’s ability to meet future needs were more import-
ant to small-company in-testing respondents than large-compa-
ny respondents. Seventy-one percent and 76% of the former
group said those factors were either very important or critical,
compared with 53.5% and 62.5%, respectively, of big-company
respondents. Data relevance, meanwhile, was more important
to big-company respondents (86% said it was very important
or critical) compared with small-company respondents (73.5%).
The factors most often cited as “very challenging” to the tes-
ters were the platform’s ability to meet future needs (32.7%
of overall respondents and 50% of those from the manufac-
turing segment) and data security (31.8%). Most factors had
higher percentages of in-testing respondents characterize them
as “somewhat challenging” than “very challenging.” The plat-
form’s ability to meet future needs was mentioned as extreme-
ly challenging (cited by 15%) by in-testing respondents more
frequently than any other factors. Small companies were more
likely to be very or extremely challenged by functionality of edge
devices (45% vs. 29%), while large-company respondents were
more likely to be very or extremely challenged by the platform’s
ability to meet future needs (53.6% of large company respon-
dents vs. 42% of small company respondents).
15
 

 


Project phase: In research

Among survey respondents who had neither production-scale nor Figure 8
in-testing-phase IoT projects, about 11% (68 respondents) were
actively researching IoT projects. The bulk of those respondents Project challenges (projects being tested)
expected their projects to be widely deployed within three years, How challenging are each of the following with regard to this IoT project your company is actively testing?
and almost two-thirds were researching two or three projects. The
largest share (39.7%) of these respondents expected the project
Project business value
to take a year to 18 months to implement, from conception to
production.
Data relevance
In terms of stakeholder participation in the active research of Not at all challenging
IoT projects, the profiles were roughly similar to the other two
Data integrity
groups: C-level execs were more likely than other roles to be the Not very challenging
primary sponsor and budgetary approver of the projects, and IT
staff were more likely than other roles to be the implementers. IT Platform security Somewhat challenging
leaders were more likely to be the technology approver.
Data security Very challenging
Consultants (cited by 28.1% of respondents) also play an import-
ant role in IoT projects. Many companies call in outside experts
early on in projects involving new technology, and as these in- Platform ability to meet future needs Extremely challenging
dividuals gain familiarity with the organization’s needs, they fre-
quently assume the role of architect/specifier. Platform ability to meet present needs Uncertain/not sure yet

When it came to the expected primary and secondary benefits of

the in-research IoT projects, there were several differences with Project cost of ownership
the production-scale and in-testing respondents. In-research re-
spondents were more likely to cite improved customer data as Functionality of edge devices
a primary benefit, reported by 20.6% compared with 9.4% and
8.9%, respectively. The researchers were also less likely to consid- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
er improved operational efficiency (cited by 15% of respondents),
Base: 108
improved customer data (13%), improved customer experience Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017
(11%) and cost savings (11%) as secondary benefits.

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 16

 

 


Figure 9

In looking at the factors that impact the success of an IoT project, Expected benefits (projects being researched)
the researchers’ answers mostly fell in line with those who have
What do you anticipate would be the primary benefit of this IoT project your company is actively researching?
production-scale projects or are in the testing phase, with one
exception: While data security and platform security were seen
Other (please explain)
as critical to the success of an IoT project among all three groups, Uncertain/not sure yet
more than half of the researchers saw data integrity critical to the Improved employee efficiency
project’s success, vs. only 33.6% of the testers and 36.6% of the
production-scale respondents. Improved business 3% 2%
awareness 3%
Marko suggested that the “researchers” are benefitting from the 3%
Improved operational efficiency
experience of those who have fully implemented IoT projects. “I Cost savings
suspect those already in the midst of an IoT implementation ei- 7%
ther didn’t appreciate upfront the impact of data integrity on the 32%
project’s success and/or are collecting a limited set of data target-
ed to a particular use case, whereby data integrity and consisten-
cy is less challenging,” he said.

21%

Improved customer data

29%

Base: 68
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017 Improved customer experience

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 17


Interest in IoT?
Among those respondents not involved with an IoT project, either at scale, in
testing or in research, about 60% said they were interested in implementing
the technology. Customer demand and improved security were referenced as
reasons more frequently than other factors, when respondents were asked
which factors would motivate their companies to consider an IoT project,
followed by lower cost to implement and proven success by competitors.
IoT implementation practices: The value of experience


 

In focus: Dun & Bradstreet
Information services company Dun & Bradstreet has been researching
IoT for about a year and expects to deploy two to three IoT projects
within the next three years. Analytical consultant Kevin Conley is
dedicated to the company’s IoT efforts, one of about eight employ-
ees similarly focused on the technology. Dun & Bradstreet provides
business information to enable credit lenders to decide who they will
lend money to and how much they will lend. D&B plans to incorporate
IoT-derived data from third-party sources to flesh out the information
it provides customers, providing a more accurate picture of a compa-
ny’s creditworthiness. As an example, Conley pointed to a pizza shop
that D&B has information on. D&B currently has some information
about the pizza shop, said Conley, “yet we don’t have enough in-
formation to populate ... the commercial credit score, the financial
stress score, the D&B viability ratings score. We don’t have enough
information to tell us really how robust the company is.” IoT changes
that. By supplementing existing information with partner-supplied IoT
data sources from, for instance, HVAC sensor monitors that measure
heating and cooling at the pizza shop; electrical sensors deployed in
the customer seating area that detect usage over time; and sensors
within the pizza shop’s waste bins that measure volume of activity,
D&B can paint a better picture of the business vitality of the pizza
shop, which is valuable for D&B’s customers that may be considering
making business decisions about the pizza shop.
At D&B, the expected use of IoT represents a level of maturity be-
yond most companies using IoT: They are reliant on the successful
implementation of IoT by other companies, to produce accurate IoT
data that D&B can use in its business offerings. “That’s one of the
challenges that we have to overcome. Many of the companies that we
are trying to partner with are in the early stages of formulating their
own IoT strategies. They’re not ready yet to partner with a third party
such as D&B,” Conley said. He also said that some of the companies
D&B is looking to partner with own or have access rights to the data
but have privacy and security concerns that D&B has to work through,
ensuring partners that the data will be protected and will only be
used in aggregate.
18
 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 10

Production-scale projects: Results vs. expectations

How did the results of this IoT project align with your expectations?

Fell somewhat short

of expectations Far exceeded
expectations

9% 16%
Met expectations

26%
49%

Somewhat exceeded
expectations

Base: 160
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 19

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 11

Production-scale projects: Time to implement

From concept to production, how much time did this IoT project take
to implement?
More than 24 months
Less than six months

18 months to 24 months
6%
17%
11%

25%

41%

A year to 18 months Six months to a year

Base: 159
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 20

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 12

Production-scale projects: Secondary benefits

What would you consider the secondary benefit(s) of this IoT project? (Select all that apply.)

Other (please explain)

None of the above

Improved production output quality

Improved employee efficiency

Improved production output quality

Improved business awareness

Improved customer data

Improved customer experience

Improved operational efficiency

Cost savings

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Base: 160
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 21

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 13

In-testing projects: Primary benefit

What do you anticipate will be the primary benefit of this IoT project your company is actively testing?

Improved customer data Uncertain/not sure yet

Cost savings

Improved employee efficiency 2%2%

3%
Improved operational
Improved production 5% efficiency
output quality
5%
32%
Improved business
awareness
6%

Other (please explain)

7%

9%
Improved customer data

29%
Improved customer experience

Base: 159
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 22

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 14

In-testing projects: Secondary benefits

What would you consider the secondary benefit(s) of this IoT project your company is actively testing?
(Select all that apply.)

Other (please explain)

Uncertain/not sure yet

Improved production output quality

Improved employee efficiency

Improved production output quality

Improved business awareness

Improved customer data

Improved customer experience

Improved operational efficiency

Cost savings

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Base: 109
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 23

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 15

In-testing projects: Success factors

How important are each of the following considerations to the ultimate success of this IoT project
your company is actively testing?

Project business value

Data relevance

Data integrity Not at all important

Platform security Not very important

Data security Somewhat important

Very important
Platform ability to meet future needs

Critical
Platform ability to meet present needs

Project cost of ownership

Functionality of edge devices

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Base: 107
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 24

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 16

In-research projects: Stakeholder participation factors

At what level have each of the following been involved in the active research of this IoT project?
(Select all that apply.)

Consultants

IT staff

Implementer
IT leaders

Architect/specifier

Operations team Technology approver

Budgetary approver

Line-of-business specialists
Primary sponsor

Line-of business leaders

C-level execs

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Base: 68
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 25

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 17

No organizational action taken: Why?

What has deterred your company from pursuing IoT implementation? (Select all that apply.)

Other (please specify)

Unaware of the technology

Security concerns

We have insufficient internal expertise

Line-of-business resistance

Regulatory issues

Management resistance

No perceived business value

Project would cost too much

Immaturity of the technology

IT resistance

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Base: 46
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 26

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 18

Vertical industry
Which of the following best reflects your primary market/industry?

Manufacturing

Other (please specify)

Information technology

Energy, power and utilities

Education

Government/public administration

Construction

Aviation/aerospace

Warehousing, distribution and logistics

Healthcare

Agriculture

Financial services

Ground transportation

Retail trade

Real estate, rental and leasing

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Base: 612
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 27

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 19

Company size: Employee count

How many people are employed by your company, at all locations?

10,000 or more
Fewer than 100
13%
5,000 to 9,999

4.6%

1,000 to 4,999 11.6% 50.3%

20.5%

100 to 999

Base: 606
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 28

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 20

Company size: Revenue

What is the annual revenue of your company, in USD?

Not applicable (government entities and

other non-revenue-based organizations)

9.4%
$5 billion or more Less than $100 million

8.9%

$1 billion to $4.9 billion 7.4%

56.5%
$500 million to 6.1%
$999 million

11.6%
$100 million to
$499 million

Base: 605
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 29

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 21

Business location
Where is your company located? (If your company has multiple locations,
please select your primary location.)

Africa Middle East

1.7%
Latin America

2.6%
3.1%
Asia/Pacific
North America
7.6%

Europe 10.4%

74.5%

Base: 604
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 30

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 22

Job function
Which of the following most closely matches your job function?

Finance Purchasing/procurement 1.3%

Marketing

Sales 2% Business/organizational
4.9% management

5.0%
Operations/facilities 7%
26.7%
6.9%

Product management/R&D 7.6%

9.7%

Other (please
21% specify) 23.7%

12.2%

Engineering
IT
Base: 596
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 31

 

 


APPENDIX
Figure 23

Job level
Which of the following most closely matches your primary job level?

Supervisor

Senior VP, VP
Manager
5.2%
6%
Other
(please specify) 24%
6.9%

President/
C-level 7.9%

15.4% 19.1%

Owner Director
15.6%

Individual contributor
(no direct reports)
Base: 597
Data: The IoT Institute IoT Implementation Practices Survey, July/August 2017

IoT implementation practices: The value of experience 32