I’ve been spending some time lately thinking about the
Internet of Things, and began to wonder how we might get from ‘here’ (with an
increasing number of connected devices, but typically connected in vertically
integrated stovepipes rather than in a horizontally integrated way) to ‘there’
(the fully fledged Internet of Things).
The reality is that, right now, the world of connected
devices could best be characterised as multiple ‘Intranets of Things’. For
example many homes now have connected smart meters, but the data that these produce is
generally used for a single purpose (analysing, pricing and billing power
consumption). Likewise, the information generated by fleet tracking systems are
generally used to better manage a fleet. And so forth. There are very few
situations in which information collected for one purpose is used for a really
different purpose, although there are some (for instance mobile operators
selling location information to train operators, so that those operators know
how many people are on their trains).
The next step must then be around integrated ‘islands’ of
connected devices, which we could term ’Subnets of Things’. These would
typically be driven by either a single point of control, single point of data
aggregation, or potentially a common cause. For example, it is not hard to
envisage an emerging subnet of things around a smart city: local authorities
would often have access to data relating to congestion charging, public
transport, parking space availability, air pollution and potentially a whole
range of other data sources. It would not be hard for a local authority to
analyse these data sources in such a way as to generate conclusions that are
informed by multiple information sources. Similarly, a local health authority
(or health insurance company) will clearly have access to information derived
from multiple sources, and will clearly be incentivised to mine that
information to gain new understanding of illnesses. Qualcomm’s 2Net M2M health
platform (designed to support connected healthcare solutions from many
different manufacturers) may potentially be another example.
But to move from these ‘Subnets of Things’ to a full ‘Internet
of Things’ environment will be a difficult step. It will involve aligning data
points from a huge range of data sources, ideally at an individual user, or
individual device level. Cue all manner of privacy and standardisation issues.
Establishing a fully-fledged ‘Internet of Things’ will be far harder than
establishing simple ‘Subnets of Things’. And I
wonder if there is much more value that can be derived from an ‘Internet
of Things’ when compared to ‘Subnets of Things’. Sure, it helps if an ambulance
driver has access to ‘smart city’ traffic flow information, and if the ‘smart
city’ can react to ease the path of that ambulance. But that is surely a
marginal benefit when compared to the benefits that can be derived from a (much
more achievable) integrated health ‘Subnet of Things’, in terms of disease
management and treatment?
I wonder if the key to the ‘Internet of Things’ is actually
to look for the tipping points of a range of ‘Subnets of Things’?
