ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘hardware-2’ CATEGORY

The importance of wearables is on the rise but this brings with it new security and privacy risks writes DA Systems David Upton...

A report recently issued by PWC suggested that wearables adoption will mirror the phenomenal rise of tablets in the enterprise. Apparently a fifth of American adults already own a wearable tech device and additional sales could top 130 million units in 2018*. Enterprise vendors are watching these predictions carefully and starting to anticipate their arrival into the workplace with dedicated platforms, such as Salesforce1.

Although many applications being developed are for medical workers and white-collar users, it is not difficult to see why wearables also offer great potential for the same-day delivery industries. They provide a significant opportunity for achieving service improvements through more seamless interaction with customers. Added to this, proof of delivery is more secure and evidence to refute claims of lost or damaged consignments can be captured automatically, potentially without the customer even realising it.  Customer service benefits aside, wearables also support hands-free working, which means productivity and efficiency levels can be further improved on existing rates achieved from using ‘traditional’ mobile devices.

But while the benefits of enterprise wearables are well documented, privacy and security remain the chief apprehensions among consumers. In PWC’s survey, 82 percent of respondents said they feared "wearable technology would invade their privacy" and 86 percent said they thought wearables would make them more vulnerable to security breaches. Privacy and security are serious threats that IT departments need to control carefully if wearables are to make the impact analysts are predicting in the enterprise space.

Below are five key threats to be aware of when considering how wearables might impact a sameday delivery business:

Security:

Top of the list of risks is security, which is as much an issue for the service provider as it is for the end customer. This is because devices like Google Glass are able to record and transmit images of anything in the wearer’s field of vision. Implementing and enforcing a robust security and privacy policy will be essential for an organisation to protect itself adequately from threats and avoid the prospect of litigation. This should be relatively straightforward to implement for most forward thinking organisations and an extension of their existing social media and BYOD policies.

Data theft:

A big part of the attractiveness of wearable devices comes from the ability to process and exchange data in real-time. Herein lies the security risk, because if they are stolen or intercepted, personal data could be compromised. The US National Security Agency highlighted this potential problem at a recent conference. Using enterprise-grade encryption to both protect data from eavesdropping and verify the identity of any connected device would be good first steps to prevent wireless attacks. Features like an automatic wipe will also help and reduce the attractiveness of stolen devices.

One of the other issues with wearables is that it is relatively straightforward for someone to ‘password surf’, seeing a PIN or password on screen and then use the information to hack into the device once it is stolen. It’s not a new problem but one that needs to be overcome if companies want to protect their workers’ digital identities and not risk security breaches due to stolen customer information. Biometric passwords could provide the answer to protecting a user’s identity, by ensuring a device is rendered useless if stolen.

Wearable device management:

Mobile device management is already an essential part of managing the technology used by a mobile workforce and the same will be true of wearables. These will add an additional layer of complexity to what is already a very complicated aspect of IT security management. Already many MDM software vendors are re-naming their applications Enterprise Mobility Management to signify their ability to cope with the greater complexity. Clear policies need to be established and enforced to define expectations around what employees can and can't do using wearable devices, balancing the need for flexibility with confidentiality and privacy requirements.

The viability of BYOD

Including wearables into a BYOD policy adds a whole new dimension to the level of device management required

extending a BYOD policy to include these devices is actually commercially viable.  From experience, managing the complexity created by having a multitude of different devices in use within an organisation will be a serious future challenge and one the IT department needs to prepare for to manage the potential resourcing implications and inevitable disruption created. Including wearables into a BYOD policy adds a whole new dimension to the level of device management required and presents a huge step change away from having a standard, company issue wearable in circulation and involves developing an understanding of, for example, support requirements for each device, plus an awareness of the individual operating platforms.

 

Employee privacy

Since wearables are able to continuously monitor employee behaviours and track their activity levels and whereabouts at all times, this creates an obvious employee privacy issue. Clearly, there are pros and cons to this issue. On the one hand, being able to monitor productivity levels is useful for KPI management and not too far removed from what companies are already using - for example; tracking on mobiles to monitor delivery drop speeds of individual drivers. Employees are accustomed to this practice and the data is only ever used internally.

More contentious is the ability to collect data, which other organisations can use. For instance, health insurance providers trying to understand how healthy an employee’s behaviour is when setting the cost of monthly premiums. In the case of the sameday delivery market, monitoring at this level could be regarded as an invasion of privacy as it’s not relevant in the context of the industry.

The best way forward:

Given current adoption rates, wearables will inevitably make a big impact on the way delivery companies work. Experts are already giving their arrival a new moniker and coining the issue ‘BYOD 2.0’. Even more so than with the original BYOD, it will be essential to have clear usage policies in place and an excellent understanding of responsibilities and expectations at both the employee and customer level.

Provided this is in place and appropriate restrictions relating to security, privacy and the types of devices that can be supported are implemented, there is no reason why delivery service providers cannot benefit from the improved productivity and efficiency that wearables can bring into a business. Our advice is to proceed with caution.

President and CEO of the Blumberg Group, Michael Blumberg, takes a detailed look at the tablet repair market... 

Adoption of tablet computers among consumer and enterprise customers is growing at an incredible rate across the globe. Though the concept of tablet computing was introduced unsuccessfully in the early 2000s with the Microsoft Tablet Computer, the launch of the original iPad in 2010 ushered in the boom era in which we’re currently living. Computer industry giants and young upstarts alike design and sell tablets in an ever-increasing variety of shapes and sizes, with features ranging from basic touchscreen functionality to complex integrated networks of sensors and input/output options, and at a wide variety of prices.

As the rate of tablet adoption and usage climbs, so too does the need for testing, screening and repair of these devices. Current implementations of in- and out warranty service models suffer from myriad reverse logistics inefficiencies that result in increased costs associated with processing returns and getting back into the market. The issues involved range from front-line customer support challenges, to costly testing, screening processes to the geographic distribution of quality repair facilities.

In a new market research study of OEMs, Retailers and Wireless Carriers in the tablet repair market; respondents highlighted key factors in selecting a tablet repair vendor. In this feature we discuss how the booming tablet market makes choosing a 3rd Party Reverse Logistics vendor critical to increasing associated forward and reverse logistics velocities and cost efficiencies, which ultimately affect the bottom line.

We emphasise the market and benefit of “optimised” screening and cleaning for retailers and wireless carriers (with generous customer returns policies), as well as the manner by which functional testing can augment the speed and quality of the return, repair, and/or replacement, of tablets. Additionally, we describe the characteristics of the ideal tablet 3rd Party Service Provider (3PSP) and the business benefits with this approach. Finally, we take a look at the multi-tablet testing system, global facilities and IT infrastructure of one particular vendor, CTDI, illustrates some of these concepts. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

The tablet computer market

The Tablet Computer market is young, already large, and very much still growing. Even in North America, which leads the world in early adoption of tablets, the market is far from saturated. Tablet computer shipments in North America will have nearly doubled between 2012 and 2014, to almost 120 million units shipped this year. North American Tablet Installed Base is on a similar trajectory, doubling from 104 million in ’12 to a projected 220 million this year. Continued rapid growth is projected over the next several years, as well, with the installed base projected to double again to more than 320 million units in 2017.

We can trace this exponential growth to a number of trends in the consumer and enterprise spaces, including the continued evolution of both technology and usage habits away from desktop machines and towards mobile devices. As tablets become cheaper, better and faster, users are replacing ageing PCs with sleek new slates. This trend is now commonly referred to as the dawning of the “Post-PC era.” New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

As this so-called Post-PC era evolves, manufacturers are experimenting with varied tablet computer sizes, feature sets and price points. Major software vendors focus more on developing tablet-specific platforms and applications, as well resulting in the development and deployment of Tablet Computers in vertical market applications like Point of Sale, Supply Chain, and Healthcare. With more hardware and software applications to fit more and more use cases, tablet adoption has moved from leading edge early adopters to mainstream consumers. And the early adopters are upgrading to newer models. Refresh cycles for both hardware and software are being established and, as such, the distribution between new vs replacement tablet shipments is a key data point to understanding the overall market. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

Current support models

Organisations involved in the tablet support market are first and foremost affected by the high return rate currently associated with retail sales. Generous return policies often allow buyers 15-30 days to return a tablet even after opening the box and using the device. As such, buyers’ remorse has become a significant cause of return. Often times tablets returned due to buyers’ remorse exhibit little or no defects - however small - but become liabilities due to insufficient reverse logistics supply chains. This is because these units still need to be processed so that the seller (i.e., retailer, carrier, OEM) recovers maximum value.

Another problem with the current tablet support market is a lack of front-end screening and diagnostics to resolve end-users technical issues and challenges with the devices. Sufficient telephone-based or remote screening of tablet problems would greatly reduce the number of units returned through the reverse logistics supply chain, often as easily as walking the end-user through some simple knowledge-acquisition to “fix” their device problems. Similarly, not enough troubleshooting occurs post-return, before the units are shipped back to the manufacturers or their authorised repair providers. Roughly, consumers return 5% to 10% of all new tablets sold in North America, with retailers usually sending those units directly back to the manufacturers without screening or diagnosing the units themselves.

Of these returns, some 30 to 40% are classified No Fault Found (NFF), and another 40% are Cosmetic Repair. The remaining 20% or so suffer from cracked screen and broken board issues that require more costly repairs. However, the repair yield on defective units is typically in the range of 50% to 60%.

For some OEMs, this cost is too great, and results in selling the defective components for scrap value. In other words, more than three-quarters of returned tablets are either fully functional or in need of only minor, topical fixes before being repackaged and placed back in finished goods inventory. But almost all of these units are immediately sent back to a 3PSP where they are screened, tested, cleaned, refurbished, repackaged and then resold. Even when it comes to devices covered under warranty, consumers send their defective devices through the same reverse logistics supply chain in exchange for a new, replacement device. These activities, especially those related to testing & screening, have inherent challenges. For the most part, they are largely an inefficient, in terms of both cost and time as they are often extremely labor intensive and may not take advantage of advanced technology for automating the process.

Furthermore, the time spent transporting tablets to and from centralised return and facilities adds to the overall inefficiencies when processing returned units.

The optimal solutions is to move towards a regionalised reverse logistics model with several facilities located strategically throughout a region (e.g., North America, Europe, etc.) for screen, clean, and repair. This offers the shortest time between out-of-service tablets and those either returned and in use again; remarketed as is; utilised for maintenance replacement; sold as a refurbished unit or for reclamation, etc. Very few vendors operate multiple facilities across the world, let alone high volume regions like North America. As such, the screening and repair process suffers from reverse logistics inefficiencies based largely on too many devices having to travel too far for problems that could be solved locally.

New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

Volume of tablet returns is expected to rise over the next several years. In turn, the volume of devices needing test, screen, and repair activities will also increase. For 2013, tablet returns in North America were estimated between 7.6-14.3 million units. By 2015 the volume of returns could rise as high as 20 million units. Those numbers will continue to increase in the near-term following 2015. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

Alternative solutions pros & cons

Clearly the tablet repair market operates inefficiently. As things stand now, everyone loses: retailers, manufacturers, service providers and consumers alike. A variety of alternative solutions to the current methodology offer benefits, but these are not without their downsides as well.

Improved front-end diagnostics is the first line of defence that could aid efficiencies. Diagnosing the problem with a tablet before its returned by the consumer - and subsequently returned to the manufacturer by the retailer - would significantly reduce the number of devices needlessly returned, tested, and repaired. The problem here lies with both retailers’ and consumers’ attitudes towards adding a layer of remote support. Many retailers currently offer a “No Questions Asked” return period of 15-30 days on tablet computers. Consumers like this policy because it gives them the chance to try a new device in their real life workflow with the safety net of getting their money back should buyers’ remorse set in. Retailers, of course, are reluctant to do anything that might drive their customers away to a competitor.

This undoubtedly includes revoking existing policies. Moreover, adding a layer of remote diagnostic support will introduce an additional cost to retailers’ tablet sales operations. Even when it comes to in-warranty repairs, manufacturers are more likely to issue an advanced exchange unit then attempt to diagnose the problem remotely. The defective unit is then sent back through the reverse logistics supply chain and added to the costs and liability associated with warranty support.

As suggested earlier, a second way to improve reverse logistics efficiencies is to move the return & repair facilities closer to the customer/retailer through a regional service model. Many 3PSPs currently offer only one, centralised US-based repair facilities. This practice directly contributes to inefficiencies in the reverse logistics supply chain - i.e. Increase time and fuel costs associated with shipping tablets great distances for testing and screening work, and then possibly on to other facilities for refurbishment and liquidation. Performing critical reverse logistic functions in strategically located facilities throughout the United States would cut transit time, resulting in increased velocity associated with turning distressed inventory from a liability into an asset. Of course, the downside associated with this solution is cost. Opening additional facilities on American soil, if ones do not exist already, is costly, both on its own and as compared to running offshore operations.

More effective device testing and screening prior to repair is a potentially viable alternative solution. Various methods of testing exist and, again, each carries with it pros and cons: New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

MANUAL TESTING:

Inexpensive and fast to implement but subject to human error and costly in the long run.

DIAGNOSTICS TESTING:

Automated but reliant on device/API/OS-specific software wrappers. New tests may need to be created with new releases of a device, an API or OS.

BOARD LEVEL TESTING:

Testing the devices in developer or engineering boot mode. This process can be automated. The problem is that it does not address the problems with the device from an end-user perspective and, as such, real-world functionality problems may be missed.

OPEN UNIT TESTING:

The device’s screen and cover need to be removed in order to test the board on a bed of nails. This breaks the integrity of the tablet’s seal and adds time to the process, resulting in increased cost.

EMBEDDED DIAGNOSTIC TEST:

This type of testing can query the hardware, but not stress its functionality.

AUTOMATED TEST EQUIPMENT (ATE) OR “BED OF NAILS” TESTING:

This type of testing, leveraging the investments the OEM or their contract manufacturers make in end-of-line manufacturing testing, is costly, difficult to duplicate and locate regionally, and may require considerable labor in terms of the finished product and the multiple stages of testing implemented. It is also generally slower, due to it being an end-of-line test, and geared for manufacturing facilities, not repair facilities. Furthermore, Bed of Nails tests the connectivity between components as opposed to their functionality.

As evidenced, current test methods for tablets possess significant shortcomings, though testing on the whole unit does offer efficiency improvement over the “just send it back” handling of returned tablets. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

LIQUIDATION IS ANOTHER OPTION.

Liquidating returned tablets for their asset recovery value may seem like the most expedient approach for extracting value out of returned devices. However, it is a money-losing proposition in the long run given the high rate of NFF and cosmetic repairs, combined with the increasing volumes in the industry. Furthermore, it does not address issues associated with defective or failed components. As such, the manufacturer and its 3PSPs loose valuable intelligence that can be utilized to improve the design and/or engineering of tablet devices. Though tablet liquidators persist, this approach in the current market will have limited benefits as volumes increase and consumers hold onto their devices for an extended length of time. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair.

Optimised test & screening solution

An optimised screening system can maximise efficiencies while avoiding many of the shortcomings exhibited by the aforementioned testing methods. Screening systems able to test 10 or more tablets at a time can offer increase speed and reduce costs associated with testing. Consistency of process and results will also rise thanks to the use of automated and semi-automated testing systems. Thus, “Screen and Clean” promotes the cost effective recovery of good units with minor cosmetic refurbishment to be processed for resale. Additionally, they can be used as maintenance replacements, or for the dispositioning of products into other markets at the best return for the retailer.

Leading-edge screening technology includes application diagnostics and embedded diagnostics that can be loaded onto devices. Tests can be run on devices in user mode as opposed to “developer” or “engineering” mode to ensure that everything works as it should from the end-user’s perspective. Functional testing of device circuits may take the form of “parametric” testing, which leads to an even greater level of reliability and quality of results.

 

A regionalised approach to testing, screening, and cleaning the units can also speed up the reverse logistics flow. Performing these functions in strategically located facilities in high volume areas within miles of major metropolitan areas will improve efficiencies as described in Section 4 above. Authorising these facilities to handle key activities like repair, refurbishment, and liquidation will reduce costs for retailers while improving asset recovery values and the speed at which tablets are returned back into consumers’ hands. This increased efficiency has the added value of making retailers’ extended warranty plans more economically viable. Furthermore, the regional model described here will also fulfil OEM's requirement to minimise costs and deliver superior customer services as measured by repair turn-around time. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

Vendor Selection Criteria

We surveyed a cross-section of OEMs, Retailers and Wireless Carriers regarding their needs and attitudes towards the tablet repair market. The majority of respondents surveyed indicated that their customers are required to mail in defective units to an Authorised 3rd Party Service Provider (3PSP). Many of these 3SPSs are managed by OEMs and/or their subsidiaries, speaking to the OEM lock on the still-nascent tablet repair industry.

Survey respondents spoke to a number of criteria important in choosing and sticking with a vendor. The most important factors in choosing a vendor, ranked in order of priority, are:

• QUALITY OF REPAIRS
• COMMITMENT TO QUALITY METRICS
• ABILITY TO MEET TURNAROUND TIME (TAT)
• REQUIREMENTS (2-5 DAYS)
• WILLING TO INVEST IN TRAINING
• QUALITY & THOROUGHNESS OF REPORTS
• QUALITY OF IT INFRASTRUCTURE

Clearly repair quality is paramount in vendor selection. Qualified vendors must be able to meet OEM specifications and otherwise offer consistently high quality test and repair services. Long-standing, standardised processes across a vendor’s network demonstrate commitment to quality metrics.

With turnaround time being ranked second in priority, demonstrated high-velocity forward and reverse logistics is also a key criterion in choosing a vendor. Vendors who operate multiple facilities in high-volume regions and those who offer innovative time-saving services, such as in-field warranty services, excel at meeting and surpassing TAT requirements at scale. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair 13

Also indicated are the quality of reports and IT infrastructure. Tablets have become highly complex pieces of equipment, and a vendor’s diagnostic system must be able to test many components, sensors and functions (e.g. Microphone and speaker, Cellular and WiFi connectivity, Accelerometer / Gyroscope / Magnetometer, and so on). The vendor must also offer a thorough and reliable methodology for reporting results in both high-level “Pass/Fail” and granular detail. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

Vendor spotlight – CTDI

One vendor whom we’ve worked with, and regard as a highly capable and qualified service provider, is CTDI. This company excels in all areas of tablet diagnosis and repair, including the specific factors identified as critical by our survey respondents. CTDI brings 39 years of technical expertise, innovation in service models, and global testing and repair capabilities to the market. They have the ability to test more than 75,000 unique model types and offer the most comprehensive repair service portfolio in the world.

CTDI’s NightHawk Test System, an advanced multi-unit tablet tester is a prime example of the company’s commitment to technological innovation in a rapidly evolving sector. NightHawk can test 10 tablets simultaneously, leveraging innovations like front-loading tablet trays that greatly increase test capacity and daily productivity. With NightHawk, CTDI has the flexibility to keep pace with the latest tablet models, operating systems and APIs while also leveraging extreme efficiencies that keep reverse logistics velocities high. NightHawk performs fully functional testing of tablets utilising CTDI designed and developed Apps tailored to access and utilise the Tablet API’s.

The purpose of these applications is to simulate the end-users tablet experience and will test the following tablet functionality:

• Connectivity
• Multimedia
• Battery
• Touchscreen, Buttons, LEDs
• Sensors
• System Information

CTDI’s ability to offer fast, high quality screening and diagnosis of multiple brands and models of tablet devices couples with their OEM authorized repair and excess asset management services to provide a comprehensive portfolio of service offerings. CTDI employs over 350 engineers to develop testing for a variety of OEM technologies, ensuring ongoing innovation to keep pace with this fast-moving market.

CTDI has a network of 69 facilities operating in 15 countries, with 48 facilities in the US alone. This mature, global network allows CTDI to offer high velocity reverse logistics by cutting down on transit time to and from their facilities. The quality of CTDI’s infrastructure is outstanding, and efficiencies are further increased by way of CTDI’s innovative, scalable Web-based testing technology. The company’s proprietary Warehouse Management System (WMS) and eBusiness tools also allow customers to enter and track orders online 24/7. In summary, CTDIs’ state of the art technology, world class processes, and global presence allow for high speed, high quality in region repairs which supports customers’ demands New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair for immediate or very short interval repair or replacement as well as meets the OEMs’ requirements to minimise costs. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

Summary:

The rapid growth of the tablet computer industry has created a demand for a highly efficient approach to diagnosing and repairing returned units. Our research findings show that a majority of tablet computer suppliers (e.g., OEMs, Retailers, and Carriers) waste time and money due to multiple issues in the current flow of reverse logistics. Specifically, too many devices are needlessly returned to the manufacturers’ 3PSP where time and effort is spent on testing the devices instead of screening via phone or at the retailer, and too many devices have to travel too far a distance for quality diagnosis and repair.

Market research surveys confirm that the tablet market will continue to expand by virtually all measures, including units shipped and install base. A byproduct of this growth will be the continued, increased need for in- and out of warranty repair. Our survey of decision makers across the OEM, Retail and Wireless Carrier segment confirmed the need for quality screen and repair service vendors, and also identified the key criteria involved in selecting and renewing relationships with vendors. Factors ranking high on the list of criteria included quality of repairs, ability to meet turnaround time, willingness to invest in R&D and training, and quality of reports and IT infrastructure. The primary methods discussed to alleviate such inefficiencies are: improved front-end diagnostics, moving the return & repair facilities closer to the customer/retailer through a regional service model, and, perhaps most importantly, optimised test and screening that forgoes the costs and slow speeds associated with standard testing.

As analysed in the vendor spotlight, CTDI is one vendor who meets all of these criteria with their automated multi-unit test systems and deep roster of highly trained technicians and innovative engineering talent. CTDI is also uniquely positioned to leverage their global network of repair facilities, technical competencies, and logistics support services to increase reverse logistics velocities, add value, and drive costs down. Given the huge potential for cost savings, risk protection, and revenue gains, companies should seriously consider building a business case and ROI justification for investment in solution such as the one offered by CTDI. New Developments in Tablet Computer Repair

 

Steam technology at Norfolk’s Bure Valley Railway has received a 21st century upgrade thanks to a Panasonic communication system. 

Eastern Voice & Data, a Panasonic Focus Dealer, has installed a new communication system that has helped the tourist attraction provide better customer service, increase on site efficiency and cut costs.

The previous fixed position phone system restricted communication between staff on the platform and in the ticket office and Bure Valley Railway (BVR) wanted a solution that would increase mobility, so more time could be spent attending to their customers.

All staff can now be reached via ruggedised mobile handsets or desk handsets allowing staff to be quickly located along the route from Aylsham to Wroxham. The phone system has also been integrated with the Public Address, allowing the train guard to announce arrival and departure information using the handset. 

Andrew Barnes, Managing Director at BVR, said, “We welcome up to 1500 passengers a day, so good internal communication is essential. The new system has drastically improved communication between the platform and the ticket office - helping us improve the speed and accuracy at which we can evaluate customer demand and react to it.” 

The move to SIP has enabled BVR to dispense with telephone lines that were no longer required, ultimately giving a more cost-effective solution.

“Customer service is vital in the tourist industry and from the first conversation with BVR, we recognised that this was a driver for a new communication system.” said Russell Marriott, Managing Director of Eastern Voice & Data. 

“Previously there was limited communication with staff on trackside. What we’ve managed to do is provide them with full communication for all staff on trackside which means they can provide a better service to their customers.” Marriott continued.

Using IP technology has enabled the station 9 miles (15 Km) away to be connected to the main site system using a VPN extension, making communication with the signal box easier, and demonstrating how IP technology can be employed to connect telephones installed anywhere.

 

The great BYOD debate is one that has been raging in field service for some time and it shows no sign of abating. Here Paul Adams of Solarvista takes a look at both sides of the discussion... 

The BYOD (“Bring Your Own Device”) debate is one that has received much coverage in recent months with some in the service sector as well as other industries arguing that BYOD is the only way forward for businesses looking to compete effectively and offer the most efficient customer service and increased employee satisfaction. But what is BYOD? What is the impact on the business, the workers, and the customers?

A complete move to BYOD is not going to be right for every business in every service sector, but a lot of businesses may already be partaking in some kind of BYOD scheme without even realising. For example, if employees have access to company emails on their personal mobile phone or tablet or another device then this is, in effect, BYOD. In fact research has found that globally 60% of full-time employees use BYOD to some extent. (Gabriel, 2013)

So what actually is BYOD?

Simply, “Bring Your Own Device” refers to employees having the ability to connect their own technical devices such as smart phones, laptops and tablets to the company’s network instead of using a device owned by the company. Recent years have seen an influx of workers bringing their own personal devices into their work environment and using them in their everyday jobs (Millard, 2011). In fact, 95% of employees have used their own device in work (Gens et al, 2013) and the majority already use their own personal device for a variety of work-related tasks, including communication, content creation and admin (Ellis et al, 2012).

What are the advantages and disadvantages?

There are a number of advantages to BYOD for both the user of the device and the company employing that user. However, the other side of the debate – the potential pitfalls that a company may face because of BYOD – tend to be less obvious. Below are some examples, but not an exhaustive list, both from the user and business perspective.

Advantages

• Personal choice
• Better work life balance
• Improved productivity
• No cost for equipment
• Decreased support and training costs

Disadvantages

• Financial responsibility
• “Always available”
• Loss, theft or damage
• Information and network security
• Increased support costs

[quote]58% of IT security and audit experts view employee-owned devices as a security risk to the enterprise.

 

Conclusion

BYOD represents the tipping point from corporate-led IT to consumer-driven IT; corporate IT now significantly lags behind the consumer market (Millard, 2011) and this has had a dramatic effect on the desire of employees to use their own devices at work. It is a trend that is set to continue throughout 2014 and beyond.

Over the last couple of years, these devices have become integrated into everyday life for most people as result of the ‘always on’ nature of social media and the 24/7 online world. With the lightning speed at which technology is progressing it is maybe neither cost-effective nor practical for businesses to update their employees’ technological devices as often as both the company and the employee might wish. Therefore, BYOD has become the natural solution to this problem.

However, there are a number of key considerations when implementing any kind of BYOD scheme in the workplace. Most notably these are around security; of your company’s data and networks, of access to your systems and around confidentiality. The use of industrial-strength security approaches, such as Microsoft’s Azure Active Directory, is important to deliver this with confidence.

[quote]One size increasingly doesn’t fit all in terms of tools and technologies for work. The challenge is for the IT department to ensure their business is secure.

 

Also, there are a number of functionality and cost implications worth noting. If you need particular functionality from your devices that is only available on expensive corporate hardware, then BYOD may not even be applicable at the moment. Here at Solarvista, our new line of cross-device mobile apps offers a good feature set but it will be mid-2015 before the sheer volume of functionality is available on all platforms. There are big challenges ahead in ensuring the business remains secure whilst also adopting working methods that are becoming ever more prevalent and popular. It is important to know that BYOD, according to the experts, isn’t going anywhere. Therefore there should be no rush to implement it without giving proper consideration to all the ways it will affect your business, your employees and ultimately your customers.

As we continue our series on end-to-end field service we're pleased to bring you an excellent interview with Field Aware's Shirlene Spillers that first appeared on findaccountingsoftware.com

The link between a mobile workforce empowered by digital technology and delivering service excellence has become well and truly proven over the last few years, there still remain a great number of variables when it comes to ensuring that the choice of mobile device is the right one for your company.

Lets face facts, there are plenty of questions to grapple with before we make the right choice of mobile device that will benefit your mobile workforce most effectively.

Should we be looking at tablets, laptops or smartphones?  What OS to select? Rugged devices or consumer grade devices? Should we consider BYOD? Should we deploy mobile web or mobile apps?

The team at findaccountingsoftware.com recently took the opportunity to put some of these questions to Shirlene Spillers, Vice President of Product Management with software provider Field Aware.

Given Spillers position developing software for the field service industry she is able to provide great insight into what the hardware will work best for companies looking to bring their mobile workforce into the digital revolution, whether they are upgrading legacy systems or taking their first steps away from out-dated manual processes.

We’re pleased to be able to share this interview with you courtesy of findaccountingsoftware.com

What’s the best way to go: smartphones, tablets, or laptops?

We recommend that companies purchase smartphones when:

• Technicians use the smartphone as a true phone most of the time
• Send a limited number of email messages
• Are not required to enter large amounts of data (point and click applications)
• Require access to web-based information intermittently
• Do not use downloaded video for training and troubleshooting
• Require limited amounts of data downloaded from the company and/or suppliers/unordered_list]

We recommend tablets when technicians:

• Make very few voice calls
• Send multiple email messages every day
• Enter significant amounts of data (where a larger keyboard would save time)
• Use the web to acquire and download company and/or supplier data
• Use video for training, troubleshooting and communication (ex: Apple’s FaceTime video)[/unordered_list]

Laptops are only necessary when technicians often have limited or no access to a network and require access to data intensive office applications (i.e. Microsoft Word, Excel, Adobe products, etc.) Use of laptops is rapidly declining.

Do you recommend Android, iOS, or Windows operating system devices?

We recommend Android or iOS simply because they are the most prevalent operating systems – and therefore most familiar to the majority of field workers (reduced training requirements).

For organizations thinking about a bring-your-own-device approach (BYOD), what are the most important considerations?

Employees often want to use their personal devices at work-–and for work-–as well. This provides both possible benefits and real dangers as well. It’s important that enterprises understand the challenges that BYOD creates and the policies and systems that should be in place before field technician-owned devices are incorporated into an organization’s technical ecosystem.

We actually wrote a white paper on the subject but, generally, companies need to look at four major areas of consideration: security, regulatory compliance, device support and end user support. Once the decision is made to allow personal devices to be used for company work, BYOD policies have to be developed and it usually makes sense to bring in some kind of mobile device management system (depending on the size of the company).

When are “ruggedised” devices worth the extra investment?

Most of our customers use ruggedised tablets only when they work in hazardous chemical or gas environments that require Class 1 Division 2 devices. We’ve found that in other environments, standard tablets and smartphones with protective cases are just as effective and durable.

Do you suggest GPS hardware? What other hardware should service companies consider?

We do not recommend GPS hardware for vehicles. Tablet and smartphone apps (like Google Maps) are just as, if not more efficient, in proving navigation information and can easily be mounted (just like the GPS hardware) in the vehicle. Our suggestion is that the company chooses one device (smartphone or tablet) that serves multiple functions at a lower overall cost.

In terms of other hardware, there are some really simple things like batteries, USB vehicle chargers, stylii, cases that are highly protective and can “stand up” for easy data entry. Since our app supports signature capture on the device, we don’t feel signature pads are necessary.

Can you weigh in on the mobile web versus native mobile app usage debate?

We believe in native mobile apps for a couple of very simple reasons:

•  Better performance. They take advantage of the native capabilities of the operating system – making it easy to integrate capabilities like photo/video capture and voice recognition.
• Ability to work offline (can be done with HTML5 caching, but not as elegantly)
• User interfaces that are more user-friendly and engaging[/unordered_list]

Want to know more about end-to-end field service management. Field Service News Editor, Kris Oldland will be taking part in a panel debate on this subject live at Field Service Europe. Click here for more information

Cyber-security has returned to national front pages again this last year. Heartbleed & CyberVor have become common terms whilst high profile breaches of the likes of major digital retailers Ebay and Apple have raised very big questions around security in the digital age.

What does this mean for field service companies who not only hold vast amounts of customer data, making them prime targets for hackers, but are also moving their mobile workforces swiftly to a digital environment where they can reap the rewards of better productivity.

As news broke of the World’s largest ever data theft conducted by the Russian cyber crime group dubbed CyberVor we once again turned our attention to the question are our companies safe from cybercrime?

All businesses with a digital presence waited with baited breath to learn if their users were affected by this reported attack. In some quarters people denied that an attack of this magnitude was even possible and questioned the validity of the claims, others saw it as a defining moment demarcating the size of risk we all face today.

“It’s a nasty reminder of the cyber risk threat which organisations face in 2014 and the need for boards to be prepared for attacks such as this.” Commented James Mullock, Partner at law firm Osborne Clarke.

Daniel Hedley, solicitor and technology specialist at Thomas Eggar LLP agrees adding “From a business perspective, the key issue here is simply this:  Who has your data?  How much do you trust them to keep it safe?  Businesses can face significant legal and reputational risks when they lose data, both under data protection legislation and under contractual confidentiality obligations such as NDAs.  It’s therefore very important for businesses to know where their data is.”

Of course perhaps the highest profile security breach in recent months is the failure of Apple’s iCloud, which even left a dark shadow over the launch of the latest iPhone.

Robert Rutherford, CEO of IT consultancy QuoStar commented: “The theft of personal photos from celebrity accounts has focussed the spotlight on the company’s approach to security, and has raised concerns”

“The problem is that whilst dispensing token security improvements with one hand, Apple has denied any responsibility for the breach with the other. The resulting image is one of a company that deliberately avoids transparency around its security practices and glosses over its mistakes.” Rutherford continued.

But whilst leaked photographs of naked celebrities doesn’t install confidence, Apple’s iCloud is a consumer based storage so how does this impact the business community?

As Hedley explains "While it is true that businesses will not generally choose a consumer-focused cloud service such as iCloud, in this age of staff using their own devices for both work and personal use, it is very easy for confidential business data to end up being uploaded to these services, without the IT department or senior management finding out about it until it’s too late.  iCloud in particular can be problematic in this area because Apple’s devices will often back up everything on the device to iCloud by default.

 

“From a hacker's point of view a failure of iCloud brings richer pickings. There would be a lot of work involved in hacking into many individual machines whereas a security hole in iCloud would mean that millions of pieces of information would become available at once.” Professor Mike Jackson from Birmingham City University stated.

“Whenever you place information on a computer, that information becomes less secure. If you connect a computer to the Internet then the security risk grows. If you store information on a cloud service then you rely completely on security measures of the service provider. Once on the cloud it it¹s these security measures which make the difference between privacy and the whole world being able to access your documents and pictures.”

Unregulated BYOD is an issue being faced by IT professionals the world over. As Matt Newing CEO of unified communications provider, Elite states “IT teams worry about losing control of IT, as employees all over the business connect personal devices to the company network, download software and applications and turn to cloud services”

Hedley added “Businesses can control these risks, while still maintaining many of the benefits of cloud storage services and BYOD, by deploying a combination of technical measures preventing unauthorised uploading of business data (using technologies such as MobileIron) and user education.”

Recent research from Samsung found that 47 per cent of UK companies had a work handset lost or stolen in the last 12 months. Almost a third (30 per cent) of CTOs were however unaware of the number. Alongside this, a global survey of CIOs by leading analyst Gartner found that as many of 38 per cent of companies plan to stop providing their workforce with devices at all by 2016.

“Laptops, mobiles and tablets can cost many hundreds of pounds per year for each employee, so BYOD has become very attractive. However, far from enjoying flexibility and lower costs, companies that rush into BYOD without a strong policy face considerable risks,” said Hardeep Singh Garewal, President – European Operations, ITC Infotech.

“For unprepared companies, a lost or stolen device represents a catastrophic security risk, with the potential cost to their business far outweighing the savings. There are many solutions available, but we see many companies failing to implement a clear policy on keeping track of work devices. This hinders them from acting quickly to prevent breaches,” adds Garewal.

However, the new movement towards Choose Your Own Device (CYOD) offers an alternative solution that addresses both security and personal data concerns. This approach ensures that full ownership of the device is retained by the company, removing uncertainty in safeguarding information on the device, yet still providing user freedom.

Garewal concludes: “While CYOD means the company must ultimately foot the bill for the device overhead and support, the level of control and assured visibility vastly simplifies issues around privacy and security. However, whether they use BYOD or CYOD, companies encouraging flexible working must ensure they are prepared to deal with imminent risks, or spend all of their time fire-fighting to avoid major crises.”

If we are to select the right mobile device we must look at both the environment and the application to make the intelligent decision argues Xplore Technologies Sandy McCaskie

All too often the deployment of rugged technology is borne of a quick analysis of the environment where the work will be carried out.  Working in a safe, plush office full of suits?  Use a consumer device.  Out in the field recovering a breakdown or on the tarmac at the airport?  Grab a rugged tablet such as Xplore Technology’s Bobcat.  But this thinking is dangerously flawed – a throwback to the mindset that technology exists separately from the business it serves.

The deployment of rugged technology such as tablet PCs is – if done correctly – almost regardless of the environment.  Instead, such a deployment should be based upon the level of the “business-critical” nature of the process performed and how vital the technology is to the completion of that process.

If you can honestly get by without a tablet or PC in a given process, a consumer unit is ideal, subject to issues such as the compatibility of the operating system.  When the unit breaks, the process simply slows down, but still carries on whilst a replacement is found. The relatively low cost of a single consumer unit, ubiquitous Wi-Fi and easily downloaded apps make this an attractive short-term option, though for the recovery market, the likelihood of damage means that these replacements will soon start to add a substantial cost.

 

Studies show that a consumer tablet used in the field is four times a likely to break as a rugged unit and the resulting loss of productivity can be hours.[/quote] At any sort of scale, or if the process is dependent on the technology but there are alternatives available, the semi-rugged or “robust” category may be a more cost-effective option. This is often the case in controlled environments outside of an office - home visits in the field would be a great example.  Why go to this extra expense?  Because studies show that a consumer tablet used in the field is four times a likely to break as a rugged unit and the resulting loss of productivity can be hours.

 

This consideration of “task first, location second” progresses through the levels of ruggedness based on if a given job/process can be completed without the tablet.  As an example, a recovery engineer in the field cannot complete a job without access to technical data, compliance forms or a proprietary workflow application – all of which require processing power of a PC.   This necessitates a tablet that works every time in any environment - hence a level of full ruggedisation.

However this approach can exist independently of the environment that demands a comprehensive set of IP, drop test and MIL ratings.  Yes, hardware must perform in the right environment but ruggedisation is simply a way to enable reliability and that concern of reliability is not the exclusive province of rugged environments.

A manager based in an office but with processes that are critical to the ongoing operation of the business, for example, communicating and sharing data with a small team of field engineers that are the only contact directly with customers, still needs to assess ruggedised options in order to guarantee that workflow.

Of course, usability beats reliability when it comes to technology.  Hence design that accounts for IP ratings and MIL testing must still also cover basic points such as weight, ease of input and the versatility that comes from connectivity options.

In many applications of real world tablet deployments, the challenges of some environments are enough to drive the desired technology toward a ruggedised tablet that can withstand far more than the person using it.

But an intelligent approach to ruggedisation must be grounded in the task at hand, in addition to the place it has to take place, even when that place could be anywhere.

 

Ahead of taking part in a live panel discussion on End to End field service management at this years Field Service Europe Conference, Field Service News Editor Kris Oldland, is writing a series of features around the topic…

In this the second feature in the series he looks at whether your company should be selecting consumer grade hardware, semi rugged or rugged for best value. You can also read the first feature in this series here

There is a lot of discussion around whether field service organisations should invest in consumer devices or specialist rugged devices with strong advocates with equally compelling arguments sitting on both sides of the fence. So lets look at some of the more commonly heard arguments shall we…

The Familiarity Argument

Pretty much ever since the iPhone first entered the market back in 2007 Smart Phones have become commonplace and are now reaching saturation point within almost all developed world geographies. Indeed with the news that Indian firm Karbonn has launched a perfectly acceptable smart phone for just £26, it would seem that the developing and third worlds will soon be following suit also.

 The result of such saturation is that almost each and everyone of us is now comfortable and at ease with such devices. This of course includes our mobile workers too. So when rolling out a new piece of hardware if you turn towards one of the big three mobile operating systems in the consumer realm (i.e. Apple’s IoS, Google’s Android or Microsofts Windows 8.1) the likelihood is that you will achieve high adoption rates quickly, as the devices act and respond in the same manner as the employees personal devices – whether they be tablet or smart phone.

 

However, such is the pace of the evolutionary arms race that is mobile computing, even the latest fully rugged devices are becoming sleek looking, lightweight devices which look light-years away from their bulky equivalents of just a few years ago. Take for example the latest device from Getac the T800, which whilst being a powerful device, is also  proven to be fully rugged up to military standards, and could quite easily be mistaken for a standard consumer tablet.

Similarly rugged devices are readily found in both Windows and Android flavours so familiarity with operating systems should also be swift thanks to the proliferation of smart phones. So whilst familiarity may claimed as one benefit of consumer devices the truth is this no longer really the case.

The prestige argument

A little earlier this year I interviewed Dave Hart, VP Global Customer Transformation at ServiceMax for one of our podcasts.  However, for most of the half an hour or so we were talking we focussed on his previous role as European Vice President of Pitney Bowes and he made a very interesting point around the franking giants decision to role out Apple iPad’s to their field service staff.

Hart made the decision to not only issue each of his mobile workforce with an iPad but to give them ownership of their device as well. The result was that his fieldworkers responded by taking greater responsibility and Pitney Bowes saw breakages fall to practically zero.

In his own words Hart explains:

“I went out with an engineer for the day and asked him ‘we really budgeted that we would break more of these things, why do you think they are not breaking?’ the engineer turn round to me and said ‘one of the things you guys did was to allow us to use this device personally as well as for business. If I went home and my iPad is broken my kids would kill me!’”

Given the fact that Pitney Bowes were braking 200 PDAs per anum prior to the shift and Hart defined the breakage rate as ‘absolutely negligible maybe one or two out of thousands’ since moving to iPads it would appear that by giving their mobile workers a desirable consumer device that they cherished and giving them ownership of those devices,  there is indeed a solid tangible benefit.

The TCO argument

Whilst for a company like Pitney Bowes, whose field service engineers are mostly working with in an office environment, iPad’s or similar consumer grade devices may well prove to be ideal, there are many other industry verticals where field engineers mobile devices are put through their paces in a far tougher environments. It is in such scenarios that the often-heard total cost of ownership (TCO) argument rings true.

 The simple premise of the TCO argument is that whilst purchasing a consumer grade device may be the cheaper option in the short term, longer term if we factor in the cost of replacement devices plus of course the downtime whilst waiting for replacement devices etc across a period of three to five years (the general accepted period that a devices will remain current) the cost of purchasing more reliable, rugged devices would have proven much lower.

 

One such proponent of this argument is Getac UK President Peter Molyneux who commented:

“If you’re working in what we term a critical working environment, i.e. if its cold its wet or you can drop the device then that is definitely a rugged space. The discussion really is just whether its what we call semi rugged or fully rugged.”

Molyneux also goes on to point out that as the cost of rugged devices falls, so the TCO argument holds even greater weight. Although he does also admits there is certainly a gap for consumer technology.

“The return on investment on a fully rugged notebook may have cost you £2500 to £3000 not that long ago…” he explains “… today products can be less than £1700 dependent on spec. But if you go forward consumer technology is yet to be proven in the field, there will be applications where it will be fine and applications where it’s not.”

Of course it is the “not’s” where Getac and other specialist rugged manufacturers see their market and where TCO truly comes into play.

Where better to start than with your own field service engineers?

Molyneux’s point about rugged or semi rugged also adds to the conundrum and further emphasises the importance of understanding the workflow of your field engineers, which we touched on in the first article in this series.

Whilst some organisations, like Pitney Bowes will be able to fully realise their needs with consumer grade devices, others such as utilities companies will see far greater benefit in a more rugged solution where despite a larger initial outlay the actual TCO is much lower across a three-year period.

Which is right for your organisation? As with any investment you must take a detailed look at all of the possibilities, where possible look at solutions other companies in your vertical have taken and try to find out the pain points they have felt as much as the successes they have had.

There is no one size fits all option when it comes to field service hardware, what’s right for one company may not be right for another. However, it certainly pays to know that there are a variety of options available to you from off the shelf consumer right through to military standard rugged.

The next step is finding out where on the spectrum your needs are. Almost certainly the best place to start is to take time out to see some of your field engineers in action.

 

Should you wish to attend the event, which is held in Amsterdam on the 20^th to the 22^nd October, then you can register for tickets by clicking this link

 

 

Whilst there were not that many surprises emanating from Cupertino with the latest Apple announcement (a 5inch iPhone had already be confirmed by leaks from a manufacturing base in China, whilst the fact that Apple have been working on a wearable is probably the worst kept secret in technology history) the fact is that when the folks at Apple launched the first iPhone it changed field service and enterprise mobility solutions forever. So what does this latest iteration mean for field service? Click Software's Gil Bouhnick takes a look...

So, what can the new iPhone and Apple Watch do for the field service?

The answer is: it depends. You probably don’t need the duo immediately, but the features are such that for workers out in the field, especially those that work for utilities, communications service providers, capital equipment, or even traveling healthcare workers, the benefits will be a boost for both employee and employer.

Here are a few advantages that may prove useful for field service organisations:

Size

From a competitive standpoint we had been seeing a fair number of organisations move to Android devices for 2 reasons: cost and size. The new iPhone (the 6 coming in at 4.7” and the 6 Plus at 5.5”) address the size issues, giving workers in sometimes difficult environments more room to type, more text to read, bigger images, troubleshooting guides and all sorts of size-related advantages.

Durability and Readability

The device includes a new polariser in the glass that offers better bright sunlight readability. And Apple touts the new iPhone as being stronger and more durable. While it’s no Toughbook, the device is certainly moving away from its fragile beginnings and is now more compatible with the realities of life in the field.

Predictive Text

Predictive typing with Apple’s QuickType keyboard (in iOS8) is said to be smarter, more personalised and intelligently take context into account, such as who the recipient is. Understanding the way people communicate and providing contextual guidance improves the speed of communications between workers and the office, workers and each other, and workers and customers.

I’ve been a long fan of iOs keyboard, and the way it quickly learns new words. If indeed this is going to be better as promised (so far my tests with iOS 8 beta is inconclusive) – it’s going to be by far the best keyboard out there.

Camera

While Apple spoke at length about selfies, mobile workers, especially in complex or low-light environments, will benefit from the new 8MP image sensors the iPhone 6 cameras feature what Apple is calling Focus Pixels, which more quickly focuses and snaps a shot. The iPhone 6 Plus offers optical image stabilisation to help reduce image blur in low light — iPhone 6 offers only digital image stabilisation.

Wi-Fi Calling

While reportedly only available with a limited number of carriers right now, we anticipate more will follow soon. And when they do, this will be helpful for workers who may or may not have access to cell coverage.

Apple Watch

I’m cautiously optimistic that the Apple Watch will significantly enhance the employee experience in the field.  With the ability to respond, via voice or quick touch, to messages or alerts, the watch has the ability to take wearables from a “nice to have” object to a real everyday tool in the enterprise.

With the predictive features, availability of maps, and turn by turn directions, it may become the powerhouse piece of hardware that let’s workers do most of their work with the watch, and only need to pull out the phone when they need to larger screen environment for lengthy typing or to access large amounts of information.

Field employees often need to react quickly and respond to emergencies, notify their customers about their ETA, and report back to the back-office. Those are typically short interactions, and the Apple Watch may become the go-to device for such actions. In order for that to happen, the apps running on the watch must offer solid capabilities beyond notifications. I think Apple is almost there.

The HealthKit, which was touted for fitness junkies, also has real and impactful benefits in the field. With biometric feedback, heart rate detection and a host of other features, it will go a long way to adding to health and safety measures of workers in dangerous or remote locations. We’ve seen organisations ask about such capabilities (especially about simple wearables) and using apple’s HealthKit API’s, apps are now capable of providing these capabilities in that area.