The Internet of Things (IoT): A consolidated market definition

A market segment, which contains the word 'things' is evidently going to become prone to a variety of interpretations and this is definitely the case with the Internet of Things (IoT.) Nevertheless, the market for IoT in healthcare has been forecasted to reach a very significant market size, for instance $117b by 2020 according to Mind Commerce. For such an influential trend, there is widespread confusion around what this term actually means and what it includes.

For this reason, this blog post will attempt to consolidate three basic definitions into one with an aim to encompass the majority of potential aspects of IoT. It's important to note that there are much deeper descriptions behind these but we're looking for the core sentence that summarize what the market actually is.

---
Horses for Sources (HfS)
HfS defines IoT as: 'The association of data to a physical device and the delivery of this data from that device to a centralized repository for further processing.'

This description focuses on the data and how it is managed and processed with the physical devices simply being the enabler of the market. With this in mind, vendors who have strong capabilities in data management are likely to score highly in HfS's estimations.
---
Gartner
Gartner defines IoT as: 'The network of physical objects that contain embedded technology to communicate and sense or interact with their internal states or the external environment.'

Gartner's definition focuses a lot more heavily on the devices and does not feature the word 'data' at all although it is definitely implied. Gartner also uses additional vocabulary in 'sense' and 'interact'. It's important to note that sensors, especially within the healthcare market are an integral part of IoT as they not only facilitate data transfer but in a lot of cases, they carry it out proactively.
---
IDC
IDC defines IoT as: 'a network of networks of uniquely identifiable endpoints (or "things") that communicate without human interaction using IP connectivity — whether locally or globally.'

Following on from the point I made above about sensors carrying out data transfer proactively, IDC's definition highlights that IoT does not require human interaction. This aspect will provoke one of two reactions: 1) 'Fantastic, without human interaction means streamlined processes and the ability to focus our efforts on end users', or 2) 'Hmm, I'm not sure I trust endpoints communicating without human interaction.' Whilst IoT has a multitude of benefits, concerns over security must be addressed.
---

Each of these definitions have their own merits and by no means are any of them wrong. At this point, I would like to propose an amalgamation of these definitions and include a nod to security, which I personally believe is critical to include for successful client interactions on an enterprise level. 

My definition would be: 'The secure communication of data which occurs between a network of endpoints and centralized repositories via IP connectivity for further processing.'

This blog post may seem trivial in nature but it is this lack of standard definition that is leading to a lack of standards. This lack of standards then naturally leads onto security concerns, which is the number one barrier to IoT adoption across all vertical industries.

What do you think? Do you agree with these definitions? Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel as it pertains to global standards for IoT? Please feel free to comment below and share on social media.

Best Regards,

Jonathan Cordwell
Research Analyst, Healthcare Strategy
ResearchNetwork, CSC

1. Aria Systems, Healthcare: A $117B opportunity for the Internet of Things, Healthcare: A $117B opportunity for the Internet of Things - See more at: https://www.ariasystems.com/blog/healthcare-a-117b-opportunity-for-the-internet-of-things/#sthash.YR2SaIEg.dpuf
2. Horses for Sources, Harman, Tech Mahindra, IBM, Accenture and Atos leading the Internet of Things phenomenon, 3rd Oct, 2015, http://www.horsesforsources.com/hfs-iot-blueprint_100315
3. Gartner, Internet of Things, http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/internet-of-things/
4. IDC, IDC Market in a Minute: Internet of Things, http://www.idc.com/downloads/idc_market_in_a_minute_iot_infographic.pdf

Is "sharing" really "caring"?

The Telegraph recently published an article based on the announcement that high street pharmacies will be given access to NHS medical records in a move that has provoked privacy campaigners. There are arguments both for and against this move, which I have listed below:

Con

• The process: A large part of the argument against this move is the way in which national policy has been implemented. The test sample on which this policy was based came from just 15 patients. This is very difficult to justify and unfortunately adds to the already significant level mistrust in policy makers.
• The hard sell: There is concern that giving access to sensitive data to large commercial high street pharmacies will lead to the targeting of vulnerable patients with hard sell tactics. Despite the likes of Tesco stating that they would never use this data to market to customers, campaigners are not convinced.
• Confusion over guidelines: The results of the small sample found that pharmacy staff were confused about getting consent from patients before accessing sensitive data. This issue needs to be addressed to avoid data breaches and misuse due to human error or lack of training.
• Data security: Another concern from patients is that loyalty cards may be linked to personal medical records. The number of healthcare data breaches in the past leads to concerns that as medical data would now be bundled with other personal data held by the retailer, the combined value of this data would become more attractive to hackers.
• Confidentiality: One of the most fundamental arguments against this move is that there still remains a large portion of the population who simply do not want to share their data. The NHS has tried to calm these concerns with the insistence that pharmacy staff gain permission before viewing this data but undoubtedly a lot will still be unhappy that they have access to it in the first place.

Pro

• A necessary step: The ultimate goal is for a fully integrated healthcare ecosystem whereby insurers, providers, pharmaceutical companies and indeed the patients work together to improve the health of individuals and the nation. There are a lot of benefits that come from sharing, accessing and utilizing data (especially in mass) but with data kept in silos, this is simply not possible.
• Results of the sample: Although the sample used was incredibly small, the results “proved extremely beneficial”. These benefits have come from individual sites and so if used on a national level (a la population health), economies of scale would be achieved as well as leveraging analytical capabilities to improve healthcare delivery.
• Personalized service: Enabling access to medical data will promote a personal and customized service for the individual patient. A personalized service which aims to improve the health of the population will ultimately also lead to cost savings for the healthcare ecosystem. The bargaining power (although often criticized) of large retailers such as Tesco could also lead to lower pharmaceutical costs.
• Less pressure on family doctors: NHS England claim that sharing medical data with high street pharmacies will ease pressure on family doctors. Doctors will benefit from better processes as well as having a clear view of what pharmaceutical products have been purchased. It's also important to consider that the flow of data should not be one way and can benefit providers as well as pharmacies.
• Reduction in improper medication: A comment on the article also pointed out that some patients may struggle to remember the types of medication they are taking as well as the dosages. With high street pharmacies able to access your file (with your consent), this will reduce the number of instances of patients purchasing and taking the wrong medication or under/overdosing.

Regardless of the criticisms of this rollout, with the right regulations, safeguards and guidelines in place, many commentators believe the personal and social benefits will be become apparent very quickly.

Best Regards,

Jonathan Cordwell
Research Analyst, Healthcare Strategy
ResearchNetwork, CSC

1. The Telegraph, Boots, Tesco and Superdrug to get access to NHS medical records, 09 Aug 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11790711/Boots-Tesco-and-Superdrug-to-get-access-to-NHS-medical-records.html

Dell's Competitive Advantage in Prescriptive Analytics

Hello there and welcome to another blog post by the Health Care Bear! I've recently been looking at Dell's position in the Healthcare industry and one talking point that stood out for me was its strategy and focus on prescriptive analytics. As we all know, IBM is at the forefront of the analytics space with Watson but it looks as though Dell is looking to nibble into that market so I thought I'd write a few words on what I've come across during my research and how Dell has a competitive advantage in this area. As always, I'd love to hear what you have to say so please leave your comments below and share this on social media with your friends and colleagues. Let's begin...

1. Analytics relies on a lot of data: You may be wondering why I included the image at the top as we're not talking about the cloud at the moment. The reason I included this was because of the factoid that Dell manages over 6 billion diagnostic image objects in the cloud, which covers 7% of the US Population (these stats are from 2013 so have likely increased since.) This is a huge competitive differentiator as the larger the data set, the greater the analytical potential. As Dell considers the US Provider market as its largest and most fruitful, it would make sense to focus on this and build up its repository which will simultaneously add potency to its analytical offerings.
2. Growing ability to speak to the business: Traditionally, Dell has struggled to shake off the perception of being purely IT focused and so usually finds itself speaking to the IT department. A vendor is able to culture much stronger and longer client relationships if it can speak to the business value of the solution it is putting forward. Although this is currently one of Dell's weaknesses, it's interesting to note that its partnership with Deloitte could assist in this area as they will be able to capitalize on each others' strengths and this will help Dell take more of a consulting approach, thereby selling into the business. If it can properly articulate the business value of the prescriptive analytics it is selling, this will increase its win:loss ratio.
3. Dell has a solid network of partners: The chart below, although from 2011, shows that Dell is partnering with some of the most influential players in Healthcare at this time. When you also add its more recent partnership with CGI, which focuses on cloud solutions, security solutions and vertical-specific analytics, it's easy to see that it is well positioned to not only capitalize on the amount of data at its disposal but also bring in partners' capabilities to expand the possibilities of what can be done with this data.

That's it for today folks, I sincerely hope you've enjoyed this blog post and look forward to hearing from you!

Best Regards,

Jonathan Cordwell
Research Analyst, Healthcare Strategy
ResearchNetwork, CSC

1. Dell, Future Ready Healthcare IT Programs, 2013, http://www.slideshare.net/dellenterprise/futureready-healthcase-it-platforms-get-to-the-cloud
2. Dell, Healthcare ISV Alliance Program, 2011, http://www.slideshare.net/ericvanthoff/dell-healthcare-isv-emea-alliance-program-11601716