opinion

MindSphere is missing from Gartner’s Magic Quadrant – is it a big deal? (answer: probably not)

by
Platforms
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Analyst firm Gartner published their list of Industrial IoT Platform leaders in October 2020. Notably Siemens MindSphere is missing from the list. The Gartner Magic Quadrant ™ however lists Hitachi, PTC and Microsoft as leaders and Software AG as a ‘visionary’.

In contrast, in February 2020, analyst firm Forrester published their Forrester Wave ™ with leading Industrial IoT platforms that includes Siemens, together with PTC, Microsoft and C3.ai.

If we look further in both reports, there are also other differences in the ranking such as IBM being a ‘contender’ in Gartner’s view and a ‘strong performer’ in the view of Forrester.

2020 Forrester Wave (TM) - Industrial IoT Platforms
2020 Forrester Wave (TM) – Industrial IoT Platforms
2020 Gartner Magic Quadrant (TM) - Industrial IoT Platforms
2020 Gartner Magic Quadrant (TM) – Industrial IoT Platforms

Analyst firms

Obviously both analyst firm use their own set of criteria and methods to rank the providers of IoT platforms. It is also not uncommon for providers to work with a limited set of analyst firms, so it could be the case that Siemens decided not to participate in Gartner’s research in 2020.

Participating in analyst firms research is a well-established way to create independent evidence how a solution or product holds up compared to its competitors. In general, the ranking is based on a combination of product related questions, customer references and a product demonstration to the analyst reviewing team. The amount of work for the providers should not be underestimated; there is a significant investment in time needed to address the many questions and solid customer references. I have done it multiple times in the past and can testify that it is an intense process.

Relevance

However, if we look at the topic of this Magic Quadrant ™ and Forrester Wave ™ I want to raise an important question: what is the relevance of researching a platform?

Comparing IoT platforms with each other is a bit like comparing Linux to Windows or macOS. These operating systems exist next to each other and a choice for one or the other is not necessarily based on their underlying functionalities. The real value is created by choosing the available applications, scalability and developer ecosystem. In my opinion the same applies to (industrial) IoT Platforms.

A choice of IoT platform should be based on these 3 elements, combined with the amount of access to trained staff and product specialists for implementation and maintenance.

Concluding

Finally I would maintain the opinion that standardization within the company is an important aspect. Choosing one platform and sticking with it allows for scalability and efficiency, two cornerstones of any IoT implementation.

Based on this there probably is not a ‘best’ platform, there are however the best use cases for a particular organization. And those use cases are the applications that run on the platform. Just like Microsoft Office runs on Windows, applications for preventive maintenance or digital twins are the right software to focus on in industrial IoT.

I am looking forward to the analyst firms to compare the IoT applications and create a list of leaders in use cases. Comparing Operating Systems feels like the wrong investment in time and effort for both the analyst and provider teams.

IoT is not a revolution

by

As an IoT specialist I get asked many times about the newest and greatest in the field of IoT. Sometimes investors want to know about the newest start-ups or technologies – ‘where should I invest?‘.

This type of question is difficult to answer as people seem to want to find the next new tool or not-yet-invented method to solve a large array of problems.

It is my opinion that at this time the focus of the questions should not be on technologies or methods; the focus should be on specific use-cases and particular application objectives.

The wave of increased digitalization has brought with it the challenge to find the best place to use these digital technologies, and the search sometimes brings places that are a good fit, but also places that are a bad fit.

We see this in the application of IoT in the consumer space (a microwave with an internet connection?) and in the business space as well.

As a result of this search and the fear-of-missing-out on this new revolution, many proof of concepts are executed and the digital enablement of devices is introduced ‘because we can and it may bring value’.

I have been a witness to many of these proof of concepts where a solid understanding of their impact on the business was not taken into account. This is innovation because ‘we need to innovate’.

The real value is not to be found in the utilization of new technologies or methods, instead it is to be found in the impact on your business process and certainly on the product or service that you provide.

The purpose should not be to monitor temperature of your factory, office, or house; the purpose should be to create a healthier and safer working and living environment.

The revolution is not to measure and use IoT to do so, it is to be found in the improvements you can implement consequently.

My advice to all that are looking for the best new IoT invention, technology or method is to first look at what you want to achieve and I would expect that you would very probably be able to use existing technologies to achieve your objectives.

(About the picture at the top: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC)