The Leader Magazine

MAR 2019

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 45 of 51

46 March 2019 the leader F E A T U R E A R T I C L E N okia has hundreds of facilities worldwide supporting a 100,000-person workforce. Recognizing the potential value and being a technology company, the Nokia real estate team started exploring smart-building capabilities over three years ago. With the fundamental strategy to improve occupant satisfaction and reduce operating costs, the team began to design a solution that would deliver key services to its space and facilities management teams and its occupants. In taking a smart-building proof-of-concept from a floor in a building to the entire holdings of the organization, we concluded that organizations can manage the risks inherent in these implications by taking three critical actions. 1. Partner with security and it Nothing stops the roll-out of a promising smart building technology faster than security or IT asserting that the solution is inconsistent with corporate polices or directions. This happens because the often-esoteric security and data privacy rules may not be well-understood by the team handling the proof-of-concept. Once a solution moves beyond the confines of a single location, its visibility should draw the attention of the teams responsible for data security and privacy. If the technology does not adhere to mandated guidelines, further deployment can be immediately halted. On another front, IT teams are investing in 'digital transformation' initiatives which often include strategic plans for sensors, beacons, WIFI and other smart building technology. If the technology in a proof-of- concept does not align with such plans, further roll-out becomes challenging. Enlisting official representatives from IT and security at the start of a pilot avoids the pitfalls of selecting a solution too exposed to data privacy non-compliance, too vulnerable to hackers or too difficult to deploy within IT constraints. 2. o rient the solution around services Services are the themes upon which value propositions are built. Services also expose features and resources needed to sustain capabilities beyond the first day a solution goes live. Once a service perspective is taken to a smart-building effort, a service lifecycle assessment can be conducted to identify the actions needed to define, deploy, sustain and improve the solution. A smart-building solution typically rolls-out in phases where one location goes live after another. This means it enters the operations stage in phases too. In operations, the 'care and feeding' of the solution continues for the interval laid out in the business case – usually several years. During this time many tasks must be supported to ensure the solution continues to work and the right users can leverage the capabilities. Considering the stages together in the service lifecycle at the start of a proof-of-concept will prevent unexpected work and costs. A pilot needs to assess both whether the technology is effective and whether it can be economically deployed, operated and improved over a multi- year period. Taking a service perspective avoids the pitfall of delivering a solution that is only partially useful part of the time. 3. e stimate a solution's total cost of ownership The actions to avoid the pitfalls of deployment build upon each other. Security and IT constraints must be understood to confirm viability of the solution and included as requirements. These requirements must be reflected in the design, deployment and operation stages of the service lifecycle along with the desired capabilities from users and business stakeholders. It is the total cost of ownership (TCO) estimate that captures the full expense to support the entire lifecycle of the solution. The TCO includes visible expenses from contracts (e.g., licenses, equipment, project costs for deployment). It includes administrative costs to operate the solution (e.g., adding users, trouble-shooting problems, rolling out updates and patches). And, it includes the frequently overlooked recurring costs to replace equipment and update information whenever there is a change onsite. If consideration is taken for the full inventory of expenses, a more realistic business case will be developed. The result is a smart building approach selected with high probability of delivering on the promised ROI. i t can be done Deploying a smart building solution throughout an enterprise is not the same as running a pilot, and it is significantly more complex than what suppliers indicate. At Nokia, realistic predictions of total costs were made based on the service lifecycle. Stakeholders for the services committed to benefits and had expectations of availability in line with time needed for design and deployment stages. Security and IT added challenges along the way but never blocked the effort. In the end, the solution delivered on its ROI in 2018 and is poised to do better in 2019. Kathleen Culver is program manager of Real Estate Innovations at Nokia Corp. Beyond the proof-of-concept: Avoiding the pitfalls of a large smart-building deployment by Kathleen Culver

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of The Leader Magazine - MAR 2019