Buildings IoT

5 Questions with Richard Miller, OTI’s New Vice President of Information Technology

By Natalie Patton | April 25, 2018

Richard-Miller-Ontai network-small

The conversation around information technology and operational technology has changed rapidly in just a few short years. First it was “IT vs. OT” as if the two disciplines were involved in a boxing match over control of networks and processes. Then it was more kumbaya and free love with the “One Network” sentiment which begged the question can’t we all just get along? Finally, I remember just last year sitting in a session at Realcomm | IBCon called “IT/OT Closing the Gap” where OTI’s president Brian Turner tried to strike a more nuanced tone as moderator between representatives from manufacturers, systems integrators and property management firms.

Things move quickly these days and what we believed was true yesterday could be upended by a new situation we’re presented with today. This is as true in commercial buildings as any other industry. The biggest take away from this shape-shifting IT, OT, IoT debate is that all levels of building construction, management and maintenance are experiencing changes in the ways they work and collaborate. Call it convergence, a takeover, a battle royal or a convivial camp fire but just don’t pretend it’s not happening. For OTI’s part, with the acquisition of an IT managed services firm and its six employees, we’re embracing the change, leaning into it with our whole business in order to build more robust, total building solutions.

To that end, meet Richard Miller, the head of the IT managed services firm formerly known as Ontai, now VP of Information Technology at OTI. We asked him five questions to get his take on how IT and OT can better work together, what “managed services” really means, and the projects he’s most excited to work on at OTI.

Rich, welcome to OTI! From where you sit in the IT world, what has been your experience of IT/OT collaboration? How has this changed and where do you see it heading now?

I compare the relationship between IT/OT to the experiences we all faced during the early stages of VOIP. There were two different worlds that were on a collision course and when that happened, the fallout that ensued had some people reeling. Those who embraced it were very successful.  We had “phone guys” struggling to learn enough networking to make their new breed of products communicate. Then we had “IT guys” struggling to learn the concepts and proprietary terminology of traditional phone systems.  There is a vast difference between making something work and doing it both correctly and securely. In recent years, OT systems and facilities in general can become much smarter and more sophisticated. Building tools to enable that sophistication is the real purpose and goal behind OTI and the acquisition of ONTAI.

Talk about the need to break down barriers. How can both IT and OT become more interested in each other’s roles and responsibilities? And why should they?

I’m not sure it’s about breaking down barriers to be honest. I think it’s more about establishing trust and leveraging that trust to help both sides understand the needs and goals of the other.

Thinking about OTI now having an IT department, how will the project process change? What will OTI projects look like moving forward?

Ultimately our goal is to provide the most secure and right-sized solution, on time and on budget. Of course there are unforeseen circumstances with every project, but this is what we’re working toward. As a contractor, our team has been side-by-side with OTI to overcome issues in gaining adoption, designing and implementing solutions. As a managed service provider, we were also implementing secure solutions for customers in in small- to medium-businesses. Those worlds are similar. That’s where we find the pathway to convergence in our businesses and ultimately in OT/IT building networks.

Can you define managed services for us? Are IT managed services different than OT managed services? Will OTI be offering both now?

The definition of a “managed services provider” is “proactive delivery of their service.” In that sense, the methodology and processes are very much the same. Moving forward, yes, OTI will provide managed services for both IT and OT endpoints.

Broadly speaking, what projects either already underway or on the horizon are you most looking forward to? 

The projects that most inspire me are those where we are retrofitting a building that was built well before OT or even IT was a concept. We’re coming in and transforming those old, inefficient systems to turn the whole thing into a smart building.  We have a number of those in progress and coming soon so it’s been great from the beginning.

Keep up with OTI projects, news and events – subscribe to our blog and sign up for our newsletter. You can also connect with OTI and Rich on LinkedIn, and follow us on Twitter.

*Network connections photo by Claus Rebler on Flickr.

Buildings IoT

Utility Rates for Life of Lease vs. Tenant Billing Software for Charges Based on Real Consumption

By Natalie Patton | April 19, 2018

Tenant Billing: An exploration of pros and cons for property managers

Property owners are faced with two tough choices when it comes to tenant billing – establish a set rate for utilities at the outset of a lease agreement or bill by real consumption on an agreed-upon cycle. Each option has its pros and cons for property owners of all kinds from CBRE and JLL to GGP, Macerich and Westfield. Here we’ll offer details on what to consider as you explore the best way to bill your tenants for utility consumption from our experience working with multi-tenant, mixed use buildings across the country.

utility bills-featured

Option 1: Establish a set rate at the outset of a lease agreement

Prior to a glut of tenant billing software options entering the buildings market, property managers’ only choice for utility cost sharing was to roll up their sleeves and do some math. When a new tenant signed on, they’d take the total utility bill for the whole property, consider a historical reference of previous tenants with comparable space utilization needs or business operations, take the square footage of that tenant space and divide it by the total property square footage to come up with a diligent though approximate number.

While this is laborious and ultimately a “best guess” situation, just because there are other options available now doesn’t automatically make those new options better. So let’s set aside the historical precedent and any new-is-better ideologies to do some real side-by-side comparing. First, delving into Option 1: Establish a set rate at the outset of a lease agreement.

Pro Forecasting.

It’s true that real energy consumption fluctuates so having a set tenant utility bill for each month or year is good for budgeting purposes.

Con – Squaring up the books.

Although you have an agreed upon utility cost for the tenant, you still have to track real utility usage of each tenant space. You’ll need to pay the tenants back for any overages charged throughout the year.

Pro – If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

Sometimes it’s easier and more cost-effective to stick with what’s working now. If your tenants aren’t asking for a different utility billing system then maybe you don’t need to reevaluate anything.

Con – Getting left behind.

We’ve seen software disrupt countless industries. Especially in the retail space, competition is fierce. Tenants are accustomed to incentives for long-term leases. Small differentiation could make a big difference for anchor tenants or new prospects.

TenantBilling-pic1

Option 2: Use tenant billing software to charge based on real utility consumption

To reiterate, new doesn’t necessarily mean better. There is a fair bit of risk associated with changing workflows. And lease agreements are fragile enough as it is. But property managers are finding value in new software that plugs into existing building management systems. It’s worth taking a thoughtful look at the options available. Here’s our pro/con list for Option 2: Use tenant billing software to charge based on real utility consumption.

Pro The numbers are real.

As we already established, it’s reasonable to assume that energy consumption will fluctuate in tenant spaces. Maybe not by a lot, but then again maybe significantly. You already track information retroactively to square up discrepancies at the end of each calendar year. Why not do it in real time?

Con – The numbers are real.

We can’t understate the difficulties of change. There is a real fear that charging based on real consumption will tighten belts for landlords. While this is a valid concern, it should be weighed carefully with the following entry in the “pro” column…

Pro – Transparency.

Tenants are asking for this. By offering tenant billing based on real consumption at the outset of a lease agreement, your credibility goes way up. Everyone is weary of a black box these days because software has opened up so many avenues for transparency. Your tenants are consumers too. They know that big data has made it possible to track a lot of information in near-real time.

Con – So. Many. Options.

The software game is full of competition. Tenant billing is no different. Entrepreneurs seek to disrupt anything they can get their hands. It’s possible that you could settle on a tenant billing software from a start-up that runs out of funding. It’s hard to know which system will be around for the long haul. As we mentioned, it’s no small task to change the way your property management business operates.

TenantBilling-pic2

Final Thoughts

One way to help sort all this out is to contact your systems integrator. They’re familiar with your existing system. If they’re good, they’re aware of the different products on the market. Your MSI can guide you through the pros and cons outlined here with an eye toward what will work with the system they’ve helped you build. For what it’s worth, OTI is having a lot of success with a tried-and-true tenant billing software application for Niagara Systems called TenantEye. We’ve been using it since it was part of a different brand and now we’re implementing the newly released Niagara 4 version. We could tell you more about why we like it, but that’s a story for a different day. You have enough to chew on.

Buildings IoT

The First Two Things You Should Know Before Starting on Building Automation in New York City

By Matt White | March 29, 2018

For all of its reputation and glamour, New York City may be best defined by its skyline. The buildings that fill in the grid like a 5,000-piece puzzle are icons even if you don’t know their names or what the people inside of them are doing. And remarkably, on the 304-square-mile island there are always more buildings working their way up toward the horizon line, like these beauties expected to be complete by 2021. With that backdrop, building automation in New York City offers incredible opportunity.

Skyline-MatheuSlotero-Flickr

What presents the most opportunity for building owners, contractors and tenants in the city are the older buildings that don’t get as much attention. About half of all commercial buildings in the United States were constructed before 1980. To drill down into the age of New York City’s buildings alone, turn to this incredible technicolor map. It puts NYC in line with the national numbers and it’s fun to zoom in and see the surprising bursts of hot pink noting a building here and there that is nearly 200 years old.

Building Automation in New York City

Building automation in New York City thrives on that large inventory of rather old buildings. A lot has changed in building and energy management just in the past 10 year. New York City happens to be an incredible place to improve existing stock of old buildings that no longer operate like they should.

These are the first two things you should know before you embark on building automation in New York City.

1.) Find the right partners

The right partner can not only keep the job moving, they can present opportunities you didn’t even know about. Enter NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. They promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources across the state. Don’t worry, this isn’t a fad group that just cropped up and may be out of money by the time you get around to opening their web page. NYSERDA has been governed by a 13-member board providing objective information and analysis, technical expertise and support across the buildings industry since 1975. They have a long list of programs and services for customers and vendors. OTI was recently certified for their Real Time Energy Management (RTEM) Program, so we can bring up to 30% in project discounts by using this program.

2.) Consider the cloud

Plenty of building owners think their systems are outdated. Those same building owners are likely not authorizing the gutting of an entire system based on a hunch. So contractors and integrators would be wise to start small. Focus on one system or desired outcome and prioritize. Once you get beyond the basics – repairing and replacing parts that are clearly malfunctioning – cloud monitoring can open valuable windows. These systems typically offer real-time views and various analytics and show which devices cause problems.

*Skyline photo by Matheu Slotero on Flickr

Buildings IoT

5 questions with Rob Vandenberg, OTI’s new director of managed services

By Natalie Patton | March 7, 2018

At first glance, aviation and commercial buildings have little in common. In aviation, equipment and assets are typically a matter of life or death. In buildings, often the worst-case scenario is a lot of hot/cold calls. With managed services, commercial buildings can learn a thing or two from aviation. Our new Director of Managed Services Rob Vandenberg comes from the aviation world and now he’s here.

We talked with Rob about what commercial buildings can learn from the airlines and how software can be an equalizer.

Rob, welcome to OTI! I know you’ve only been with us a short time, but let’s look at the commercial buildings industry. Do you see any parallels with the aviation industry when you started there 20-or-so years ago?

Thanks, I’m happy to be here! There are definitely similarities that come to mind when thinking about aviation and commercial buildings. First, assets in aviation contain many sensors that generate a lot of data about operating conditions. Second, several decades ago, an industry-wide infrastructure called ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) was created. The purpose was to transmit messages between aircraft and ground stations.

While this was a common infrastructure, many software systems – particularly asset management and performance monitoring – were built in-house by airlines.  We needed software systems we could apply more broadly. But that transition is still ongoing.

When I look at commercial buildings today, I see many parallels to the aviation industry at that time.  Sensors and meters generate data. That data is available through a common, standard infrastructure. And the industry is looking for commercially available software to optimize the operations of their assets.

At this point, is software built on the same principles no matter the industry? Is this a development advantage?

Right now, enabling technologies have made it so that software can move much faster to deployment. The commercial buildings industry doesn’t have to invest in an infrastructure like the aviation industry did several decades ago. Instead, it can leverage the infrastructure and technologies that are now available to all industries.  I’m thinking the Industrial Internet (also known as the Internet of Things or IoT) and the Cloud in particular. So, we’re not building nearly as much enabling tech just to get started. This is a huge development advantage.

What are some challenges you ran up against with your airline asset management software? Have you identified any particular hurdles yet in the commercial buildings space?

Aviation is heavily regulated. The only industries I can think of that are more regulated are nuclear and potentially healthcare. So regulatory and compliance factored heavily into the software we built. Also, aircraft and aircraft engines are large, expensive and complex assets requiring equally large and complex organization to manage them.  When you add in the operational context – the assets are continuously moving all over the world! – the result is a set of requirements for a very large and complicated set of software solutions.

Another challenge we continuously confronted as we were trying to build a commercial solution was vastly different legacy systems within organizations with little existing integration or standardization. This made projects longer and much more complex. We also found that while we were on the way to  building a standard commercial solution, it was difficult to move aircraft operators away from of their unique requirements. This resulted in highly configurable systems that are frankly difficult to build and maintain, and projects that had a lot of customizations. That’s difficult to scale.

With buildings, I see an opportunity to move faster. There just may be more appetite for more universal systems in the commercial buildings industries and that is very exciting to me. I haven’t run into any real hurdles yet, but it is still early!

In this industry, there is much talk of siloes that run in every direction – siloes between devices that don’t talk with each other, siloes across networks, siloes within the C-suite. Was this true of the airline industry as well? What’s your advice for using software to overcome those issues?

That was definitely true of the airline industry in my experience. We took on massive integrations on the systems side. Then we had to get everyone aligned on the organizational side. There was a continuous effort to re-focus on the problems we’re trying to solve and get everyone on board with those goals.

As for advice, “Don’t try to boil the ocean,” is one phrase I like to use. We can’t try to deliver on every feature all at once. The key is to deliver value early and deliver it often. Ultimately, we’re envisioning cost-saving solutions. Those are always harder to get attention for within an organization, compared to projects that open new revenue sources. So, to overcome that natural inclination, our cost-saving measures have to show value early and they have to lead us to become valued partners to our customers – both through the life of a project and through a long-term relationship. And finally, industry standardization cannot be overlooked. Proprietary options are always going to cost more while working on more limited scale.

What are you most excited about when you look at the to-do list for your new position with OTI?

Prior to working in aviation, I worked on a project to build a condition-based maintenance system in an industrial steel mill. What’s exciting is there is more standardization today and the enabling technologies have made tremendous gains. Plus, data is more readily available. So, I’ll be able to build something much more robust – and much faster – than I was able to over 20 years. OTI has a very strong customer base that is receptive to asset management and performance monitoring offerings and OTI has already made significant investment in the backbone infrastructure that will run these solutions.

Follow along as Rob and OTI work on the next generation of asset management for commercial buildings. Subscribe to out blog. Connect with OTI and Rob on LinkedIn. Follow us on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter. Exciting things are on the horizon – we hope you’ll join us.

*Featured photo by Joseph DePalma on Flickr.

Buildings IoT

Building controls hardware to data – what am I, chopped liver?

By Natalie Patton | November 28, 2017

value of data

These days, most people in the buildings industry will tell you that the value of data has exceeded the value of the devices that capture the data. But for building controls hardware folks, does that mean you can just throw your data on any device within any network? Not exactly.

At a recent user conference for a popular building analytics software platform we overheard plenty of people talking about hardware. Most of the people doing the talking were those who were attending as representatives of software companies. The silent consensus was that software is great and obviously necessary for buildings to catch up on the data revolution. But while the value of hardware may be going down in a global sense, devices are still crucial to data collection and analysis.

That’s partially because software isn’t something you can see or touch. When we’re talking with building owners, we’re seeing that yes, they know they need data but the sales pitches are blending together and it’s hard to take an idea up the chain of command. It’s also hard to realize the power of software and data in buildings without devices in the buildings.

Building data is not like internet traffic. We cannot program code bots to crawl the vents and ducts and pipes. But we can install sensors that run off fiber through switches that manage information into and out of a central and secure computer hub.

As Master Systems Integrators and building controls contractors, we’re in the hardware and the software business. We’re implementing new software into our enterprise level energy command centers and we’re constantly looking for the best hardware technologies to capture, parse and deliver that data through an OT network at rapid and continuous rates. We’re also deciding which hardware is best equipped to support that effort. In most instances of projects on new constructions, we’re looking for hardware (controllers, gateways, switches, etc.) that is:

  • IP-based
  • industrial grade
  • easily expanded
  • able to support multiple communication protocols
  • built on an open source and widely supported programming language
  • embeddable with industry-leading frameworks

With these specifications, building controls hardware can be as exciting as the high-value data crunching software that everyone’s buzzing about.

Buildings IoT

The Agony of Making an IOT Decision

By Brian Turner | October 3, 2017

Consider this scenario: A corporate real-estate executive is contemplating a presentation to the Board of Directors. She is experienced at operating efficient class A properties, often improving the bottom line and increasing revenue for the buildings in her portfolio. It’s clear to her that IoT is a buzz word. In her personal life, she’s very tech-savvy, accustomed to accessing everything within a few touches on a screen. Everything, that is, except for the operational technology assets in her buildings.

At home, she can let a visitor in while sitting at her favorite coffee shop. She can  watch them enter and exit via IP-connected cameras. Why she doesn’t have this technology available in all her buildings? Her company has invested millions of dollars, under her leadership. Something isn’t right.

This exec wants her office buildings to be the ideal location for all tenants. She wants to provide  the latest technology for security, parking, elevators, guest access, Wi-Fi, heating, AC and lighting. The latest in comfort and healthy environments as prescribed by industry groups like LEED and ASHRAE are crucial too.

Sound familiar? Now…how does she get started? And how does she get it right?

Where the conversation starts and sometimes stops

This scenario is playing out for busy real estate executives around the world every day. Somewhat paradoxically, technology and the expanding list of innovative IoT manufacturers are making it harder to answer that very first question – where do I begin on revolutionary projects for commercial office buildings?

Once these real estate execs start to look for the best solutions to fit their needs, it seems everyone and their brother has one to offer. Some solutions come from household names, while others come from agile businesses working to bring the next big technology to the industry. They’ve all got the best interface and the easiest to use integration platform. Plus all of their employees know how to solve any problem, no matter how obscure. There seems to be no end to the amount of money or energy that can be saved when these technologies are installed. Great! I’ll take three! Right…

Let’s try to make sense of all of this. As a master systems integrator, I must make sure my team knows about the new latest and greatest technology available, so I attend several conferences per year to see what the market has to offer. When I look out on the composite of these show floors, I see hundreds of access control vendors, hundreds of HVAC control manufacturers, metering solutions from big and small vendors, thousands of smart equipment and device manufacturers and hundreds more lighting control manufacturers. Each of the products and solutions have merit, but there is a lot of cross-over in function and benefit.

Promising platforms

The second, more complex issue, is that integration means different things to different people and thus produces a wide variety of results and solutions. Artificial Intelligence is promising, and providing, in some cases, fantastic results in buildings. Building analytics platforms are also getting better at giving users the information they really need, in a form that helps them act, again aided in some applications by AI.

Remote connectivity is another area where innovations are starting to see positive returns, helping to get the building automation industry closer to IT standards of security and management.

I have read a lot of stories lamenting failed IoT projects and how one technology or process could have solved the problem. Some of the solutions sound reasonable and some are a stretch. At the end of the day, we are all human, trying to solve human problems. What’s great and also extremely difficult about right now is we have more tools than ever before to address these problems. The overwhelming abundance of shiny new things is, in some ways, paralyzing us.

The Good News

The good news is that we don’t have very far to look for the answers. For those busy real estate execs, the IT group has some of the answers. The facilities, or OT group has some of the answers. The OT master systems integrator (OT MSI) has some of the answers.

Together, as the IoT team, we will get it mostly right. These three entities are the keystones to making solid, well informed IoT decisions. You likely already have your IT team, so a first step will be to find a good OT MSI. Look for one who takes the time to understand your business goals and who will work with your IT and OT teams to make decisions together. By working as an IoT team, the agony of each IoT decision reduces while the likelihood for success improves.

Now go forth and make an IoT decision!

Buildings IoT

On the Buildings IoT “One Network” Debate and What’s Been Missing from the Conversation

By Brian Turner | September 14, 2017

Buildings IoT and its broad counterpart the Internet of Things is sparking debate around physical building networks and where best to implement enterprise solutions that touch both IT and OT. At OTI, we have:

The Right Questions

The real debate is not around proving there is one right way to implement an IoT strategy for any one network – there are use cases where it’s clear which one of the three options is best. And just because one network architecture works in one implementation doesn’t mean it will make sense for the next one.

The question to be answered when considering where IoT solutions should plug into a network is how will the human interaction be impacted when building devices communicate over IP networks rather than RS-485 networks? Once we understand the human side of the equation, we can more accurately define how the network should be architected and how IT and Facilities (also known as operational technology, or OT) should engage with the project.

Programmer holding laptop and checking machine

The ground floor – technicians and controllers.

Technicians need continual access building devices in a convenient, efficient way. When controllers are on an RS-485 network like BACnet MSTP, technicians have unencumbered access for programming, data sharing, and commissioning. When these devices include IP connections, they need an IT network.

In most cases, when a technician today needs to create a network for an IP-connected building device, they bypass IT and install CAT5 or CAT6 cables and cheap, unmanaged switches to go back and forth between controllers. They do this because ease of connectivity is integral to their jobs. They need to do continuous programming and commissioning on building devices and bothering IT to open a port every few days is untenable for both parties.

While the CAT5 workaround provides the technician the access they need, it can open up the corporate IT network to unwanted and unnecessary security risks.

The network layer – new solutions, new problems.

Many enterprise organizations around the world are working to solve the secure OT network problem, and several already have workable solutions available on the market. In all honesty though, the most effective solutions have mostly moved the burden to IT. This does solve the connectivity and security problems, but it adds a whole host of issues for both teams.

In an existing operation, it is straight forward to get new switches and ports assigned from IT for OT systems. The problem is not in the complexity but in the delivery. In my experience, there are often significant delays to integration projects because of IT-related hold-ups. This is mostly due to lack of experience with and knowledge of the OT devices, operating systems, personnel and services required to integrate building systems.

The problem is exacerbated in new constructions because IT isn’t there until the building is occupied. This can be weeks or months after the building systems need to be online. OTI has been involved in several projects where 80-90% of the devices are connected via IP and need to be online well before the IT staff is ready for them.

We have managed through the project implementations and have worked with IT groups to make sure we are installing products and cabling they will be prepared to support once they are on site, but this is far from a perfect process so far.

Maintenance Difficulties

  1. How will IT and Facilities work together to maintain these networks?
  2. How will IT respond to the service needs of OT?
  3. Will OT control their own destiny or will they be tied to IT for all support and troubleshooting?

I was moderating a session at IBCon in San Diego earlier this year where the “One Building One Network” question was a leading topic. I said something to the effect that OT needs to the own their network and control their destiny. This was taken out of context by some so I will take this opportunity to explain the nuance.

Two problems must be addressed as we consider the proper technical backbone for both IT and OT networks:

  1. Technicians and operators maintaining building systems have been handling operations for years without additional resources. They have become accustomed to diagnosing problems with RS-485 and Lon networks. They’ve accumulated a lot of expertise in troubleshooting these systems.
  2. The IT requirement of one port per connected device. This will need to change in order to cost effectively implement large scale deployments of OT devices.

There is no doubt it makes sense to manage one network infrastructure for all things connected to the IT network. It also makes sense that the IT professionals should manage the network, at all levels. The part where I deviate from the “One Network” pack is applications on the network.

I believe OT staff needs to be in control of network related to devices and systems defined as Operational Technology. These systems are HVAC controls, lighting – anything considered part of the operation of a building or campus.

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAsoAAAAJDZjMzY4ZTEwLTcwMjctNDk4YS04ZDczLTRmNjNiOTlhY2E3Zg

This means IT must provide tools and access to OT staff. It can be very complex to grant access to certain management tools without creating security risks on the IT network.

The new future – why “us against them” is the wrong way to go.

This is where new innovations are hard at work to eliminate these problems. The product we use is Optigo Connect by Optigo Networks, which employs passive optical networking (PON) to allow the OT segments of the IT backbone to be installed in a much more cost-effective way than traditional fiber infrastructure.

The user experience is also fairly intuitive. It allows the OT group to manage ports, port VLan assignments, and PoE. They can monitor the bandwidth and connection status to make sure devices are behaving properly and sharing data across the network.

The IT group still manages access, routing, security, firewall rules, and other traditional IT responsibilities. But the OT staff is empowered to “own” and operate the building systems.

It/OT Backbone part 2

The second part of this IT/OT backbone conversation is about ideology more than technical ability. To explain, let’s get technical for a minute with an example. Consider a floor with 30 VAV controllers serving conditioned air to offices and open areas on a typical floor. Manufacturers like Distech Controls and KMC have created VAV controllers that connect using IP cables.

When used in combination with the Optigo Connect, the ethernet switch supports the Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP) as well as a ring monitoring function to automatically switch off redundant paths, and a broadcast storm protection function. This creates some redundancy if a connection is broken in the middle of the floor.

New vs. Traditional

If we were to use the traditional IT paradigm for this scenario, we would install 30 CAT5 cables that terminate in a single port on a network switch. This adds a lot of cost to the overall implementation and is not likely to perform at scale.

In the new paradigm, CAT5 cables are installed in a daisy chain requiring only 2 cables that terminate into 2 network switches. The only cost impact is the two ports and the material. The labor is identical. The advantages for network performance, data access, and stability are tremendous.

This is just one example. To evolve with the IoT presents daily challenges for IT, OT and the points at which they overlap. Rather than thinking of it as one network against the other, the IoT requires new thinking on the parts of both teams. The ability to find solutions that help everyone meet in the middle.