I like the Seeing Stones blog and your comments on customer engagement. I am completely aligned with the proposition that a fully engaged customer ( I refer to it as an empowered customer) will be less likely to ‘jump ship’

This is a position I have maintained when developing e-service solutions. While most support organizations veiw e-service as a mechanism to deflect calls and lower operational costs, I see e-service as a vehicle to empower the customer and make their use of your respective product critical to their business. Cost avoidance is an outcome of an effective e-service strategy and should not be the objective.

I realize this may be a bit off the remote service topic but the ojective of both is customer retention and the path to retention is though customer engagement/empoerment.

- Security is a convenient excuse both for an end user who doesn’t see the value and an OEM who hasn’t really figured out that this is a product that must benefit the end user, not just the OEM’s service department. That isn’t to say that security concerns aren’t real. They are real and legitimate, but given the right value proposition it is extremely rare that they can’t be overcome.

- While I wouldn’t say things are plug and play since there are always integration issues with the device software (and any technology vendor that says there isn’t is either dreaming or lying), the technology works and next generation connectivity models will make it even better. The biggest problem is in applying technology for technology’s sake and not understanding what the users (both internal and external) of the system really want/need. Or even worse, being locked in to a vendor’s view of what applications your end users and customers want/need.

- Finally, the biggest single hurdle is OEMs lack of understanding that delivering value added services (not just customer support) through the device is one of the best paths to revenue growth. As one reinforcing example, take a look at Michael Treacy’s book on Double Digit Growth(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840058). He lists 5 strategies for growth:
Maintain Your Base
Gain Market Share
Find Market Growth Areas
Attack Adjacent Markets
Enter New Businesses

I’d submit that a good connected device strategy can be used to address 4 out of those 5. I think the task for all of us in this space is to get the folks in the executive suite to make that mind/body connection between revenue growth and value added services enabled by the device connection.

Let’s say they do that. Why is remote services still so hard? Because of end customer IT security concerns. If companies don’t promote the business value of their solution, and the trust value of their existing relationship, it is too easy for IT to just say no.

Yet it can be overcome. Look at Microsoft Windows updates or any of the anti-virus vendors. They deliver remote services to millions of computers every day. Why? Because people want the value that these services provide.

Tightly coupled with this is that any remote service system (both the code on the embedded system and the host system at the factory) have to go through a product development cycle as part of a regulated medical device. Given the tight R&D budgets and never ending connectivity product requirements, remote service rarely makes it above the threshold to get budgeted.

Finally, while providers want the benefits of remote service, they’re very particular about providing vendors with remote access to their products. This can - and has been - overcome, but not without hand wringing and additional costs.

Customer adoption is improving and many are asking for some remote service capability. The major caveat here is the technology deployed must align with their internal security requirements. The service provider must understand that they become an extension of the customer’s regulated environment when they are delivering a remote service.

Overcoming the security objections is difficult but not impossible. It must start with a thorough understanding of what those objections could be through extensive customer research and feedback. Once understood, the appropriate measures can be taken to mitigate most perceived risks. You will never arrive at a perfect security solution but you can come close if you spend the time to listen to your customers. Many security issues today are more process than technology based.

Yet in my view, the obstacles have changed - or rather, my view of the
obstacles has changed. It used to be that we would say, “the
technology exists - it just needs to come down in price to be widely
adopted.” Now, the technology is imminently capable, price points are
rather reasonable, and as you pointed out, customers are willing and
eager to begin receiving a wide range of new services and capabilities.

In this discussion, my friend asked when I thought the “tipping point”
would occur and remote services would surge into the mainstream. 1-2
years? 3-5…. 5-10? I used to think it was 2-3 years out, but that
was 2-3 years ago. Now I’ve come to believe that the limiting factor
is not technology, nor customer demand - it is, as you said, the
companies that would provide remote services.

These remote services, by definition, require companies to work
together. Whether it is sourcing technology, sharing user information,
or hardest of all, allocating new revenue streams - this is what takes
the most time. When you think of it this way - that widespread
adoption of remote services is contingent on the abilities of large
companies to cooperate and form new symbiotic relationships - the
question of timing is seen in a new light. Suddenly, 5-10 years seems
optimistic. Inertia, among Fortune 500 corporations, is a very
powerful force.

Yet for the companies considering adoption, this outlook is not an
excuse to delay further. Rather, it is an opportunity - an expanded
window in which they can become leaders in a field that, sooner or
later, will surely see its metaphorical tidal wave.