An Integrative Approach to IoT

Companies that seek to integrate IoT often get stuck in the Proof of Concept (PoC) phase. They try to break the problem down, which limits its usefulness and disappoints in results. That's when we can use integrative thinking to recognize the value in differing approaches to IoT adoption—whether they prioritize cost, efficiency, security, or innovation—and then weaving together the best elements of these seemingly conflicting strategies. By applying this mindset, businesses can develop a nuanced IoT integration plan that balances technical advancements with practical implementation, ensuring a customized solution that not only aligns with their unique operational needs but also sets the stage for future growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving digital landscape. 

Many problems don't have easy right or wrong answers, and too often, we limit ourselves to uncreative categorical-based solutions. When faced with difficult choices, we evaluate the options on a pro-con basis and choose the best fit for our needs.

We would rather evaluate than come up with novel ideas and options on our own.

Integrative thinking involves facing complex decision-making by embracing the tensions between opposing ideas and models. The integrative thinker generates creative resolutions based on opposing ideas that contain elements of the individual ideas but are generally superior.

Imagine the following scenario:

You're sitting in a company meeting and discussing your company's strategy going forward. The CEO, executives, and a few high-level managers sit together with you in the meeting. The CEO provides a few strategic options that you'd discuss within the meeting to come to a consensus on how to proceed.

This meeting is consensus-driven, where the participants will initially have some discussions, but based on the initial assumptions, they won't question the original problem, explore creative alternatives, or loop back to earlier stages without the feeling that they wasted their initial work. The goal of such a meeting is to create agreement and not new ideas.

Some members might have opposing views, but as this is a consensus-driven approach toward the strategy with the assumptions made at the onset, the executives or the CEO will limit strong confrontations to remain on a linear path and converge back to a single answer.

Two cognitive biases steer these meetings:

1. Confirmation bias: This is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypothesis. Confirmation bias prevents us from considering alternative possibilities and disproportionately emphasize existing beliefs or hypothesis.

2. Cognitive dissonance: This is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. When people are confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values, they experience discomfort.

In a business setting, these biases converge the opinions of the participants toward one of the existing options and create agreement. Deciding on one of these options requires compromises, with which some will be happy and others not. Most get the feeling that the goal is to choose the least-worst option.

Consensus is often the goal of any meeting. People are intrinsically motivated to create confirmation and avoid dissonance, which is feeling an uncomfortable feeling of our own inconsistency.

The Integrative Approach

Instead of looking for consensus, why not encourage opposing models, discussions, and other ideas?

Opposing models are not contradictions. When using this as the foundation for a discussion it encourages the participants to be more rational about their model, question themselves, and explore different possibilities for solving a problem.

Challenge the notion that there is a single answer in a highly complex world with many possibilities, scenarios, views, and environments. Use that emerging conflict in a meeting to understand the different models further, what makes them so different, and expand the possibilities for its resolution.

As an example from Peter Drucker’s book “The Effective Executive,” he uses a statement by Alfred P. Sloan, former CEO of General Motors:

Alfred P. Sloan is reported to have said at a meeting of one of his top committees: “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here.” Everyone around the table nodded assent. “Then,” continued Mr. Sloan, “I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.

When everyone agrees on an idea, there is no constructive discussion about the topic at hand. The participants won’t exchange novel information because they have similar backgrounds and views. That’s when participants with differing experiences can stimulate more aspects of the situation. We can call these minority views in the boardroom setting.

Minority views can sometimes be extreme, so they are often shrugged away. For a stimulating and constructive discussion, shrugging off these views can be counterproductive. Adam Grant wrote in his book Originals, “Dissenting opinions are useful, even when they are wrong.”

The integrative approach invites opposing views, challenging viewpoints, and ideas about a topic.

Using Integrative Thinking to Boost IoT in Your Company

Many IoT projects are stuck too long in the Proof of Concept phase. Executives want to make low-risk investments and reap the rewards from them with these PoCs and are often disappointed when their expectations are not met within the 3-6 month period over which the PoC runs.

The Internet of Things is an enabler technology, the foundation for new processes, insights, and services.

Reaping the benefits of IoT requires a holistic approach and integration into the company. Yet many company executives stay on the safe side and initiate PoCs limited to a particular company sector. The bigger picture is, therefore, not prevalent, and the PoC will vanish into vain memory.

Instead, let’s imagine that a company decides to use a new approach - an integrative approach to thinking about IoT and digitalization.

This is a wholly phantasized scenario. The company that uses the new approach manufactures industrial ventilation systems for other large manufacturers. Its processes haven’t changed for the last 10-15 years. They relied on their qualitative superiority and expertise within this market niche. But as other countries develop their industrial base, their edge in quality and niche position evaporates as newer players in this segment establish a much lower cost basis.

Customers evaluate cost against quality, and our company’s market leads are slowly falling.

The company board collaborates with a few lead engineers and experts to evaluate how they should proceed.

1. Define the problem

   The integrative approach starts with articulating the problem and making sure that the problem is worth solving.

   -> “How might we modernize our manufacturing processes to improve efficiency and competitiveness?”

   The team created the problem statement as it impacts the company’s ability to remain competitive and efficient in a rapidly evolving industrial landscape.

2. Identify two Extreme and Opposing Answers.

   Opposing answers raise the emotional temperature and ensure that the conversation doesn’t end up being a one-sided, everyone-agrees meeting that doesn’t provide value or spark constructive discussions. Both sides must start understanding the implications of their choice, and disagreement helps understand issues and potential solutions.

   Answer 1: Fully automate the manufacturing process with state-of-the-art digital toosl and robotics

   Answer 2: Retain manual processes but augment them with basic digital toosl for improved monitoring and reporting.

3. Sketch out the Two Opposing Ideas

   Sketching out the ideas means that an outside observer can understand the essence of it. The nature of sketching the ideas out is to gain a general agreement about the core elements of each model.

   Fully Automated Manufacturing:

   • High initial investment in robotics and digital infrastructure.

   • Reduced long-term labor costs.

   • Potential for significant efficiency gains and precision in production.

   • Requires extensive training and potential workforce restructuring.  

   Augmented Manual Processes:

   • Moderate investment in basic digital tools.

   • Retains most of the existing workforce and processes.

   • Incremental improvements in efficiency and data tracking.

   • Easier to implement and less disruptive in the short term.

4. Lay Out How Each Model Works

   Instead of creating a pro/con table, the company makes a pro/pro table. Contra arguments quickly evaporate the motivation of the people to investigate the model further. The contra arguments could stop the discussions at the outset and make it difficult later on to understand what might be valuable to extract from those models.

   It’s essential to comprehend the opposition of the models. The pro argument of one model should be the negative of the opposite model. They create a truly integrative model by bringing these models together in the next step.

   Fully Automated Manufacturing:

   • Pro: High scalability, precision for future integration with advanced technologies like AI.

   • Pro: May open new market opportunities due to increased production capabilities.

   Augmented Manual Processes:

   • Pro: Maintains workforce morale and company culture by retaining existing jobs. 

   • Pro: Lower risk and investment, easier to roll back if necessary.

5. Integrative Resolution

   The next step is further investigating the models' tensions, assumptions, and cause-and-effect relationships. Your goal is to disrupt your current thinking, integrate these models, and create something creative, and that is truly the best of both worlds.

   Proposed Model: Implement a phased approach to digital integration.

   • Phase 1: Introduce basic digital tools for monitoring and reporting, combined with workforce training in digital literacy. This phase retains manual processes while gradually preparing the team for more significant changes.

   • Phase 2: After evaluating the impact of Phase 1, begin selective automation of specific processes where the most efficiency gains can be realized. This phase would involve a more significant investment but is grounded in the experience and data gathered in Phase 1.

   • Phase 3: Based on the outcomes and learnings from the first two phases, make a strategic decision on whether to pursue full automation or continue with a hybrid model of augmented manual processes and selective automation.

The core concept of integrative thinking is to not limit oneself two the obvious choices presented, but move past them, become more creative and empathetic. To reflect on and understand our thinking.

Conclusion

The Internet of Things continues revolutionizing manufacturing and many other aspects of our economy. It’s an enabler technology that allows companies to build new digital processes and services to increase revenue and efficiency.

Yet, many companies aren’t taking advantage of IoT. They are stuck compromising between the departments, finding solutions that presumably make everyone happy but, in the end, don’t satisfy anyone.

With the integrative approach, leaders have the tools to rethink their working model and invite new ideas that are the polar opposite of theirs. Integrative thinking uses opposite ideas to create new models that are superior to the previous ones.