The future of technology

[Henry Fenby-Taylor]

Predicting the future is something intrinsic to the human condition. Whether we are thinking about lunch, retirement, or developing a world-shaking invention like the iPhone.

What if the biggest barrier to realising the potential of innovation is not technology, but belief? Predictions of the future from the 1950s included people flying around in their own helicopters to do their daily chores. Ignoring the acceptability of helicopters powering up and blowing the contents of everyone’s gardens everywhere, this future could have happened. There is no technological boundary to everyone having a helicopter in their garden or on the street. However, it was believed correctly that flying machines are extremely dangerous and that their ownership and piloting should be rigorously controlled. That then, is why that idea never took off. It may be tempting to scoff at this suggestion entirely, but there are now several places only accessible by plane and even a housing estate in Florida where every resident owns a plane as their primary means of transportation. If you would like your own home with an attached hanger, check them out here.

The motor vehicle faced very similar push back from the populace and the media when they were introduced. They were smelly, loud and dangerous, not to mention costly. However, once the car had been accepted as an ordinary part of everyday life, the risk increased as they became faster. Cars were now so intrinsically embedded in our society that the idea of removing them had become unconscionable. 

Digital twins will undergo the same process of becoming publicly acceptable as the question of risk continues to arise. The idea of a building or a motorway self-managing might seem like a stretch to the layperson, but this has already begun with Building Management Systems and Smart Motorways. It is important that we acknowledge the ability of these systems to fail and make sure that we have integrated fail safes that perform the equivalent role of airbags in cars.

Similarly, the idea of the smartphone underwent a similar process of becoming acceptable to the general public not so long ago. They were already present in our society when the iPhone was released, but it was the iPhone that made the concept of the smartphone mainstream. Was it that the technology was superior? In part perhaps. What really made the difference was that Apple sold us a lifestyle choice. That narrative around the iPhone, its versatility thanks to the app store and its good looks were what really made the difference. The technology already existed, but it had never been brought together effectively as a whole product. The app store enabled owners to customise their experience and created a platform for services that today is worth billions of dollars.

The Digital Twin is to the Internet of Things what the iPhone was to the smartphone. The concept of connecting things to the internet makes sense and smart speakers and smart devices have had some success. However, the concept of the internet of things is nebulous at its core. Its story raises questions, we connect things to the internet. That’s it. It’s up to the developers of technology to take that idea and turn it into real products. You cannot procure an internet of things; you cannot own one. A digital twin however is procurable. It is also neatly definable to the layperson. You have a physical asset and a digital representation of that asset; these twins communicate with each other so that you can manage your assets more effectively. You can see the digital twin, make changes to it and they happen in the physical twin. This simplicity of narrative is exactly what sold the first iPhone. Your email, music, calls and the internet are all in one place. It’s a very simple idea to communicate despite it being a very complex product. 

If you compare this sales pitch with the O2 XDA, the rival smartphone at the time, you see a focus on technical specifications. The advert did not answer how this product will make your life easier or better, instead it focused on power and speed, which for an enthusiast (such as myself, who owned an O2 XDA) is very enticing, but for the wider population made little or no headway. 

It is the narrative of the Digital Twin and the National Digital Twin that makes the difference, having prepared the groundwork for public acceptability with the Gemini principles of purpose, trust and function we have learnt the lessons of the past when adopting an innovation so that we do not need to sacrifice the individual’s rights and safety for the general public good as we did for cars. Similarly, with the story of the National Digital Twin we have learnt the lesson of the iPhone, that innovation must be tailored to people’s lifestyles, that is not simply a technology for the sake of it, but something that will enhance our lives in an easily understandable way.

We have a challenge then, if the brand is as important as the technology, how do you think Digital Twins should be marketed? What should be the story we tell?
 

[Guest]

On 07/07/2020 at 12:25, HenryFT said:

You cannot procure an internet of things; you cannot own one. A digital twin however is procurable. It is also neatly definable to the layperson.

Hi @HenryFT Nice write up. I think you have provided a very good answer to your question? 

If I were to brand Digital Twins, I would try to gamify it, show the advantages of the resuability, highlight marginal cost for sharing it, repurposing it. The story will be how using, growing and combining digital twins can shape a better world, not only a better digital world, but also a physical one.

 

Btw, why one can't procure an internet of things, and own one? Is it because the internet of things (by your definition) is a shared asset?

Edited July 28, 2020 by Steven Zhang
correct typo etc

[Henry Fenby-Taylor]

I like the idea of gamifying @Steven Zhang , to me that means thinking about the 'game loop' of using a digital twin. We have looked at how digital twins data state is always changing, but I think more could be done to think about who is interacting with a digital twin and how in a granular fashion not just a business as usual digital twin, but a digital twin in edge cases and emergencies.

To me owning the Internet of Things is like owning an idea. Yes, we may own a thing, or a network of things. To me it's like saying you 'own the logistics of things' when you own a car, or a freight company you don't own the road or the rules of the road and your use of it comes with all the joys of interacting with other road users. 

 

[Guest]

Hi @HenryFT Thanks for answering my questions- you defined IoTs as the ecosystem and the rules, instead of the things that I was thinking. It makes perfect sense after your explanation. 

For a turely collabrative and co-created IoT system, I agree that the ecosystem of internet connected things are not owned by anyone, because it is a shared asset. But the devices and physical infrastructures that makes the IoT system, can be owned by various peoople and organisation (and that what I was thinking).

The digital twin in the edge cases and emergencies, as well as 'game loop' are interesting. Will think about it.