Big Brother has been viewed as a threat for decades.
With the advent of a large number of cameras and security systems, the air is filled more and more with the feeling of insecurity… the feeling like someone is breathing down everyone’s neck and constantly watcing.
These negative feelings are then projected into the company sphere and people are then afraid to trust with certain activities with anyone from the outside. One of the examples is monitoring. Many companies need to monitor something. It can be manufacturing, productions, building entrances, storage conditions or IT systems. But as soon as an external help should be called to aid with them, many of the companies just hide in their shells.
We show 3 areas in which companies are afraid to incorporate external montioring into their operations. Of course, it is necessary for a company to select carefully a partner for this job but some opinions are just myths that prčevent companies from operating efficiently.
Myth #1 – He Sees Everywhere
As soon as someone mentions monitoring, some people get goosebumps, other rather jump out of the way. Oversight and similar words evoke a feeling that a person has no control over when and what the other is watcing. Within a company monitoring that is not the case.
Foundation is that the owner of the monitoring activities and processes is the copmany itself. The customer that wants a service from a provider. And as with any other custom tailored services, even here the customer says what should be included in the monitoring, in which extent and within which time span.
The principle, therefore, is to set the limits of where the provider of the monitoring can get – and that is the border, nothing beyond that is accessible. In reality, the movie monitoring is not true – the part where the monitoring provider has everything under control. The customer defines a specific need and that is covered with a service, nothing more, nothing less.
A good example to illustrate this is the external monitoring of cloud services. Let’s say that a company runs its IT in the cloud. It needs to know about any problem that emerges during the operation of the infrastructure. And this feedback is needed immediately. external monitoring copmany therefore connects all the necessary data into the system and ensures an immediate information channel in case any outage or problems occur.
But that is as far as it goes. The provider cannot see what runs on the infrastructure, so he cannot view and download stored data. The only thing he sees is the health of the infrastructure. This is good to keep in mind when selecting a provider of such service because is he tells you you have to give access to everything, then that is not true and it is a good decision to look somewhere else.
Myth #2 – Not Efficient
We all know it. Implementing a new technology into the company is always a pain. But it is a pain that gows away after somme time and you are glad that the process is undergone. And the same applies to monitoring.
At first sight, it evokes this image – stop everything, detail research, find the right solution, order, connect everything, remove problems and then everything will run.
This view is about stopping everything to implement monitoring and the problems done are larger than the benefit it can bring. But the truth is that not always is it necessary to limit regular operations to set-up monitoring. A good example of this is Comrico – “The biggest task was not to limit the operations during installation. The whole thing was installed in one day during maximum operations of all production lines, including the whole vizualization configuration and system tests,” (quote from our case study).
Not always is it necessary to resolve everything alone. For example, our DASHPOINT team is focused on finding the most appropriate device that fits the specific customer and his needs. It is clear that if sensors are not the daily regular in a company, then the research and selection becomes quite difficult.
And besides there is the unquestionable advantage of timely problem solution. In our model case this can be the outage of IT that runs everything for company operations. With our custommer, Comrico, this could mmean spoilt products which will lead to large losses.
As with anything, even with monitoring we have to see the long-term. Yes, any change brings about inconveniences but if they are compensated with higher efficiency and lower costs, then the solution makes sense, don’t you think?
Myth #3 – We Don’t have Money for Such a Solution
We have to guard costs and they can never be underestimated. But sometimes it is not always clear if one solution is cheaper that the one we consider to be a winner.
Such an example can be a company ensuring a 24/7 monitoring on its own. The costs covering own team, the space, the equipment and additional items are much higher in such case, rather than when if they were provided as a service. It is just much harder to view it that way because own work means cheaper work. Not applicable anymore.
It is also appropriate to put into context the negative influences when monitoring could have been the tool to prevent that or at least mitigate it. It is all still about logic and calculations that in the end can save sets of thousands. This for example happened to Beavia.
External Monitoring ≠ Big Brother
In today age of technologization of all industries, it is necessary to maintain a good overview of the technologies functioning to the benefit of the company. In some cases, this means to implement monitoring, in others to ensure external monitoring. Not one of these is bad or dangerous if you carefully select a reliable partner and set-up processes right. Then your company will get so many benefits, you may be overwhelmed,
And do not be misled, monitoring is not just about the Internet of Things, even though it is its big part. You can monitor other systems as well in various way so don’t let a chance to make your company more efficient slip away.