Creative Connectivity

Smart Metering – the next Y2K bonanza?

At a number of smart metering and smart grid conferences that I’ve been attending recently, it’s be interesting to note the number of fifty and sixty-something consultants who are looking suspiciously like cats who are overdosing on cream. What has brought the smiles to their faces is their belief that the rush to deploy smart meters is considerably ahead of any solidification of standards, or even an understanding of what to do with them. That means that there will be lots of work to try and make the current generation of meters work, only to do it all over again in five years time, when the industry finally decides what the standards should be. If that’s how it pans out, then smart metering may pay their pensions in the same way that Y2K worries provided a happy retirement for a previous generation of engineers. It might be in their interest, but it’s a game-plan that is definitely not in the best interest of the industry.

Within the more general subject of smart grid, media coverage is centring on smart meters and the impact they will have on the consumer. That’s resulting in some aggressive battles between competing standards groups, a growing level of negative publicity for utilities that are being portrayed as greedy ogres trying to get more money out of the consumer, and the appearance of ever more flamboyant futurologists who believe that the utilities will control all of the appliances in our homes.

That level of noise has the effect of making smart meters look as if they are the lynchpin of the smart grid. Hence every utility is rushing to deploy them, backed by willing legislators showering them with stimulus funds. It’s not difficult to see why we’re in this topsy-turvy state. Underlying improvements to the grid don’t have a direct impact on consumers, or only do when the lack of them means that the consumer’s power disappears. Which makes it boring. In contrast, home automation offers the science fiction vision of devices that turn themselves on or off to minimise our energy bills and save the world. But does it help the industry?

The need for Patient Accessible Medical Records

I came across an excellent report on homecare and chronic disease management this week, produced by Pam Garside of the University of Cambridge for Healthcare at Home. Entitled “Lessons from the US” it looks at homecare practice in the two countries. Healthcare at Home are a commercial organisation with an interest in promoting home care (which you probably guessed from their name), but the report seems to be refreshingly clear independent.

It compares and contrasts the use of remote monitoring technology in the US and UK to support patients at home, both in terms of release from hospital and to manage long term chronic conditions. Its main conclusion is that the UK is far better positioned to benefit from this than the US. But there’s one proviso – that the UK needs to put in place a system that allows patient records to be shared between those involved in care, including the patients themselves.

The report acknowledges that this is currently lacking in the UK, but predicts that this will be remedied during the course of 2010 by the introduction on Summary Care Records (SCRs).

Pam’s obviously not spoken to the British GP’s Council. This week their chairman – Laurence Buckmann, made a presentation to the Local Medical Committee’s Conference calling for SCRs to be scrapped, ostensibly because they require a patient to opt out, rather than opting in. It’s part of an ongoing campaign against SCRs by the British Medical Association (BMA) that makes Luddites look progressive. And which seriously threatens innovation within the NHS.

Who owns Smart Energy?

There’s a lot of debate within the industry about who owns Smart Energy. Is it the utilities? Is it the consumer? Will it be Google? Until now, nobody has spotted who the real owner is, but at last it can be revealed – it’s the ZigBee Alliance. They quietly trademarked the phrase “Smart Energy” in the US last December. So if you make any Smart Energy product using any form of wireless, it may be time to get your cheque book out.

Smart Energy, mHealth and the Chocolate Factory

Although they may seem strange bedfellows, both the mHealth industry the smart metering industries (both favourite children of the technology world), are facing the same problem. Both are moving from a world of almost no data to data overload of a level they never imagined, even in their worst nightmares. Whether it’s from an annual health check or a visit from the meter reader, both are used to getting one data point per customer per year. The advent of connected sensors means that is changing to anything up to one reading per second.

It’s a bit like the case of a child who has hitherto only been allowed chocolate on Christmas Day. Now they’re being led into a chocolate factory and told they can eat as much as they want. The inevitable result is a very happy child for a few hours, until they’re violently sick. At which point they either vow never to eat another chocolate, or learn to treat it in a more sensible manner.

Today the medical industry and energy utilities are being shown the doors of the chocolate factory. We have yet to see how they behave once they enter it. Some may emerge as triumphant Charlies, but others risk becoming the commercial equivalent of Augustus Gloop and Veruca Salt.

Hacking Smart Meters, Single Chips and Updating

This week was an interesting one for smart metering announcements. Accent – a Franco-Italian semiconductor design house announced their smart meter on a chip, prompting Jesse Berst of Smart Grid News to enthuse that the “Smart Metering Business has just changed for ever“. Sorry Jesse, but I don’t think so. Elsewhere, in Providence, Rhode Island, New England hackers were convening at QuahogCon to discuss the security of standards. The two announcements provided a good demonstration of the gulf between the promoters of smart metering and the reality of the state of the standards they intend to use. In the same week, ZigBee closed its call for comments on the Technical requirements Document for its Smart Energy Profile, giving the impression that the standard is not far from completion.

The gulf between the enthusiasts and realists is wide. It is worrying that much of the industry is rushing blindly towards deployment, with little understanding of the risks and what can be done to mitigate them.

One of key mantras I keep on hearing repeated when security of the smart meter is raised is “why would anyone bother to hack it?” Josh Wright, talking about ZigBee security at QuahogCon hit the nail on the head when he answered that. “As an attacker, ZigBee lets me interact with the real world – that’s exciting. I can interact with a dam, or natural gas distribution lines. We’re looking at a wireless protocol that lets us interact with real things in the real world – it’s not just credit cards.” The industry forgets the excitement that comes from “because I can” and “real things” And it only needs a few people doing that to fuel scare stories that will kill the whole industry.

FDA and Regulation. The dangers of crying Wolf.

Everyone seems to think that mHealth is about to take off. mobihealthnews.com’s recent roundup of analyst predictions estimated sales of around $4 billion per year by 2014, and my own more fanciful review of potential savings ran into tens of billions of dollars. Network Operators are setting up mHealth divisions faster than you can say “long term chronic condition” and the outpouring of mHealth apps for smartphones continues to grow exponentially.

It has all of the characteristics of the next technical bubble, but with the added benefit that, if we can make it work, it might actually save our healthcare systems from terminal meltdown. We need the disruption that mHealth will bring. As Clayton Christensen points out in his seminal book – The Innovator’s Prescription, the only way we are going to effect a major change in healthcare is through the introduction of new, parallel business models to challenge those that our current healthcare structure is built on. That will need new technologies that provide more effective diagnosis of symptoms, as well as devices that encourage personal participation in healthcare by putting monitoring and health records into the hands of patients. Which are exactly the areas being targeted by the mHealth community.

However, there’s an invisible gorilla in the mHealth room that could consign the whole enterprise to history. It’s called the FDA. The FDA has the ability to apply regulations that would choke the development of mHealth. Like all regulators, the FDA moves slowly – far more slowly than the emerging mHealth technology. It is important for the industry to engage with it to reset the levels of regulation for mHealth. What is worrying is that most of the noise around regulation is not about that resetting of expectations, but scare-mongering about the possible reaction of the FDA to an expansion of connected healthcare and new delivery methods. It’s important that manufacturers understand the barriers that regulation might bring, but we’re at risk of crying “Wolf” to the extent that mHealth may never happen, or else only evolve outside the U.S.