week 2 discussion 2 responses
Please read the initial questions and post. Then write a short response only to each post (initial question does not need to be answered).
Describe a device that qualifies for label as an “Internet of Things” device. Present your top reason why this device can benefit society AND your top reason why it could be harmful.
(Note: do NOT choose a primary internet device, like a computer, tablet or smartphone.)
Post 1- Evan:
One example of an Internet of Things device that I think gets overlooked are smart medical devices, from implantable cardiac devices that have an internet enabled monitor, cochlear implants (CI), in vivo biosensors (IVBS), to various other seemingly simple external monitoring devices like those for blood sugar, blood pressure, pulse oximeters, and so on. In fact, my own father has an implantable cardiac device (ICD) that is web-enabled and will send status updates nearly 24/7 to his cardiologist for monitoring and data-logging. For the purposes of my response, I will be treating these as a single class of devices.
Many hospitals have begun using wireless devices, such as pulse oximeters, to monitor patients. With the increased reliability of wireless transmission of data, as well as the “uptime” stability of modern servers and datacenters, this is often a more effective and reliable way of monitoring patient status than manual charting by nursing staff. It also allows hospital staff to focus on other patient needs, it also precludes the need for patients who are in need of rest to be disturbed to take vitals. It also marks the beginning of an era where medicine is practiced at the individual patient level rather than at the population or public health level, with the ability to have individually monitored biosensors (Walsh et al., 2014). Granted that most hospitals still use manual charting, as there is still a need for backup in case of emergencies that involve loss of power or needing to move patients from the coverage area. Such devices are also used in vivo for outpatient treatments, much like my fathers ICD, some are rudimentary and only record information for later dissemination (Koprowski, 2015). These devices do prove to be extremely valuable to clinicians and researchers in tackling some of the biggest health issues faced by humanity with the amount of individualized data they are able to provide (often in real time) regarding patients, but at the potential of great cost.
These healthcare Internet of Things devices present a whole new threat as well. Ignoring what little science actually knows about pro-longed exposure to various types of low-level electromagnetic radiation, there is still not a clear framework of how to address many of the risks presented by these devices and their long-term usage (Harmon et al., 2015). As the healthcare industry modernizes, there is a new focus on HIPAA compliant electronic health records (EHR) systems which are securely transmissible and portable across different IT platforms. Due to the connected nature of these devices and their relatively rudimentary forms of operation, and the fact that healthcare facilities have these devices connected around the clock, they present a large cyber security risk to some of the most personally sensitive data an individual might have aggregated about them (Prei, 2022). Already, there have been major recalls of cardiac devices (in 2017) and insulin pumps (in 2019) found to have cybersecurity vulnerabilities (Paroha, 2020). Ransomware attacks cost the healthcare industry almost $21 billion in 2020, with that number increasing 755% in 2021, and the total value of healthcare IoT devices is expected to quadruple in the next five years (Prei, 2022). Another thing associated with cybersecurity, regular software updates and improvements, is something that is a risk with these devices as well. There are rarely any guarantees of a firms continued support of a product, so what happens if the device or software of an implanted device is no longer supported? Well, that is exactly what happened to a group of patients who had bionic eyes by Second Sight implanted to grant them sight. The company dropped all development and support of their Argus retinal implants (Strickland & Harris, 2022).
Harmon, S. H., Haddow, G., & Gilman, L. (2015). New risks inadequately managed: the case of smart implants and medical device regulation. Law, innovation and technology, 7(2), 231252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2015.1106107
Koprowski, G.J. (2015, November 3) Hospitals trial wireless heart monitor technology. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/hospitals-trial-wireless-heart-monitor-technology
Paroha, K. (2020, October 28). Liability risks arising from smart medical technology are growing. Kennedys Law. https://kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/liability-risks-arising-from-smart-medical-technology-are-growing/
Prei, E. (2022, July 25). Addressing Security Risks to Medical IoT Devices. ISACA. https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/isaca-now-blog/2022/addressing-security-risks-to-medical-iot-devices
Strickland, E., & Harris, M. (2022, February 15). Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported. IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
Walsh, J. A., 3rd, Topol, E. J., & Steinhubl, S. R. (2014). Novel wireless devices for cardiac monitoring. Circulation, 130(7), 573581. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.009024
Post 2- Barry
The IoT concept first surfaced around the early 2000s but has recently emerged as an important area of focus, especially for the logistics discipline. The Internet of things (IoT) are sensors and data-communication technology built into physical objects while allowing those objects to be tracked and controlled over the Internet. The growing use of sensors in industrial and consumer products shows how the Internet of things (IoT) is changing industry competition and creating new products and services. Therefore, logistics managers can use this valuable information and business insights to reduce costs and improve service. For instance, John Deere field tractors come with radar and GPS systems with hundreds of sensors that help support the tractors’ functionality (Gandhi and Gervet, 2016). Industry experts believe IoT would drive value in the supply chain and logistics disciplines through improved employee productivity and enhanced customer interactions. Based on recent research, experts predict the expected value of the IoT over the next decade to be approximately $8 trillion worldwide. With the supply chain and logistics areas contributing an estimated $1.9 trillion.
The industry expectation suggests that the number of things connected to the Internet will triple in the next five years (Laudon and Laudon, 2018). By all accounts, it only represents a tiny fraction of all the physical objects that could ultimately connect. However, the IoT is in its elementary phase of the things yet to come, especially in the logistics and supply chain discipline. Industry experts are deriving unprecedented levels of information due to the Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance both the products and the customer experience (Iansiti and Lakhani, 2014). For instance, GE helps its aircraft and wind turbine client enhance their operations by appraising generated data from thousands of installed sensors on aircraft and turbines”smart products.” These products are a part of a more extensive set of information-intensive services sold by firms (Davis, 2015).
Innovative products offer new functionality, excellent reliability, and more intense use while providing detailed real-time data to improve both the products and the customer experience. Especially for product and service differentiation, innovation expands opportunities. For instance, wearable digital health products offer users various other services, such as access to manufacturers’ cloud servers. Innovative products escalate competition among manufacturing companies or the potential to create a situation where some companies lose customers to competitors. At the same time, intelligent products tend to raise shifting costs and put a brake on new market newcomers. Many believe that if or when the physical product becomes less important than the software and hardware, intelligent products may decrease the power of suppliers of industrial components (Porter and Heppelmann, 2014).
Davis, E. (2015, October 19). The Rise of the Smart Product Economy. Cognizant. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/feature/cognizant/2015/10/the-rise-of-the-smart-product-economy.html
Gandhi, S., & Gervet, E. (2016, March 15). Now That Your Products Can Talk, What Will They Tell You? MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/now-that-your-products-can-talk-what-will-they-tell-you/
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. ( 2014, November 7). Digital Ubiquity: How Connections, Sensors, and Data Are Revolutionizing Business. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/11/digital-ubiquity-how-connections-sensors-and-data-are-revolutionizing-business
Laudon, K. C. & Laudon J. P. (2018). Managerial Support Systems. Pearson Learning Solutions. https://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781323829110
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014, November 11). How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-smart-connected-products-are-transforming-competition