Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/280096
March 2014 | Construction Equipment Distribution | www.cedmag.com | 19 Telematics geopositioning technology entered the commercial market in 2000. In the construction industry, keeping tabs on mobile equipment was one of the first applications. It let an equipment manager check a computer screen to learn where an excavator was working at that hour. The technology also was employed as virtual fencing of an equipment yard, with stolen equipment easily tracked. While these functions were, and still are, valuable, usage has gravitated toward such applications as maintaining engines. "The maintenance functions and record-keeping provide the most immediate benefit," said Brad Stem- per, solutions marketing manager for Case Construction Equipment. "With telematics, fleet managers have a clear and concise program for organizing equipment maintenance data." Yet maintenance monitoring is still a straight-forward task compared to some others, Stemper says. "We as an industry need to do a better job of making the customer aware of the full capabilities of the technology. From equipment utilization to reducing engine idling, gauging productivity and keeping unauthorized use and theft in check, there are so many possibilities that telematics offers the end-user. It's just a matter of showing customers how easy it is to accomplish and to get over the 'new technology' intimidation factor." Whether intimidated or just disin- terested, contractors indeed are not rushing to employ the technology. Kucharski says only about 10 percent of MacAllister Machinery custom- ers – "the early adapters" – embraced telematics when it was introduced in 2007-08; five years later, customer usage is up to 16 percent, with some 2,750 pieces of operating equipment connected to the dealership. The goal is to have half of MacAllister custom- ers using telematics by 2016. "The biggest thing I have learned through this entire telematics rollout – and the rollout continues – is that it takes 7 to 11 times to communicate to a customer the full value of the technology," Kucharski said. That may be why enrollment is so flexible, with a customer more or less able to cherry-pick applications that meet his needs. Furthermore, contracts range in length from seven years down to month-to-month. "Everything is completely customizable." Proponents of telematics believe it virtually revolutionizes heavy equip- ment operations. They claim that if machines are faithfully monitored, data is collected, and the information methodically handled, the result for a contractor is more efficient equipment use and, ultimately, more profit. The extra revenue is subtly derived. It comes from smarter utilization of a machine, with individual pieces of equipment assigned to appropriate tasks. It comes from analyzing opera- tional data after a completed job and submitting better bids on future jobs. Dealers can certainly leverage the data in a consultative way to show equip- ment operators how to run machinery more efficiently. The Trust Factor Some of the resistance to signing a telematics contract is the feeling that too much information is being shared. Some equipment operators are anxious about having their every work move recorded and analyzed. Contrac- tors worry about data that shows day- to-day operational dynamics of their companies falling into the hands of competing contractors. Manufactur- ers are concerned about rival brands getting proprietary information from telematics output. "Trust is the biggest issue," Kuchar- ski said. "Some contractors are worried a manufacturer will use the telematics information against them in a warranty claim. A dealer has to have a great relationship with his customers if he goes down this road." In 1996, Bill Purdie founded MobileNet Inc. (now a subsidiary of satellite data communications company ORBCOMM). He worked early on with Kawasaki and then Doosan construction equipment companies. From his experience, Purdie believes fears about warranty claims are misplaced. "Manufacturers would like to know if a machine is being misused. End-users would like to know if an operator is misusing a machine. But no one wants a claim." In any event, griping by guys in the operator's seat is not what threatens to scuttle the system. Wariness among manufacturers is the big problem, because it limits overall industry access to proprietary telematics systems. This results in different telematics hardware and software systems "speaking different languages," as one industry observer described it. The problem manifests itself when contractors have mixed fleets – running Caterpillar and John Deere excavators, for example – and can't monitor the whole stable of equip- ment in a common back-office system. If data feeds are being sent to deal- ers – some contractors exclude dealers from the telematics informational loop in favor of third-party providers – it means telematics contracts must be signed with more than one dealer. A first stab at breaking down this informational wall occurred in 2008 when the Association of Equipment Management Professionals acted at the urging of its members. AEMP got Cat, Deere, Komatsu and Volvo executives to sit down and bring some commonality to telematics. The result was standardization of five data points dealing with maintenance issues. Just five? "Some of the data feeds are tied to firmware," explained Stan Orr, AEMP president and CSO. "Manufacturers naturally don't want to share that. There also was concern about aggre- gation of data across multiple fleets of different brands, with people starting to publicly compare perfor- mance." Only after a year of talking (continued on next page)