What's in the Field: PC or Appliance?
There will certainly continue to be compromise for some time to come in the computer as
appliance market (both in terms of the developer and the user), but there is no doubt we
are headed toward the manufacture of a more fully developed appliance. This is true if
for no other reason than cost. Large deployment of field computers requires hardware
costs to come down.
So what do we do in the meantime? Let’s consider the earlier point about defining an
appliance. The term “limited” may be a more useful way to think about an appliance – at
least for now – than even size and cost. In other words, there are reasons to use an
appliance besides cost. And, conversely, you can have an appliance that isn’t cheap.
For some developers, the key to thinking about “limited,” at least in terms of field
computing, is a zen-like anomaly, i.e. limited may actually result in more rather than less.
To buy into this theory, you must agree that “limited” can be viewed in both a negative
and a positive sense. The negative aspect of the term limited is a discouraging “can’t do
much” definition. Turn limited on its head, however, and you get the concept of specific.
In many ways, specificity is the key to successful mobile computing, no matter what the
platform. And that brings us to software.
A travel analogy may be the best way to think about specificity and mobile computing.
When most people go on a business trip, they tend to pack lightly because they know
instinctively that the more luggage they have, the more hassles they have. It’s the same
with mobile computing. Mobile computers are designed for travel and they work best
when excess baggage is eliminated.
In the case of software design, that means specificity. The more specific the application,
the less likely it is to be overloaded with excess baggage. This, of course, flies in the face
of the current software trend toward big and complicated. Big and complicated may be
OK for the desktop (although this is arguable), but it shouldn’t be extended to a field
environment. The “PC on a stick” model isn’t attuned to a limited environment. It is
predicated on the “put your entire desktop on your computer” model.
So we’re back to the question, what’s wrong with a desktop model for a mobile
computer?
Even with a laptop or a high-performance pen computer, there are still storage and
memory limitations. So Rule Number One is take only what you need to the field. Get
rid of extraneous functions. View the laptop or high-performance field computer as an
appliance even if it is bigger and more expensive than what you normally think of as an
appliance. Don’t take general purpose-software to the field; use the computer as a field
tool with a specific application for pole inspection or distribution design or facilities
repair. Eliminating extraneous functions will help you fit all the information you really
need on a mobile computer, even parts of large databases and graphics.
Rule Number Two is the same as Rule Number One: take only what you need to the field.
Be specific. Field personnel aren’t trained to use a complex, general-purpose GIS.
Some of them have never used a computer. Understandably, they don’t want to learn a
complex system that has little relevance to what they do every day. And the fact is that
many people working outside the office do virtually the same type of thing every day.
For them, specificity provides the optimal tool they need to do that job.
Those of us who believe that access to GIS data can greatly increase the effectiveness of
field applications need to make it specific. We need to integrate specific mapping and
spatial analysis tools into applications packages with language and standards reflecting
the job. When you do that, you have an appliance which field personnel view as just
another tool to help them get their work done. The “appliance mentality” makes for an
application that is easy to learn and use and that also insures user acceptance.
|
