Technology Trends 2022

TECHNOLOGY TRENDS 2022
Technology Trends 2022

Computer Economics, a service of Avasant Research, provides research and advisory services on the strategic
and financial management of information technology. Our clients include IT end-user organizations and
major consulting firms in North America. Our IT Spending and Staffing Benchmarks study, published annually
since 1990, is the definitive source of IT benchmarking data.
Other annual studies include Technology Trends, an assessment of technology adoption, spending, and
economic experience; IT Outsourcing Statistics, which provides data on the use of and experience with IT
outsourcing; IT Management Best Practices, which measure adoption trends of strategic IT practices; and IT
Staffing Ratios, a series of benchmarking studies with metrics for 18 IT job functions.
In addition to these major studies, we publish IT management advisories on various issues of concern to IT
managers. These reports are made available through our website. For further information on our custom
benchmarking services, website subscriptions, advisory reports, and other services, please contact our office
or visit our website.
Contact Information:
Address: 1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1050, El Segundo, CA 90245, USA
Telephone: +1 (949) 831-8700
avasant.com/research/computereconomics
© 2022 Computer Economics, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
ISBN: 1-56909-037-8
Unauthorized reproduction or distribution in whole or in part in any form, including photocopying, faxing,
image scanning, e-mailing, or making available for electronic downloading is prohibited without written
permission from Computer Economics. Prior to photocopying items for internal or personal use, please
contact Computer Economics, Inc. All trade names, trademarks, or registered trademarks are trade names,
trademarks, or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Information contained in this publication has
been compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but the accuracy of this information is not guaranteed.
Computer Economics disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to the content, express or implied,
including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, nor assumes any legal liability for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information contained herein. Any reference to a
commercial product, process, or service does not imply or constitute an endorsement of the same by
Computer Economics. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in
regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold or distributed with the understanding that Computer
Economics is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

© 2022 COMPUTER ECONOMICS, INC. UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION IS PROHIBITED.
PAGE 1
Table of Contents
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS OVERVIEW 4
Introduction 4
Analysis of Relative Maturity 5
Analysis of Economic Experience 8
Customer Satisfaction Ratings 10
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 11
Enterprise Resource Planning 13
Customer Relationship Management 22
E-Commerce 31
Supply Chain Management 39
Human Resources/Human Capital Management 47
Business and Data Analytics 55
Artificial Intelligence 64
Virtual and Augmented Reality 72
INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY 80
Infrastructure as a Service 82
Digital Workplace Technologies 92
Low-Code/No-Code 101
Internet of Things 108
Robotic Process Automation 116
Security Technology 124
EARLY ADOPTER AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES 135

Biometric Identification 136
Digital Assistants 137
Drones 137
Autonomous Vehicles 138
3-D Printing 138
Digital Currencies 139
Blockchain 139
5G Private Networks 139
AI Robotics 140
Quantum Computing 140
Holograms 140
Self-Healing Systems 141
Wi-Fi 6 141
Metaverse Workspace 142
Non-Fungible Tokens 142
PAGE 2
Digital Twins 142

Ultra-High-Density Storage 143
Human-Computer Integration 143
6G Networks 144
METHODOLOGY AND PARTICIPANTS 145

PAGE 3
Technology Trends Overview

Introduction
New technologies can come in and out of fashion with astonishing rapidity as vendors push the next big
service, solution, or strategy. Only with time and the experience of early adopters can business leaders know
which emerging technologies will have staying power and which will fall short of the initial hype. At the other
extreme, some technologies enter the phase of maturity, where they are widely adopted but there is little new
investment. Finally, a few technologies enjoy widespread adoption and a high rate of new investment as
organizations continue to expand their use.
This study is designed to give business leaders insight into the adoption, investment, and customer experience
for 14 technologies that fall into each of those categories. It provides a glimpse into how quickly an emerging
technology is being adopted, how deeply more established technologies are penetrating the market, and how
positive the customer experience is with each of them. The study also delves into the specific types of
solutions under consideration. By understanding the adoption trends, investment activity, and customer
experience, decision-makers are in a better position to assess the potential risks and rewards of investing in
each of these technologies. They also can gain insight into just how aggressively competitors and peers are
investing in them.
In addition to the 14 major technologies in the study, we briefly surveyed our respondents on their knowledge
and potential use of 19 early adopter and future-use technologies. Descriptions of these technologies can be
found in the last section of this study.
This study is based on a survey of 212 IT organizations worldwide conducted from November 2021 to
February 2022. The IT organizations were asked about their technology adoption plans for the 18-month
period stretching into the first half of 2023, as well as their return on investment and total cost of ownership
experience over the previous two-year period. A further description of the methodology and sample is at the
end of this study.

PAGE 4
Analysis of Relative Maturity

Before profiling each technology, we compare the technologies as a group to gain perspective on their relative
maturity and relative risk associated with investing in each. The comparative analysis provides a context
within which to assess each technology. Our IT maturity analysis, illustrated in Figure 1, compares the
technologies along two parameters: the current investment rate and current adoption rate. This provides an
assessment of how widely each technology is deployed, along with an assessment of how many organizations
are currently investing in the technology. Taken together, these factors provide insight into how mature a
technology is relative to other technologies in our study.
The horizontal axis labeled “Percentage with Technology in Place” represents the current adoption rate of
the technologies. The higher the adoption rate, the farther the technology moves to the right in the chart. The
vertical axis, “Percentage Currently Investing,” represents the current investment rate. The greater the
percentage of organizations investing in a technology, the higher it rises on the chart. Note that the scale on
each axis is defined by the lowest and highest values in the study. As such, in this analysis, the words “low”
and “high” are relative to the other technologies in the study.

PAGE 5
The chart is divided into nine sectors, representing low, moderate, and high current investment rates, and low,
moderate, and high current adoption rates. Each of the initiatives falls into one of the nine sectors as follows:
 High Investment/High Adoption: Two technologies fall into the high-investment, high-
adoption sector this year. It is not surprising that security technology (1) is a high priority in
terms of adoption and investment given the threats impacting the enterprise today. Business and
data analytics (2) is benefiting from new technologies including artificial intelligence (AI),
machine learning, faster networks, and the cloud.
 Moderate Investment/High Adoption: Five technologies fall into this category. Digital
workplace technologies (3) is a set of tools and electronic capabilities to allow workers to
communicate and collaborate virtually from anywhere. There has been a surge in the use of
digital workplace technologies as the pandemic demonstrated a number of valuable use cases.
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) (4) has long been one of the most adopted and mature
technologies in the study. However, investment is still relatively high because of new capabilities
in the ERP space. New cloud-based offerings also are encouraging IT organizations to shift away
from legacy systems. Infrastructure as a service (IaaS) (5) had shown steady growth for some
time but shot up when the pandemic hit in early 2020. Human resources/human capital
management (HR/HCM) (6) and customer relationship management (CRM) (7), as with ERP,
are benefiting from the replacement of legacy systems with cloud offerings.
 Moderate Investment/Moderate Adoption: Only e-commerce (8) falls into this group. E-
commerce systems are ubiquitous in many sectors but not necessary in others. As such, adoption
and investment rates can vary.
 Moderate Adoption/Low Investment: Only supply chain management (9) falls into this box.
SCM should be benefiting from the same enhancements as other technologies in the study, but
unlike ERP and CRM it is lagging in new investment. Clearly, other applications are a higher
priority for cloud deployments.
 Low Investment/Moderate Adoption: Only AI (10) falls into this sector. AI stands in for a
series of technologies including machine learning, rules-based automation, natural language
processing, facial and voice recognition, and even chatbots. AI also is being baked into existing
business applications, and we expect its role to grow.
 Low Investment/Low Adoption: Four technologies fall into this box. Low-code/no-code (11)
environments use graphical interfaces to create user applications, with fewer experienced coders
involved or even none at all. Robotic process automation (RPA) (12) can take over for humans in
doing simple, repetitive tasks and free them up for higher-order analysis and decision-making.
Cost savings should propel growth in this area. The Internet of Things (IoT) (13) is especially
promising as a way to reduce costs through elimination of waste by using smart devices and
sensors. New consumer goods using IoT also will open businesses to new kinds of customer
data and intimacy. Virtual and augmented reality (14) still suffers from form factors being clumsy
and often tethered to larger machines. However, the technology is getting easier to use. We
expect it to grow as this happens.

PAGE 6
Enterprises are investing in their bread-and-butter core systems at a strong rate, with many applications
getting major investments. Security is obviously a top priority. And organizations are thirsty for data that they
can use to make better decisions in a rapidly changing economy. The dream next step for business and data
analytics is the inclusion of AI, machine learning, better networks, and the cloud allowing for increased agility.
Automation based on these analytics would allow for business decisions to be made by AI at a rate even faster
than human managers can make them. Even without the AI component, companies are increasingly reliant
on data, and we would not expect business and data analytics to fall as a priority any time soon.
In the next section, we assess the economic experience adopters are having with each of these initiatives,
regardless of their maturity. This analysis will provide greater insight into their prospects.

PAGE 7
Analysis of Economic Experience

Although some IT spending may be viewed simply as the cost of doing business, organizations ultimately
expect a financial return on their investments. Like all investments, those in IT carry risks, and balancing risks
against potential rewards is an important step in sound decision-making. The scatter chart in Figure 2
illustrates the relationship between risk and reward by plotting the cost-success rate (risk) against the ROI-
success rate (reward) for each initiative.
This analysis defines reward in terms of the percentage of adopters that break even or obtain positive ROI
on their investment, which we call the ROI success rate. We define risk in terms of the percentage of
adopters that came in at or at less than budget for total cost of ownership (TCO), which we call the cost-
success rate. Figure 2 ranks each technology by economic experience, which is the combination of the two.
Technologies with higher combined success rates are positioned closer to the upper-right-hand corner.

PAGE 8
Each initiative falls into one of nine sectors, representing low, moderate, or high reward, and low, moderate,
or high risk. The findings are as follows:
 Low Risk/High Reward: Technologies with the most successful economic experience profiles
are in the low-risk, high-reward sector. Five technologies are in this category. For the most part,
organizations are achieving success with these technologies. IoT (1), digital workplace
technologies (2), artificial intelligence (3), RPA (4), and low-code/no-code (6) are technologies
that all IT executives should be tracking closely because of their positive risk-reward
characteristics.
 Low Risk/Moderate Reward: AR/VR (5) is the only technology that falls into this sector.
With AR/VR technologies, cost is predictable, but ROI is sometimes difficult to measure or is
unclear.
 Moderate Risk/High Reward: SCM (7) and IaaS (9) both fall into this sector. ROI is strong,
but good governance is definitely required to get the most out of these technologies.
 Moderate Risk/Moderate Reward: Business and data analytics (8) is the only technology in
this sector. Business and data analytics can be complicated, and ROI can be difficult to separate
from the projects it informs.
 High Risk/Moderate Reward: HR/HCM (11) often works with “soft projects” that are
difficult to quantify. Security technology (12) requires specialized and expensive skills, and ROI is
difficult to determine since the main goal is prevention of loss rather than the creation of value.
 High Risk/Moderate Reward: The sole technology in this sector, e-commerce (10), like many
complex software systems, can be difficult to implement, and costs can often get out of hand.
 High Risk/Low Reward: CRM (13) and ERP (14) have poor track records in these areas, and
consistently so. CRM and ERP success requires user adoption and willingness to change, which
increases the risk of failure. Because these systems are an essential part of the application
portfolio of most organizations, the high-risk/low-reward nature does not mean organizations
should not invest in them. Rather, it means that they should focus on mitigating the risks as well
as managing the people side of change.

PAGE 9
Customer Satisfaction Ratings

In our final comparative analysis, Figure 3 shows the scaled satisfaction ratings for the 14 technologies in our
study. The ratings are based on the percentage of companies saying they are satisfied or very satisfied with
their experience with each technology. As with the other charts, the satisfaction ratings are based on a relative
scale determined by the highest and lowest values for all technologies in the study.
The top technologies in the study are digital workplace technologies—a new entry for our survey this year—
and low-code/no-code. With digital workplace technologies, the transformation to a hybrid workforce is well
under way, and companies are satisfied with how these various technologies are performing. The fact that
low-code/no-code is second demonstrates how much application development has changed in the past
decade and how the tools have improved.
Next comes RPA. As discussed later in this report, robotic process automation is gaining ground in large
organizations with large numbers of clerical or administrative workers, such as financial services and
healthcare organizations.
HR/HCM systems have the lowest satisfaction rating in our survey. The fact that they give the most trouble
to our respondents is worrisome but not surprising. A great deal of organizational change management, buy-
in from users, and rethinking of business processes goes into the successful deployment of these and other
complicated business systems. And as the organization changes, changes to these systems are a constant
battle.
We present an expanded description of each of these technologies with their individual adoption trends,
ROI/TCO, and customer satisfaction profiles in the next two sections.

PAGE 10
Enterprise Systems
The study includes eight technologies that we place in the category of enterprise systems. They include ERP,
CRM, e-commerce, supply chain management, human resources/human capital management, business and
data analytics, artificial intelligence, and virtual and augmented reality.
In this section, we profile each technology initiative in seven figures as follows:
 Adoption and Customer Experience Profile: This figure establishes the context for
understanding the metrics. The profile chart shows how each technology compares with other
initiatives in the study on adoption rate, investment rate, ROI success rate, TCO success rate, and
overall customer satisfaction.
 Stages of Adoption: This figure shows the percentage of organizations at each of five
adoption stages. Stage 1 is “no activity.” Organizations studying or piloting technologies fall into
the “considering” stage, or Stage 2. The implementation stage, Stage 3, includes companies that
plan to implement an initiative for the first time within the next 18 months. Those at Stage 4
have the technology in place but show “no further activity” beyond routine maintenance and
addition of new users. Organizations at Stage 5 have the technology in place and are
“increasing” their investment by implementing new features and capabilities.
 Adoption and Investment by Organization Size: This chart shows adoption and investment
rates by organization size. The adoption rate is the percentage of organizations at Stages 4 and 5,
with initiatives in place. Investors are organizations at Stages 3 and 5, including first-time
implementers and those making follow-on investments. We define small organizations as those
with from $20 million to less than $350 million in annual revenue, midsize organizations as those
with from $350 million to less than $1 billion in annual revenue, and large organizations as those
with at least $1 billion in annual revenue.
 Customer Experience with ROI: This figure shows the percentage of adopters that have a
return on investment that is positive, break even, or negative over a two-year period. The ROI
success rate is the percentage having positive or break-even ROI.
 Customer Experience with TCO: The customer experience with total cost of ownership is
measured by the percentage of adopters that find TCO is greater than budgeted, the same as
budgeted, or less than budgeted. The cost-success rate is the percentage that experience TCO of
less than or the same as the budgeted amount for implementation and ongoing support.
 Satisfaction with Customer Experience: We measure overall customer satisfaction by asking

adopters to rate their satisfaction with each technology on a five-point scale, from very
dissatisfied to very satisfied.

PAGE 11
 Types of Solutions: This figure shows the percentage of investors that are making an
investment or considering an investment in each type of solution within the category. We include
organizations making follow-on investments and first-time implementations, as well as those only
considering an investment. Respondents can select from among multiple choices.

PAGE 12
Enterprise Resource Planning

Enterprise resource planning is not only one of the most adopted technologies we track, but it also is
consistently near the top of the list in terms of new investment. This is impressive for such a mature
technology. ERP is the transactional backbone for many organizations’ systems of record and has been for
some time. ERP systems are integrated cross-functional systems that automate back-office business
transactions such as accounting, operations management, customer orders, inventory, and resource planning.
They have expanded beyond their roots in manufacturing to support business operations in nearly every
industry.
New investment in ERP remains relatively strong, even though the technology is very mature. ERP
investment is being driven by several factors:
 The desire for operational improvement is a strong motivation for investment in ERP.
 The consolidation of multiple ERP systems drives new ERP investments. Mergers and
acquisitions often leave companies with multiple ERP systems supporting different business
units, with duplicate support costs and integration challenges across the enterprise. In such cases,
companies often pick one existing ERP platform as a standard and expand their investment, or
they invest in a new ERP platform.
 Cloud-based options for ERP promise more cost certainty, security, agility, and savings over
legacy ERP systems. While cloud-based ERP has been around for some time, new ERP
implementations can be disruptive. Some companies have looked at less-complicated
technologies first as they convert all of their software to cloud-based options.
 New technology adoption can trigger ERP spending. Areas of investment such as business
analytics and mobile applications ultimately require integration with the ERP platform, which has
become a key part of the software infrastructure that is enabling innovation and process
improvement. AI also is driving new investment in ERP.
 Integration of master data and key transactional information can drive new ERP system
investment. For example, large and even midsize organizations can have multiple systems that
define products, maintain supplier information, or carry sales history. By implementing a
common ERP system, the organization can maintain a single source for such critical data.
In short, it is difficult to address ERP as a single, discrete business application. It is an area of ongoing
investment and focus for every company that intends to remain competitive.
Although ERP is a popular technology, there are challenges to successful implementation. These have been
covered widely, but a few are worth mentioning:
 ERP systems are complicated to deploy, and many organizations have difficulty staying within
budget. ERP implementation costs tend to be underestimated, and the ongoing support costs are
often exceeded.
PAGE 13
 Once ERP is implemented, it can be a challenge to remain current on the vendor’s release
schedule. Some major version upgrades are, in effect, mini-implementations requiring a project
team and allocation of resources that may be in short supply. Choosing a cloud ERP strategy can
mitigate this challenge. SaaS deployments can limit some difficulties with upgrades, as the vendor
is responsible for making infrastructure and software upgrades. However, new versions of SaaS
require adjustments to business processes as well as end-user training. These changes can slow
the pace of adoption of new versions.
 Customer modification of ERP vendor source code makes staying current even more of a
challenge, as the customer must retrofit such modifications to the current release. In addition,
according to our research, code modifications significantly increase the cost of ongoing support.
Again, SaaS implementations often offer flexibility that makes the customization easier, but it is
still important to make sure that as versions change, customization carries forward correctly and
does not disrupt business processes.
While ERP is a mature technology, the cloud has changed the landscape. Cloud-based ERP systems—where
complete or nearly complete ERP systems are offered in a multitenant, SaaS model—are competing with
older offerings hosted on-premises or as a managed service. A number of smaller cloud-based players also
are gaining market share. Complicating matters, most of the traditional players have transitioned or are in the
process of moving to a cloud-based model for ERP as well, either as separate offerings or as rearchitected
versions of their traditional products.

PAGE 14
Technology Adoption Profile

Figure 4 shows how ERP systems compare with other technologies in our study on five metrics: adoption
rate, investment rate, ROI success rate, TCO success rate, and satisfaction.
 Adoption Rate: The adoption rate is high compared with other technologies in the study. The
percentage of organizations that have ERP systems in place is within the top one-third of the
range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study.
 Investment Rate: The percentage of organizations currently investing in this technology is

moderate. Investors include organizations that plan new implementations or enhancements to
existing systems within the next 18 months.
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted ERP systems, the percentage
that is at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is low compared with
other technologies in the study.
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for ERP systems also is low compared with other
technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of adopters coming
in at or at less than budget for implementation and ongoing support costs.
 Satisfaction Rating: The overall satisfaction level among ERP users is low compared with other
technologies in the study.

PAGE 15
Stages of Adoption
Figure 5 shows the percentage of organizations at each of the five adoption stages.
The stages are as follows:
 No Activity: About 7% of IT organizations report no activity with ERP. These organizations

have not deployed the technology and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
 Considering: The consideration stage includes 8% of organizations. These organizations are

investigating and may be piloting the technology but have not yet decided to move to the next
stage.
 Implementing: The 5% of organizations at the implementation stage have plans to deploy the
technology for the first time within an 18-month period.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 31% of organizations at this stage have ERP systems in
place but have no plans to augment their systems with new functionality. Routine maintenance or
expansion of systems to accommodate business growth and new users does not qualify as
further investment activity.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have ERP systems in place and have budgeted
additional money to expand the functionality of their systems fall into this category. About 49%
of organizations are increasing their investment in ERP to add new functionality.

PAGE 16
Adoption and Investment by Organization Size

Organizations at the final two stages are the adopters (as shown in Figure 5). Figure 6 shows the adoption
rate by organization size: 79% of small, 83% of midsize, and 77% of large organizations have ERP systems
in place. The investors are implementing or enhancing systems. They include 48% of small, 67% of midsize,
and 58% of large organizations.

PAGE 17
Customer Experience with ROI

Figure 7 shows that just 27% of organizations report positive ROI with their investment in ERP systems,
compared with 32% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 41% reached the
break-even point.

PAGE 18
Customer Experience with TCO

About 34% of organizations exceeded budget for ERP, while only 7% came in at less than budget, Figure 8
shows. Another 59% successfully met their budgets with this technology.

PAGE 19
Satisfaction with Customer Experience

Most adopters are satisfied with their ERP technology implementations. Figure 9 shows that 56% of ERP
adopters are satisfied or very satisfied with their systems. More informative, perhaps, is the percentage of
unhappy customers. About 16% of adopters say they are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their ERP
systems.

PAGE 20
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in ERP have a range of solutions to consider. Figure
10 shows that the highest percentage, 66%, are investing in accounting/finance functionality, followed by
operations management at 53% and purchasing at 49%.

PAGE 21
Customer Relationship Management

CRM systems are customer-facing systems that coordinate and manage customer and prospect information
along with a record of the organization’s interactions with them. They typically include functions such as
sales-force automation, estimating/quoting, configuration, marketing automation, customer call center,
customer support or field service, and other systems that directly support sales, marketing, and customer
service.
Although these business functions have been served by computer systems for decades, the moniker “CRM”
came into popular use in the 1990s as an umbrella term to encompass all of these customer-facing systems.
Today, CRM systems are one of the most widely adopted categories of enterprise applications. Widespread
adoption of CRM systems is being driven by a number of factors:
 In every economic environment, system investments that have a positive effect on top-line sales
growth are attractive. CRM systems—which automate and support sales processes—allow sales
personnel to devote less time to administrative and reporting activities, freeing them to focus on
selling. As a result, organizations perceive CRM as increasing sales per sales representative.
 CRM systems also fulfill strategic objectives beyond sales-force automation. Companies view
customer knowledge as a key requirement for business success. By centralizing and organizing all
information about customers and their previous interactions with the organization, CRM
systems lead to greater upsell and cross-sell opportunities, better segmentation of the
organization’s most profitable customers, and a better overall customer experience. Most CRM
systems also include capabilities for knowledge management, community development, and
social media. Integration of marketing and sales also is common in campaign management,
content management, media planning, web marketing, and other marketing automation
functionalities that bring a greater number of qualified leads to the sales force.
 New technologies also are driving adoption of CRM. An omnichannel customer experience is
now table stakes for most companies. Hyper-personal, data-driven experiences require data to
follow the customer from different points of contact. CRM systems need to be highly integrated
and serve real-time data to customers and those serving them. Today these systems are taking
advantage of AI and natural language processing to help sales with sentiment analysis, market
segmentation, identifying accounts in jeopardy, managing sales funnels, and even crafting emails.
 With the proliferation of new technologies, customer expectations are rising. Customers expect
businesses that they deal with to know who they are at the point of engagement and not require
them to provide information they have previously submitted, whether in person or by phone,
email, web, or social media.
 Not only are customer expectations rising, CRM user expectations are increasing as well. First-
generation CRM systems were very limited. Users now are often on the road, in hotel rooms and
airports, or on-site with customers, where it can be difficult to get to a computer or a network
connection. With everyone now using smartphones or tablet computers, these users expect to be
able to use them to interact with CRM systems.
PAGE 22
While customer and user expectations mandate investment in CRM, adoption also is encouraged by a wealth
of new CRM system capabilities. Over the past decade, many ERP providers have built CRM capabilities into
their existing product portfolios, making it easy for their customers to integrate CRM with their existing ERP
implementations. A number of midmarket ERP players have followed suit, making CRM capabilities
achievable for smaller companies.
Finally, cloud-based CRM systems are raising the bar in ease of use and rapid implementation. These systems
make CRM attractive to an even wider variety of companies in contrast to first-generation CRM systems.
CRM is an attractive application for cloud computing, as its web-based technology allows organizations to
easily deploy CRM outside the organization’s firewall for mobile workers.

PAGE 23

Figure 11 shows how CRM systems compare with other technologies in the study on five metrics: adoption
rate, investment rate, ROI success, TCO success, and overall satisfaction.
percentage of organizations that have CRM systems in place is within the top one-third of the
range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study. The
adoption rate does not include organizations that plan to implement the technology but have not
yet done so.

 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted CRM systems, the
percentage that is at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is low
compared with other technologies in the study.
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for CRM systems also is low compared with other
 Satisfaction Rating: The satisfaction level among CRM users also is low compared with the

PAGE 24
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 12% of IT organizations report no activity with CRM. These organizations
have not deployed the technology and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
 Considering: The consideration stage includes the 14% of organizations that are investigating
the potential benefits and risks of a full implementation. This includes organizations that may be
piloting the technology but have not yet decided to move to the next stage.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 32% of organizations at this stage have CRM systems in
place but have no plans to augment their systems with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have CRM systems in place and have budgeted
of organizations are increasing their investment in CRM.

PAGE 25

Organizations at the final two stages are the adopters. Figure 13 shows the adoption rate by organization size:
About 63% of small, 59% of midsize, and 83% of large organizations have CRM systems in place. Those
that are implementing or enhancing systems—the investors—include 36% of small, 43% of midsize, and
54% of large organizations.

PAGE 26

Figure 14 shows that 25% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in CRM systems,
break-even point.

PAGE 27

About 31% of organizations exceeded budget while only 4% came in at less than budget, Figure 15 shows.
Another 65% successfully met their budgets with this technology.

PAGE 28

Figure 16 shows that 55% of CRM adopters are satisfied or very satisfied with their systems. CRM systems
receive a low satisfaction rating relative to other technologies in the study because of the percentage of
unhappy customers and also because of the higher levels of satisfaction with some other technologies in the
study. About 18% of adopters say they are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their CRM systems.

PAGE 29
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in CRM have a range of solutions to consider. Figure
17 shows that the winner is customer service, with an investment rate of 46%. Just behind that are sales-force
automation and marketing at 45% and 42%, respectively. Customer analytics at 40% rounds out the top four
most popular types of CRM solutions attracting investment today.

PAGE 30
E-Commerce
E-commerce systems are exactly as the name implies: systems that enable organizations to transact business
electronically, primarily through the internet. Although the internet is used in many ways to develop and
enrich the customer experience, it is business transactions that are the defining characteristic of e-commerce,
whether it be with customers, suppliers, partners, or other external parties.
However, e-commerce has become increasingly complex as its use has boomed. Moving beyond stand-alone
web storefronts, e-commerce systems interface with CRM systems, supply chain management systems, and
ERP systems to provide real-time data for managing inventory and forecasting customer demand. E-
commerce systems also include the use of web APIs that allow buyer and seller systems to communicate
directly. At the same time, older electronic data interchange (EDI) systems continue to be deployed and
extended in B2B commerce. All of these—website commerce, web APIs, and EDI systems—fall under our
definition of e-commerce systems.
Starting in the retail industry, e-commerce today is deployed by companies in virtually all sectors to do
business with customers. Banks use it for online banking. Healthcare providers use it not only for billing, but
for appointments, scheduling, and patient workflow. Governments use it to allow citizens to pay taxes.
Charities and nonprofits use it to collect donations. There is scarcely a business transaction that cannot be
performed today using e-commerce.
Still, at its heart, e-commerce is about buying and selling. About 20% of all retail sales in the US today come
through e-commerce. Mobile devices have increased this trend as mobile device payment and digital loyalty
clubs have become commonplace. The growth in online sales requires e-commerce systems to be flexible,
scalable, and easy to use and implement.
E-commerce is a mature technology but one that is still evolving. We expect it to continue to grow inside its
traditional role with retailers and beyond as APIs and cloud platforms make it easier to implement and
capabilities increase.

PAGE 31

Figure 18 shows how e-commerce systems compare with other technology initiatives in the study on five
metrics: adoption rate, investment rate, ROI success, TCO success, and satisfaction.
 Adoption Rate: The adoption rate is moderate compared with other technologies in the study. The
percentage of organizations that have e-commerce systems in place is within the middle one-third of
the range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study.
 Investment Rate: The percentage of organizations currently investing in this technology also is
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted e-commerce systems, the
percentage that is at least breaking even on investments within a two-year period is moderate
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for e-commerce systems is low compared with other
technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of adopters coming in
at or at less than budget for implementation and ongoing support costs.
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate for e-commerce systems is low compared with other

PAGE 32
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 30% of IT organizations report no activity in regard to adoption of e-

commerce systems. These organizations have not deployed the technology and are not researching or
piloting an initiative.
 Considering: The consideration stage includes the 9% of organizations that are investigating the
potential benefits and risks of an implementation. This includes organizations that may be piloting
the technology but have not yet decided to move to the next stage.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 15% of organizations at this stage have e-commerce systems in
place but have no plans to augment their systems with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: About 40% of organizations have e-commerce systems in place and have
budgeted additional money to expand the functionality of their systems.

PAGE 33

Organizations at the final two stages are the adopters. Figure 20 shows that 54% of both small and midsize
and 64% of large organizations have e-commerce systems in place. Those that are implementing or
enhancing systems—the investors—include 45% of small and 48% of both midsize and large organizations.

PAGE 34

Figure 21 shows that 44% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in e-commerce
systems, compared with 16% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 40%
reached the break-even point.

PAGE 35

About 28% of organizations exceeded budget while 6% came in at less than budget, Figure 22 shows.

PAGE 36

Figure 23 shows that 55% of e-commerce adopters are satisfied or very satisfied with their systems. However,
these systems receive a low satisfaction rating because of the higher levels of satisfaction with some other
technologies in the study. Only 3% of adopters are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, but a significant 42% are
neutral on the topic.

PAGE 37
Types of Solutions
Figure 24 shows that 50% of investors in e-commerce systems are investing in customer portals, and 41% are
investing in web storefronts. Back-end integration is next at 36%.

PAGE 38
Supply Chain Management

Supply chain management systems manage the planning, movement, and storage of materials from the
earliest stages of procurement through intermediate stages of production to final distribution to the end
customer. Whereas ERP systems primarily focus on the internal operations of the business, supply chain
management looks outward to encompass the activities of suppliers, customers, and partners, as well as
internally to the movement and storage of materials within the organization’s operations. Supply chain
management systems encompass two main subcategories:
 Supply chain planning systems support planning of supply and demand, both within the
production facility and across the supply chain. These systems often incorporate concepts and
techniques such as demand forecasting, predictive analytics, rapid simulation, theory of
constraints, demand-driven material requirements planning, in-memory computing, and linear
programming.
 Supply chain execution systems carry out those plans on a day-to-day or hour-by-hour basis
and react to events or disruptions. These systems can incorporate a number of technologies,
such as bar-coding, RFID, conveyor systems, warehouse automation, automated material
handling systems, robotics, global positioning systems, and machine-to-machine
communications.
Although SCM adoption is greatest in the retail/wholesale distribution, manufacturing, and utilities sectors,
SCM is expanding to less-traditional companies because of the use of planning software, artificial
intelligence, and machine learning. For example, healthcare providers often have complex logistics
requirements in their shared services organizations where shelf-life considerations play an important part in
managing and replenishing stocks of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.
Transportation companies, of course, have complex logistics requirements, which is a bread-and-butter issue
for SCM systems. Government agencies often have significant inventories of equipment as well as
maintenance and repair parts that can benefit from sophisticated warehouse management and logistics
systems.
Today, the rise of global supply chains, the recent disruption of those supply chains, and energy-driven
transportation costs are providing renewed impetus for adoption of SCM. Manufacturers and distributors
cannot compete without the visibility into their increasingly complex supply chains, driven in part by the
increasing use of contract manufacturers in overseas locations. The cost savings in offshore manufacturing
can quickly be lost if transportation and inventory costs skyrocket because of an inability to plan material and
resource requirements over long lead times. Supply chain management systems, therefore, are a necessity in
today’s global economy.

PAGE 39

Figure 25 shows how supply chain management systems compare with other technology initiatives in the
study on five metrics: adoption rate, investment rate, ROI success, TCO success, and satisfaction.
 Adoption Rate: The adoption rate is moderate compared with other technologies in the study. The
percentage of organizations that have supply chain management systems in place is within the middle
one-third of the range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the
study.
 Investment Rate: The percentage of organizations currently investing in this technology is low.
Investors include organizations that plan new implementations or enhancements to existing systems
within the next 18 months.
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted supply chain management
systems, the percentage that is at least breaking even on investments within a two-year period is high
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for supply chain management systems is moderate
compared with other technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of
adopters coming in at or at less than budget for implementation and ongoing support costs.
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate for supply chain management systems is moderate

PAGE 40
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 37% of IT organizations report no activity in regard to adoption of supply

chain management systems. These organizations have not deployed the technology and are not
researching or piloting an initiative.
potential benefits and risks of an implementation. This includes organizations that may be piloting
the technology but have not yet decided to move to the next stage.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 19% of organizations at this stage have supply chain
management systems in place but have no plans to augment their systems with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: About 29% of organizations have supply chain management systems in place
and have budgeted additional money to expand the functionality of their systems.

PAGE 41

Figure 27 shows that 49% of small and midsize and 48% of large organizations have supply chain
management systems in place. Those that are implementing or enhancing systems—the investors—include
32% of small and 35% of midsize and large organizations.

PAGE 42

Figure 28 shows that 30% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in supply chain
management systems, compared with just 9% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period.
Another 61% reached the break-even point.

PAGE 43

About 16% of organizations exceeded budget, while only 2% came in at less than budget, Figure 29 shows.

PAGE 44

Figure 30 shows that 60% of supply chain management adopters are satisfied or very satisfied with their
systems. However, these systems receive a moderate satisfaction rating because of the higher levels of
satisfaction with some other technologies in the study. About 12% of adopters are dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied, and 28% are neutral.

PAGE 45
Types of Solutions
Figure 31 shows that 44% of investors in supply chain management systems are investing in warehouse
management. Next in line is demand forecasting/management at 42%, followed by sales and operations
planning at 33%.

PAGE 46
Human Resources/Human Capital Management

A human resources/human capital management (HR/HCM) system is an integrated suite that serves as the
system of record for human resources (employees, contractors, applicants, and other personnel) and supports
HR management processes. HR/HCM systems typically include functionality for payroll, the HR department,
benefits, time/absence reporting, worker scheduling, workforce planning, recruiting, learning management,
career development, workforce analytics, and related people-management systems.
Managing human resources is a core aspect of every business organization, and investing in human capital
management systems optimizes hiring, training, and management of the workforce. Many companies
understand that while best practices can be imitated by competitors, recruiting, developing, and retaining the
best people is a sustainable, competitive advantage. Building and maintaining a world-class human capital
management system can be an important element in this goal.
Key benefits of human capital management include:
 Improved effectiveness in recruiting, retaining, and developing people
 Improved productivity for HR-related processes
 Ensuring regulatory compliance and risk mitigation
 Increased employee satisfaction and retention
While the benefits of a human capital management system are relatively easy to describe, there are several
major challenges in deployment. First, integrating with other back-office systems can be difficult. Adopting a
human capital management system from the same vendor as the organization’s ERP system can facilitate
integration, but the best solutions often come from best-of-breed providers. Secondly, unless managed
properly, like most other business applications, TCO can exceed budget. Finally, ROI for these systems can
sometimes be difficult to measure because some areas, such as career development and resumé tracking, do
not always have clear metrics.
Perhaps no other category of enterprise software includes as many providers as the HR/HCM market, where
it has been easy for a small developer to launch a solution to address a narrow need or problem in managing
the workforce. Although best-of-breed providers continue to serve an important role, many organizations
choose integrated HR/HCM suites that feature multiple functions and capabilities, reducing the number of
vendors and limiting the amount of integration needed to get the job done. Consolidation is changing the
HR/HCM marketplace.

PAGE 47

Figure 32 shows how HR/HCM compares with other technology initiatives in the study on five metrics:
adoption rate, investment rate, ROI success rate, TCO success rate, and satisfaction.
percentage of organizations that have an HR/HCM system in place is within the top one-third
of the range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study.
The adoption rate does not include organizations that plan to implement the technology but
have not yet done so.

 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted an HR/HCM system, the
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for human capital management is moderate
compared with other technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the
percentage of adopters that come in at or at less than budget for implementation and ongoing
support costs.
 Satisfaction: The satisfaction rate for HR/HCM is low compared with other technologies in the
study.

PAGE 48
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 4% of IT organizations report no activity. These organizations have not

deployed the technology and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
the potential benefits and risks of an implementation. This includes organizations that may be
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 39% of organizations at this stage have an HR/HCM
system in place but have no plans to augment it with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have an HR/HCM system in place and have budgeted
additional money to expand the functionality of it fall into this category. About 43% of
organizations are increasing their investment in the technology.

PAGE 49

Figure 34 shows the adoption rate by organization size: 79% of small, 81% of midsize, and 84% of large
organizations have an HR/HCM system in place. Those that are implementing or enhancing systems—the
investors—include 48% of small, 38% of midsize, and 61% of large organizations.

PAGE 50

Figure 35 shows that 25% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in HR/HCM,
break-even point.

PAGE 51

While 23% of organizations exceeded budget, 7% came in at less than budget, Figure 36 shows. Another
70% successfully met their budgets with this technology.

PAGE 52

Figure 37 shows about 46% of adopters are either satisfied or very satisfied with the technology, compared
with 21% that are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Another 33% of the adopters fall into the neutral category.

PAGE 53
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in HR/HCM have a range of solutions to consider.
Figure 38 shows that learning management is the top choice at 49%. Reporting structure and payroll tie for
second at 43%.

PAGE 54
Business and Data Analytics

Business and data analytics refer to a broad range of tools to collect, store, integrate, analyze, and present
information that supports decision-making. Our definition of this technology includes data warehouses, data
marts, business intelligence, predictive analytics, data mining, dashboards, online analytical processing
(OLAP), end-user report writers, and big data. Note that previously we included artificial intelligence,
machine learning, and machine/sensor data analysis in this technology category but now include them in their
own chapters for AI and IoT.
In recent years, business and data analytics systems have moved from strategic applications to operational
applications, sometimes extracting data directly from transactional systems such as ERP and CRM, combining
it with external data, and delivering operational metrics deeper into the organization. Typical applications of
business and data analytics systems help top managers identify spending trends, detect fraud, and lower the
cost of marketing campaigns. They also can be used to alert customer service representatives to upsell
opportunities, among many other applications.
Real-time business analytics represents a newer class of tools designed to unearth the relationships among a
range of data, use their own repositories, and often present themselves as easy, flexible tools with
sophisticated graphical-presentation capabilities and responsive in-memory processing. One issue (or benefit,
depending on one’s point of view) with these solutions is that line-of-business users can bypass the central IT
organization and create their own departmental solutions.
To complicate matters, vendors of all types of software claim that their proprietary data management and AI
tools can serve as business intelligence. Rather than an analytics system extracting data from the ERP or CRM
system, the system acts as the analytics tool. The desire to better leverage data locked up in transactional
systems, the falling cost of storage, and the emergence of more sophisticated and easier-to-use business and
data analytics tools are helping drive investment in business and data analytics systems today.
Some of the key benefits of business and data analytics systems include:
 Giving business managers faster access to information on which to base decisions
 Providing deeper insight into customer behavior and other key business drivers
 Allowing decision-makers to quickly evaluate alternatives based on financial impact (for example,
pricing and promotions analysis in retail, supply chain planning analytics in manufacturing, and
evaluation of investment alternatives in financial services)
These solutions also face challenges such as:
 The explosion in data available internally and externally, especially as smart devices, smart
sensors, and point-of-sale systems throw off reams of data for analysis
 The difficulty in making the business case for many business and data analytics solutions because
of high cost and intangible benefits

PAGE 55
 A shortage of skilled personnel, especially when applications such as predictive analytics require
personnel with advanced degrees in mathematics or statistics

PAGE 56

Figure 39 shows how business and data analytics adoption compares with other technologies in the study in
five areas: adoption, investment, ROI success, TCO success, and satisfaction.
percentage of organizations that have business and data analytics in place is in the top one-third
high. Investors include organizations that plan new implementations or enhancements to existing
systems within the next 18 months.
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted business and data analytics,
the percentage that is at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is
moderate compared with other technologies in the study.
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for business and data analytics also is moderate
compared with other technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the
percentage of adopters coming in at or at less than budget for implementation and ongoing
support costs.
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate is moderate compared with other technologies in the
study.

PAGE 57
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 4% of IT organizations report no activity in regard to business and data

analytics initiatives. These organizations have not deployed the technology and are not
the potential benefits and risks of implementation. It includes organizations that may be piloting
the technology but have not yet decided to deploy business and data analytics.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 14% of organizations at this stage have business and data
analytics initiatives in place but have no plans to augment them with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have business and data analytics in place and have
budgeted additional money to expand the functionality of their systems fall into this category.
About 58% of organizations are increasing their investment in business and data analytics.

PAGE 58

organizations have business and data analytics in place. Those that are implementing or enhancing systems—
the investors—include 64% of small, 75% of midsize, and 77% of large organizations.

PAGE 59

Figure 42 shows that 40% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in business and data
analytics, compared with 15% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 45%

PAGE 60

About 17% of organizations exceeded budget, while 16% came in at less than budget, Figure 43 shows.

PAGE 61

Figure 44 shows that 68% of adopters are either satisfied or very satisfied with their business and data
analytics implementations. On the flip side, 6% are dissatisfied. This technology earns a moderate satisfaction
rating compared with other technologies in the study.

PAGE 62
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in business and data analytics have a range of
solutions to consider. Figure 45 shows that the highest percentage, 65%, are investing in dashboard tools,
followed by ad-hoc query and online analytical processing (OLAP) tools at 50%, and data warehouse or
subject-area data marts at 48%.

PAGE 63
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence, as we define it, is not a single technology but several closely grouped technologies that
allow for a machine to absorb and analyze data in order to make a recommendation or take an action. These
technologies include rules-based reasoning, machine learning, speech recognition, natural language
processing, facial/object recognition, chatbots, and other artificial intelligence capabilities. These technologies
are seldom deployed as a separate device or stand-alone system. They are usually embedded as features or
capabilities within business applications.
AI is not a particularly new concept. The term was coined in the 1950s and has been a part of life to some
extent at least since the 1980s. In terms of public consciousness, however, AI remained in the background
until IBM’s Watson won on the game show “Jeopardy” in 2011. Since then, IBM and other companies have
been working to incorporate AI into business processes as an enabling technology.
There are several perceived advantages to AI that generally dictate the way it is used. Artificial intelligence can
retain more information and evaluate more points of information than humans alone. It also can react faster
to changes in information. As such, AI is especially good at automating routine processes that are subject to
quickly changing environments, such as monitoring network activity for security incidents or reacting to real-
time data from connected devices, such as IoT sensors.
AI systems can be created in-house, but it can be expensive to do so. Many companies simply do not have the
skills or the budget. As such, AI as a service is becoming more popular. IBM, as an example, can build sector-
specific or company-specific versions of Watson that can digest company data and embed AI into business
processes.
Moreover, software providers are increasingly incorporating AI as part of their traditional business
applications. For instance, Salesforce has embedded its AI service Einstein directly into its CRM system. The
company also partnered with IBM to bring Watson to its CRM. Oracle, meanwhile, has embedded a form of
AI into many of its offerings.
In addition to IBM, Salesforce, and Oracle, major players in this space include Microsoft and Google. Nearly
countless small AI companies have formed with niche technologies or in vertical markets, such as
SoundHound, which specializes in sound recognition, and Freenome, one of many AI companies in the
healthcare space.
In many ways, AI is still being tested in terms of sustaining value. The question is not if AI can be deployed,
but how best to do it to see a return on investment. As use cases grow, best practices to realize its value will
become clearer.

PAGE 64

Figure 46 shows how artificial intelligence compares with other technology initiatives in the study on five
metrics: adoption rate, investment rate, ROI success rate, TCO success rate, and satisfaction.
 Adoption Rate: The adoption rate is low compared with other technologies in the study. The
percentage of organizations that have artificial intelligence in place is within the lowest one-third
The adoption rate does not include organizations that plan to implement the technology but
have not yet done so.

 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted artificial intelligence, the
percentage that is at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is high
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for artificial intelligence also is high compared with
other technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of adopters
coming in at or at less than budget for implementation and ongoing support costs.
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate is moderate compared with other technologies in the
study.

PAGE 65
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 23% of IT organizations report no activity with artificial intelligence. These
organizations have not deployed the technology and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 3% of organizations at this stage have artificial intelligence
in place but have no plans to augment their systems with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have artificial intelligence in place and have budgeted
of organizations are increasing their investment in this technology.

PAGE 66

13% of small, 33% of midsize, and 35% of large organizations have artificial intelligence in place. Those that
are implementing or enhancing systems—the investors—include 26% of small, 57% of midsize, and 55% of
large organizations.

PAGE 67

Figure 49 shows that 47% of organizations report positive ROI with their investment in artificial intelligence,
break-even point.

PAGE 68


PAGE 69

Figure 51 shows that 66% of adopters are satisfied or very satisfied with their artificial intelligence
deployments, compared with none that are dissatisfied. About 34% are neutral, which results in a moderate
satisfaction rating on our scale.

PAGE 70
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in artificial intelligence have a range of solutions to
consider. Figure 52 shows that the highest percentage, 40%, are investing in machine learning. Rules-based
reasoning at 32% comes in second. Natural language processing is third at 19%.

PAGE 71
Virtual and Augmented Reality

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are positioned to change the way businesses execute daily
tasks, even simple tasks such as interacting with customers. These technologies are not merely emerging but
disruptive, as they aim to revolutionize the human experience. The use cases are growing, and VR and AR
technologies are being applied in environments for training, collaboration, and where human life is at most
risk. Currently adoption is low, but consumer- and enterprise-ready technology is likely to change this in the
near future.
VR is a computer-generated simulation usually using a headset designed to immerse the user into the
simulation. In the healthcare sector, doctors already have begun utilizing the technology to map out alternate
surgical approaches without having to use best-case/worst-case scenarios based on previous operations to
decide the safest and best approach to help their patients. In the retail sector, the technology is being used to
train employees and in the manufacturing sector, VR is being used to provide 3-D experiences.
Augmented reality devices, instead of immersing the user entirely in the simulation, overlay the simulation
onto the real world. Outside social media and gaming use, AR implementation also can be seen in businesses.
For example, the Commercial Real Estate AR app allows a real estate agent or buyer to view a block of
apartment buildings through a smartphone with its AR application, which can display the location of
available apartments and their monthly rental prices.
Early adopters have seen success with strong ROI and predictable TCO with these technologies. With high
economic success rates and the huge investments by companies such as Facebook (Meta), Nvidia, and
Microsoft, their growth is likely. Their use will probably be strongest in industry sectors where virtual “hands-
on” training will be most beneficial, such as manufacturing, healthcare, energy and utilities, and
transportation. Also, the technologies will be most efficient in industries where there is heavy use of capital
equipment or there are issues where VR/AR offers a safe way for experimentation, research and
development, and training.
Even if AR/VR devices do not make it into heavy use in the enterprise, most enterprises still need to pay
attention to this growing consumer market. AR/VR will be a major factor in gaming and entertainment, as
well as one of the major ways people interact with the metaverse. So investing in developing apps and
entertainment and learning how to sell in the AR/VR world are still important.
The hype cycle of AR/VR is likely to mirror that of smartphones. Consumerization drove smartphone use in
the enterprise, and software providers and IT organizations had to scramble to build applications and
improve the user experience to match the level seen in consumer applications. Smart IT organizations should
be prepared for another round of consumer-driven adoption of AR/VR technology in the office.

PAGE 72

Figure 53 shows how virtual and augmented reality compares with other technologies in the study on five
 Adoption Rate: The adoption rate is low compared with other technologies in the study. The
percentage of organizations that have VR/AR in place is within the lowest one-third of the
range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study. The
adoption rate does not include organizations that plan to implement the technology but have not
yet done so.
low. Investors include organizations that plan new implementations or enhancements to existing
systems within the next 18 months.
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted VR/AR, the percentage that
is at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is moderate compared
with other technologies in the study.
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for virtual and augmented reality is high compared
with other technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate is low compared with other technologies in the study.

PAGE 73
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: About 60% of IT organizations report no activity with VR/AR. These

organizations have not deployed the technology and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 2% of organizations at this stage have VR/AR in place but
have no plans to augment their systems with new functionality.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have virtual and augmented reality in place and have
budgeted additional money to expand the functionality of their systems fall into this category.
About 5% of organizations are increasing their investment in this technology.

PAGE 74

8% of small, 5% of midsize, and no large organizations in our sample have VR/AR in place. Those that are
implementing or enhancing systems—the investors—include 10% of small, 16% of midsize, and 13% of
large organizations.

PAGE 75

Figure 56 shows that 23% of organizations report positive ROI with their investment in virtual and
augmented reality, compared with 15% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another
62% reached the break-even point.

PAGE 76


PAGE 77

Figure 58 shows that 50% of adopters are satisfied or very satisfied with their VR/AR deployments,
compared with none that are dissatisfied. About 50% are neutral, which results in a low satisfaction rating on
our scale.

PAGE 78
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in VR/AR have a range of solutions to consider.
Figure 59 shows that the highest percentage, 20%, are investing in maintenance/service. Education/training
and operations tie for second at 14%.

PAGE 79
Infrastructure Technology
The study includes six technologies that fall into the infrastructure category. They are infrastructure as a
service, digital workplace technologies, low-code/no-code, the Internet of Things, robotic process
automation, and security technology.
In this section, we use five figures to profile infrastructure technologies. They are as follows:
 Adoption and Customer Experience Profile: This figure establishes the context for
understanding the metrics. The profile chart shows how each technology compares with other
initiatives in the study on adoption rate, investment rate, ROI success rate, and TCO success rate,
and overall customer satisfaction.
 Stages of Adoption: This figure shows the percentage of organizations at each of five
adoption stages. Stage 1 is “no activity.” Organizations studying or piloting technologies fall into
the “considering” stage, or Stage 2. The implementation stage, Stage 3, includes companies that
plan to implement an initiative for the first time within the next 18 months. Those at Stage 4
have technology in place but show “no further activity” beyond routine maintenance and
addition of new users. Organizations at Stage 5 have the technology in place and are
“increasing” their investment by implementing new features and capabilities.
 Adoption and Investment by Organization Size: This chart shows adoption and investment
rates by organization size. The adoption rate is the percentage of organizations at Stages 4 and 5
with initiatives in place. Investors are organizations at Stages 3 and 5, including first-time
implementers and those making follow-on investments. We define small organizations as those
with from $20 million to less than $350 million in annual revenue, midsize organizations as those
with from $350 million to less than $1 billion in annual revenue, and large organizations as those
with at least $1 billion in annual revenue.
 Customer Experience with ROI: This figure shows the percentage of adopters that have a
return on investment that is positive, break even, or negative over a two-year period. The ROI
success rate is the percentage having positive or break-even ROI.
 Customer Experience with TCO: The customer experience with total cost of ownership is
measured by the percentage of adopters that find TCO is greater than budgeted, the same as
budgeted, or less than budgeted. The cost-success rate is the percentage that experience TCO of
less than or the same as the budgeted amount for implementation and ongoing support.
 Satisfaction with Customer Experience: We measure overall customer satisfaction by asking

adopters to rate their satisfaction with each technology on a five-point scale, from very
dissatisfied to very satisfied.

PAGE 80
 Types of Solutions: This figure shows the percentage of investors at least considering making
an investment in each type of solution within the category. We include organizations making
follow-on investments and first-time implementations as well as those only considering an
investment as being part of the investor population. Respondents can select from among
multiple choices.

PAGE 81
Infrastructure as a Service
Infrastructure as a service is the use of service providers for computing resources such as storage and
processing without concern about the technical infrastructure. Our definition of IaaS only counts the use of
public cloud IaaS providers, not the use of cloud infrastructure in an organization’s own internal data centers.
Likewise, we do not count deployment of hosted or SaaS applications within this category.
IT organizations make use of IaaS for a variety of reasons, such as systems development and testing;
production systems, internal or customer-facing; disaster recovery; big data storage; archival of inactive data;
and accommodating spikes in demand for storage or computing resources.
Some major providers of IaaS include Amazon Web Services, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle. There
also are many emerging public cloud offerings for specific niche markets, particularly healthcare, to help deal
with compliance issues or the unique needs of a given sector.
Adoption of the technology is being driven by the desire for a more flexible cost model, the convenience of
metered use, and scalability. Some organizations are finding that IaaS provides a flexible and cost-effective
approach to disaster recovery and archiving of historical data that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive to
maintain in-house. The resiliency of IaaS has just been tested by the pandemic, and the cloud seems to have
passed the test, driving increased investment.
Nevertheless, some organizations are still reluctant to trust their computing infrastructure to public cloud
providers. In some cases, there is resistance within the IT organization to moving the computing
infrastructure off-site and losing control. In other cases, organizations raise security and privacy concerns
about trusting public cloud providers with confidential information.
However, the stance on security is softening as it becomes clearer that the distributed nature of the cloud—
combined with the expertise and security standards of cloud providers—often make the cloud a more secure
option than going it alone and attempting to achieve the same level of security. IaaS is poised for continued
growth as more organizations are investing in it.

PAGE 82

Figure 60 shows how adoption of IaaS compares with other initiatives in the study on five metrics: adoption
rate, investment rate, ROI success rate, TCO success rate, and satisfaction.
percentage of organizations that have IaaS in place is within the top one-third of the range, defined
by the IT initiatives with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study.
 Investment Rate: The percentage of organizations currently investing in IaaS is moderate. Investors
include organizations that plan to expand the use of IaaS as well as those that plan to initiate an IaaS
strategy within an 18-month period.
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted IaaS, the percentage that is at
least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is moderate compared with other
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for IaaS is low compared with other technologies in the
study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of adopters coming in at or at less than
budget for implementation and ongoing support costs.
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate for IaaS is high compared with other technologies in the
study.

PAGE 83
Stages of Adoption
Figure 61 shows the percentage of organizations at each of the five adoption stages. This figure also provides
the basis for our adoption and investment rate metrics.
 No Activity: About 6% of IT organizations report no activity with IaaS. These organizations have
not deployed IaaS and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
 Considering: About 15% of organizations are investigating the potential benefits and risks of an
implementation. This includes organizations that may be piloting the technology but have not yet
decided to move to the next stage.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 23% of organizations at this stage have IaaS in place but have
no plans to expand the technology’s implementation.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have IaaS in place and have budgeted additional money to
expand their use of IaaS fall into this category. About 48% of organizations are increasing their use
of IaaS.

PAGE 84

Figure 62 shows the adoption rate by organization size: 67% of small and midsize and 87% of large
organizations have IaaS in place. Those that are expanding their use of IaaS—the investors—include 51% of
small, 73% of midsize, and 67% of large organizations.

PAGE 85

Figure 63 shows that 35% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in IaaS, compared
with 12% that had a negative experience. Another 53% reached the break-even point.

PAGE 86

About 25% of organizations exceeded budget, while another 7% came in at less than budget, Figure 64
shows. The majority, 68%, successfully met their budgets with IaaS initiatives.

PAGE 87

Figure 65 shows that 74% of organizations are either satisfied or very satisfied with their experience with
IaaS, and only 5% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. IaaS earns a high rating for customer satisfaction.

PAGE 88
Types of Solutions
IaaS can be used for a variety of functions. Figure 66 shows that the largest percentage of investors, 51%, use
or are considering using IaaS for production systems. Disaster recovery and system development/testing tie
for second at 49%. Another 36% use or are considering IaaS for customer-facing systems.

PAGE 89
Considered or Planned Uses

IaaS providers offer a variety of different functions and services. Figure 67 shows that the largest percentage
of investors, 51%, use or are considering using virtual servers. Next, 49% use or are considering platform as a
service and function as a service. An additional 36% are using or considering IaaS for multiple zones for
failover.

PAGE 90
Percentage Use of On-Premises, Hosted, or Cloud

IaaS is a growing technology, but the largest share of workloads is still running on-premises, with the rest
split between hosted or managed services or co-location data centers and true cloud providers. However, the
cloud is quickly gaining ground. Figure 68 shows that for small organizations, 47% of OS instances are on-
premises, 28% are hosted, and 36% are in the cloud. For midsize companies, 47% are on-premises, 21% are
hosted, and a healthy 40% are in the cloud. Large companies have 53% of their OS instances on-premises,
15% hosted, and 39% in the cloud.
Looking at this chart from previous years shows that the percentage of work in the cloud is rising. But it is
not at the expense of on-premises workloads. It is coming at the expense of hosted workloads.

PAGE 91
Digital Workplace Technologies

Digital workplace technologies are a set of tools and electronic capabilities to allow workers to communicate
and collaborate virtually from anywhere. The emergence of smart technologies is enabling workplaces to
become more productive and enable a work-from-anywhere model. There has been a surge in the use of
digital workplace technologies as use cases emerged during pandemic lockdowns. More companies are using
tools such as videoconferencing, document collaboration, workflow management, content management,
instant messaging, and unified communications to enhance collaboration and productivity.
In previous decades, office work was largely tethered to the desk. But technology advancements have changed
the paradigm, and organizations are realizing the benefits of investing in a smart workplace environment as
information is now at the fingertips of every employee and office footprints are smaller and less expensive.
Web conferencing tools such as Zoom and workplace social networking tools such as Slack already were
gaining popularity prior to the pandemic, and their use exploded during the pandemic-induced, work-from-
home trend. But for digital workplace tools to work, they need to be paired with desktop personas and smart
security to make sure all appropriate tools and data are available.
Best practices such as data classification, two-factor authentication, standardized desktops, and employee time
tracking help make digital workplace technologies more effective. Also, it is smart to remember that some
employees take to these tools better than others and that the work-from-anywhere paradigm is not for
everyone. Managers need to be proactive to be sure struggling employees are supported. It is a good idea to
pair adoption of digital workplace technologies with HR/human capital management to help maximize
employee success.
Digital workplace technologies can be defined in several ways, and the category covers so many technologies
that it seems like every huge software vendor, and dozens of smaller players, are in the market. The market
also is served by an army of systems integrators and consulting firms.

PAGE 92

Figure 69 shows how digital workplace technologies compare with other technologies in the study on five
 Adoption Rate: The adoption rate is high. The percentage of organizations that have digital
workplace technologies in place is within the top one-third of the range, defined by the technologies
with the highest and lowest adoption rates in the study.
 Investment Rate: The percentage of organizations currently investing in digital workplace

technologies is moderate. Investors include organizations that plan to deploy this technology for the
first time or expand deployment within the next 18 months.
 ROI Success Rate: Among those organizations that have adopted digital workplace technologies,
the percentage that is at least breaking even within a two-year period is high compared with other
 TCO Success Rate: The TCO success rate for digital workplace technologies also is high. The TCO
success rate is defined as the percentage of adopters coming in at or at less than budget for
implementation and ongoing support costs.
 Satisfaction Rate: The satisfaction rate for digital workplace technologies is high compared with

PAGE 93
Stages of Adoption
 No Activity: Only 3% of IT organizations report no activity with digital workplace technologies.

These organizations have not invested in them and are not researching or piloting an initiative.
potential benefits and risks of digital workplace technologies. This includes organizations that may be
piloting digital workplace technologies but have not yet decided to move to the next stage.
 Implementing: The 6% of organizations at the implementation stage have plans to invest in digital
workplace technologies for the first time within an 18-month period.
 In Place, No Further Activity: The 41% of organizations at this stage have digital workplace
technologies in place but have no plans to expand use.
 In Place, Increasing: Organizations that have digital workplace technologies in place and have
budgeted additional money to expand their use of this technology fall into this category. About 44%
of organizations are increasing their investment.

PAGE 94

Organization size is a modest factor in determining adoption or investment rates for digital workplace
technologies. Figure 71 shows that 82% of small, 95% of midsize, and 87% of large organizations have
deployed digital workplace technologies. Those that are implementing or enhancing their use of them—the
investors—include 49% of small and midsize and 54% of large organizations.

PAGE 95

Figure 72 shows that 54% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in digital workplace
technologies, compared with 3% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 43%

PAGE 96

Another 75% successfully met their budgets with digital workplace technologies.

PAGE 97

Figure 74 shows a high satisfaction rating with digital workplace technologies. About 82% say they are either
satisfied or very satisfied with their experience with digital workplace technologies. In contrast, only 1% are
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

PAGE 98
Types of Solutions
Organizations that are considering or planning to invest in digital workplace technologies have a range of
solutions to consider. Figure 75 shows that the highest percentage, 55%, are investing in videoconferencing.
Document collaboration is next at 50%. Workflow management is third at 47%.

PAGE 99
Percentage of Company Employees Working from Home, in Office, or

Hybrid
The pandemic changed many things, particularly the amount of time many employees are allowed to work
from home. Figure 76 shows how things have changed. At the median, 33% of employees enjoy a hybrid
work arrangement, with some time spent working from home and some at physical offices. About 50% of
the employees at the companies in our sample work in the office or factory full-time, and about 13% of the
employees of the companies in our sample work full-time from home.

PAGE 100
Low-Code/No-Code
Low-code and no-code environments use graphical interfaces to create user applications, with fewer
experienced coders involved or even none at all. Low-code/no-code options allow for business departments
and end users to create and automate work processes and even to develop customer-facing applications with
minimal assistance from IT. They usually rely on set user experiences and drag-and-drop capability.
While low-code and no-code are similar, they usually have different use cases. Low-code usually requires at
least one experienced developer to customize or write crucial bits of the code. Low-code environments also
are usually deployed to make efficient use of application developer time as their expertise is not common
among users. The drag-and-drop interface allows the developer to reuse or rearrange existing code when
possible to streamline the process.
No-code usually bypasses the developer entirely and is typically reserved for simple tasks where the end user
understands the needs of the application and can easily create it using the existing interface. As an example,
no-code can be deployed in a data-intensive organization for creating reports or dashboards. Healthcare
organizations can use no-code to set up medical trials.
The number of companies that use these tools is growing, and we expect the number to increase because the
flexibility, agility, and reduced costs are definitely attractive. However, it should be pointed out that some
believe low-code/no-code leaves companies open to vulnerabilities, either through the reuse of bad code or
through errors from undertrained workers who accidentally expose data. Others see no-code specifically as
another form of shadow IT and something that should be tightly controlled. Despite all of these concerns,
the benefits are likely to outweigh the negatives.

PAGE 101

Figure 77 shows how low-code/no-code compares with other technologies in the study on five metrics:
 Adoption rate: The adoption rate is low compared with other technologies in the study. The
percentage of organizations that have this technology in place is within the lowest one-third of
 Investment rate: The percentage of organizations currently investing in this technology also is
systems within an 18-month period.
 ROI success rate: Among those organizations that have adopted low-code/no-code, the
percentage that is at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is
moderate compared with other technologies in the study.
 TCO success rate: The TCO success rate for low-code/no-code is high compared with other
 Satisfaction rate: The satisfaction rate for low-code/no-code is high compared with other

PAGE 102
Stages of Adoption
 No activity: About 31% of IT organizations have no activity with regard to adopting low-
code/no-code. These organizations have not deployed the technology and are not researching or
piloting an initiative.
 In place, no further activity: The 14% of organizations at this stage have this technology in
place but have no plans to expand their implementations.
 In place, increasing: Organizations that have some low-code/no-code projects in place and
have budgeted additional money to expand their use of them fall into this category. About 17%
of organizations are increasing their investment in this technology.

PAGE 103

organizations have some low-code/no-code projects in place. Those that are implementing or enhancing
systems—the investors—include 26% of small, 35% of midsize, and 38% of large organizations.

PAGE 104

Figure 80 shows that 41% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in low-code/no-
code, compared with 12% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 47%

PAGE 105

About 13% of organizations exceeded budget, while 19% came in at less than budget, Figure 81 shows. A
majority, 68%, successfully met their budgets with this technology.

PAGE 106

Figure 82 shows that 77% of adopters are either satisfied or very satisfied with the technology, compared
with only 8% that are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. On our scale, low-code/no-code earns a high
satisfaction rating.

PAGE 107
Internet of Things
The Internet of Things is difficult to define because, as its name suggests, it is more than one thing. IoT
makes use of increasingly small sensors, RFID tags, and ubiquitous connectivity to make devices “smart.”
Examples can range from using sensors connected to a pallet of ice cream to ensure its temperature remains
constant during shipping, to using sensors to monitor electricity use in a building, to even smart clothes that
can monitor body temperature and heart rate for fitness. In short, anything that can contain a sensor and an
internet connection can be part of IoT. When used in manufacturing, distribution, utilities, and other
industrial applications, IoT is sometimes referred to as the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). Likewise, in
healthcare, there is the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT). In nearly every industry, there are examples of
connected devices forming an IoT.
IoT is still in its infancy as a business concept, but for about 10 years there have been more “things” than
people connected to the internet. Many attribute the first IoT device to a modified Coca-Cola vending
machine at Carnegie Mellon that was able to report its inventory via the internet as early as 1982. Inventory
and warehousing are now major uses for IoT.
Other major uses include various forms of asset management, environmental monitoring, agricultural
management, and energy management. One common use for IoT is connecting the telemetry of industrial
equipment to sensors so that potential failures can be predicted based on performance changes, which is far
better than waiting for a machine to break down and shut down a factory line. Similar concepts are used for
preventive maintenance of aircraft and railroad equipment. Anything that can be wired with a sensor can be a
part of IoT, so the possibilities are endless.
Because those possibilities are endless, naming major vendors is difficult. Companies involved in connectivity
or sensors are obviously major players. Cisco Systems, GE, Intel, Qualcomm, and Siemens fall into this
category. Also, companies that are good at dealing with the large volumes of data that IoT creates are major
players: Amazon Web Services, Google, IBM, and Microsoft. Major consumer product companies would
count as well. However, just as there are countless IoT applications, there are countless companies trying to
get into this space.
From an enterprise IT perspective, the major issue is dealing with the huge volumes of data. Storage is one
aspect, but a bigger deal is making sense of the data in real time. If thousands of sensors are reporting back
hundreds of data points every second, no human can interpret the data. Artificial intelligence, automation,
dashboards, and other technologies need to be deployed to monitor the activity and take appropriate action.
Smart organizations are investing in these capabilities in concert with their IoT deployments.

PAGE 108

Figure 83 shows how IoT compares with other technologies in the study on five metrics: adoption rate,
investment rate, ROI success rate, TCO success rate, and satisfaction.
 ROI success rate: Among those organizations that have adopted IoT, the percentage that is at
least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is high compared with other
 TCO success rate: The TCO success rate for IoT also is high compared with other
 Satisfaction rate: The satisfaction rate for IoT is high compared with other technologies in the
study.

PAGE 109
Stages of Adoption
 No activity: About 39% of IT organizations show no activity with regard to adopting IoT.
These organizations have not deployed the technology and are not researching or piloting an
initiative.
 In place, increasing: Organizations that have some IoT projects in place and have budgeted
additional money to expand their use of them fall into this category. About 20% of
organizations are increasing their investment in IoT.

PAGE 110

organizations have some IoT projects in place. Those that are implementing or enhancing systems—the
investors—include 25% of small, 30% of midsize, and 33% of large organizations.

PAGE 111

Figure 86 shows that 48% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in IoT, compared
with 5% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 47% reached the break-even
point.

PAGE 112

About 10% of organizations exceeded budget, while 7% came in at less than budget, Figure 87 shows. A

PAGE 113

with no respondents who reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. On our scale, IoT earns a moderate

PAGE 114
Types of Solutions
When it comes to IoT, it is difficult to isolate any one use. Anything that can have a sensor attached to it can
technically be a part of an IoT program. We have attempted to isolate major areas where IoT is put in place,
but as seen below a vast array of capabilities received some interest. Figure 89 shows that among investors,
the highest percentage, 19%, are investing in manufacturing/warehouse and asset management.
Environmental monitoring and energy management are next at 15%.

PAGE 115
Robotic Process Automation

Robotic process automation is the use of software “robots” to automate processes that are normally
performed by clerical or administrative users, typically using multiple business applications. The term does
not refer to the use of mechanical robots, such as factory automation or material handling robots.
The software robot is typically taught by example how to respond to various triggers and carry out the
process. For example, an employee might submit a change of address form to the HR department, and a
software robot could be triggered to update the appropriate records in payroll, benefits systems, expense
reporting, and accounts payable, just as a human clerical worker might do. Because the process operates at the
user-interface level, such an approach may be easier than attempting to integrate systems at the API level. The
software robot simply mimics the keystrokes and mouse clicks that a human worker would perform, freeing
the worker to focus on higher-value activities. The machine learns by observing the actions of humans doing
the existing job.
Some of the leading providers of robotic process automation technology are in the services industry already,
including Infosys, Lexmark, and Xerox. But many companies have been built to serve this market, including
Automation Anywhere, Blue Prism, Kryon Systems, UiPath, and WorkFusion. Leading software companies
also are getting into the space. IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and SAP all have at least dipped their toes in the
water, mostly by creating robotic process automation solutions for their own software.
Robotic process automation is gaining popularity with business process outsourcing providers, which see it as
a way to lower their overall cost of service delivery. It also is gaining ground in large organizations with large
numbers of clerical or administrative workers, such as financial services and healthcare organizations. As
such, we expect interest to grow in the coming years.

PAGE 116

Figure 90 shows how robotic process automation compares with other technologies in the study on five
 ROI success rate: Among those organizations that have adopted robotic process automation,
the percentage that are at least breaking even on their investments within a two-year period is
high compared with other technologies in the study.
 TCO success rate: The TCO success rate for robotic process automation also is high compared
with other technologies in the study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of
 Satisfaction rate: The satisfaction rate for robotic process automation is high compared with

PAGE 117
Stages of Adoption
 No activity: About 35% of IT organizations show no activity with regard to adopting robotic
process automation. These organizations have not deployed the technology and are not
 In place, increasing: Organizations that have some robotic process automation projects in
place and have budgeted additional money to expand their use of them fall into this category.
About 18% of organizations are increasing their investment.

PAGE 118

organizations have some robotic process automation projects in place. Those that are implementing or
enhancing systems—the investors—include 27% of small, 28% of midsize, and 48% of large organizations.

PAGE 119

Figure 93 shows that 50% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in robotic process
automation, compared with 2% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 48%
reached the break-even point. ROI tends to be positive, as most early adopters have clear business cases for
choosing the technology.

PAGE 120

About 14% of organizations exceeded budget, while 25% came in at less than budget, Figure 94 shows. The

PAGE 121

with 5% who are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. On our scale, robotic process automation earns a high

PAGE 122
Types of Solutions
When it comes to robotic process automation, it is difficult to isolate any one use. Anything that can be
described as a repetitive task that takes workers away from being able to engage in higher-level tasks is a
candidate for automation. We have attempted to isolate major areas where robotic process automation is put
in place, but as seen below an array of applications received some interest.
Figure 96 shows that among investors, the highest percentage, 34%, are investing in automating
accounting/finance processes. Another 22% are automating operations and IT support.

PAGE 123
Security Technology
Security technology is in our study for the fourth year. The reason we did not include it previously is that it
covers such a great variety of technologies. Moreover, our study would only confirm something that most IT
professionals already know: adoption and investment levels are high year after year. However, we feel that
there is value in having such a widely adopted set of technologies to serve as a baseline for comparison with
the other technologies in the study.
There also is value in understanding the focus for new investments in security and how they may change from
year to year. We have endeavored to make sense of the investment choices available to IT organizations. As a
result, the survey does not provide an exhaustive list of potential technologies but a representative sample.
Of course, ensuring IT security requires more than security technology. It includes security best practices,
organizational disciplines, and management commitment. The study does not address these areas, however,
but focuses on the technology side of security.
We define security technology as any technology intended to protect the organization against security threats,
detect them, or respond to them. This would include a broad range of technologies from simple firewalls and
malware protection to AI and machine-learning-based threat detection.
Because there is not one type of security threat, security technology is not a single technology. Major
breaches have occurred in recent years from a wide variety of sources, including ransomware (city of
Atlanta), attacks due to unpatched databases (Equifax), phishing (Sony), malware (UVA Health System), user
error (Independence Blue Cross), errors by a third party (Target), and hacking (Marriott). Attack vectors are
becoming more sophisticated, and many of the attacks are coming from international syndicates and even
governments, such as the attack on the Starwood (now owned by Marriott) database.
The top vendors in the security space also are numerous. There are dedicated security companies such as
Check Point Software Technologies, CyberArk, Palo Alto Networks, Sophos, Symantec (now a division of
Broadcom), Trellix (formerly FireEye and McAfee Enterprise) and Trend Micro. The list also includes
Secureworks (majority-owned by Dell Technologies) and RSA. There are hundreds more ranging from large-
scale technology firms to smaller niche solution providers and consultants.
The best way to divide the other providers might be by what they are protecting. For example, most major
network providers such as ATT, BT (formerly British Telecom), and Verizon have IT security offerings,
particularly managed services, but also technology as a part of their networks. Cisco, obviously strong in
networking technology, produces many IT security products related to securing the network including
firewalls, endpoint security, VPN, and others.
In terms of software, most major software companies provide some type of security solutions. Microsoft is
one of the largest due to its placement in the enterprise. Microsoft offers identity management, threat
protection and detection, and endpoint protection. Oracle, SAP, and most other major software providers
have some security offerings. IBM also provides security services, especially in the form of managed services,
but also has technology solutions.
An often-overlooked source for cybersecurity technology is the manufacturing sector. BAE Systems and

PAGE 124
Lockheed Martin, among others, have robust security offerings.
There also are security companies growing out of specific point solutions. One example is Splunk, an
analytics-based company that uses analytics for security automation, behavioral analytics, and threat detection.
VMware Carbon Black uses data to improve incident response. Akamai is dedicated to stopping distributed
denial-of-service attacks. This is just a small sampling of these types of companies.
As the threats mount, the number of companies and type of technologies will grow to match. It is not an
exaggeration to call security a never-ending arms race. Because of this, we expect security to be at the top of
both our most-adopted and most-invested in technologies for the foreseeable future.

PAGE 125

Figure 97 shows how security technology compares with other technologies in the study on five metrics:
 Adoption rate: The adoption rate of security technology is high compared with other
technologies in the study. The percentage of organizations that have this technology in place is
within the top one-third of the range, defined by the technologies with the highest and lowest
adoption rates in the study.
high. Investors include organizations that plan new implementations or enhancements to existing
 ROI success rate: Among those organizations that have adopted security technology, the
compared with other technologies in the study. However, it should be pointed out that it is
difficult to determine the ROI of security technology because the business case is more about
risk mitigation rather than direct cost savings or revenue generation.
 TCO success rate: The TCO success rate for IT security technology is moderate compared
with other technologies in this study. The TCO success rate is defined as the percentage of
 Satisfaction rate: The satisfaction rate for security technology is high compared with other

PAGE 126
Stages of Adoption
 No activity: No IT organizations in our sample are at this stage with adopting security
technology.
 In place, increasing: Organizations that have some security technology projects in place and
have budgeted additional money to expand their use of them fall into this category. About 77%
of organizations are increasing their investment in security technology.

PAGE 127

organizations have some security technology in place. Those that are implementing or enhancing the
technology—the investors—include 80% of small and 87% of both midsize and large organizations.

PAGE 128

Figure 100 shows that 28% of organizations recorded positive ROI with their investment in security
technology, compared with 25% that failed to recoup their investment over a two-year period. Another 47%
reached the break-even point. Again, ROI is difficult to determine with this technology.

PAGE 129

About 24% of organizations exceeded budget, while 4% came in at less than budget, Figure 101 shows. The

PAGE 130

with 6% that are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. On our scale, security technology earns a high satisfaction
rating.

PAGE 131
Types of Solutions
When it comes to security, it is difficult to isolate any one use because all parts of an enterprise need to be
secured. We have attempted to isolate major areas that are either especially vulnerable or likely to be invested
in, but as seen below most areas of the enterprise received some interest. Figure 103 shows that among
investors, the highest percentage, 73%, are investing in network security. Another 62% are investing in
desktop/laptop security. Mobile device security and email security round out the top four at 55% and 54%,
respectively.

PAGE 132
Types of Technologies
Another way to analyze security spending is to break it down into major categories. This section analyzes
security spending according to the following categories, which are defined below the figure. These are based
on the recommended categories in the Technology Business Framework (TBM). Figure 104 shows the
average allocation of security, cybersecurity, and compliance spending according to these categories across all
sectors and organization sizes.
The categories are as follows:
 Cybersecurity and incident response: This category includes cybersecurity monitoring and
security incident response and was chosen by 24% of respondents.
 Threat and vulnerability management: This category concerns application vulnerability

management, infrastructure vulnerability management, and network/endpoint security. It placed
second at 23%.
 Identity and access management: This category includes authentication/authorization,

identity management, identity governance and administration, privileged access management, and
certificate management. It placed third at 18%.
 Data privacy and security: Coming in fourth at 15% is this category, which includes data
classification and identification, data loss prevention, data encryption, data access, and database
security.
 Governance, risk, and compliance (GRC): This category placed fifth at 14%. It includes risk
management, policy management, policy tracking, and data governance to include overall
leadership and administration of security/compliance programs.

PAGE 133
 Security policy and awareness: Placing last at 12% is this category, which includes security
training, security advisory, and security policies and procedures.

PAGE 134
Early Adopter and

Future Technologies
We look not just at technologies in major use today but also ask our respondents about technologies that are a
little more on the horizon or in the early adopter stage. We want to find out which of these newer
technologies are really catching the eye of decision-makers and which are either too far out in terms of
practical application or are simply in the news because of vendor or media hype.
We listed 19 technologies that have gotten at least some attention in the media as potential future
technologies for the enterprise.
We gave our respondents five choices:
 Not familiar with the technology
 See no use for the technology
 Possible use in the future
 Currently implementing
 Already in place
Of the 19 early adoption and future technologies, it appears that digital currencies may have the highest hype
factor, with 70% of respondents saying they see no need for them in their organizations even though most
are familiar with the concept.
On the other end of the spectrum, Wi-Fi 6 seems to be the real deal. While not adopted heavily, only 13% of
respondents do not see a possible need for Wi-Fi 6. Full results can be found in Figure 105.

PAGE 135
Early Adopter and Future Technologies

Don’t
Not Possible In
See Implementing
Familiar Use Place
Need
Biometric identification 2% 18% 41% 11% 27%

Digital assistants 3% 22% 54% 14% 7%
Drones 3% 61% 22% 4% 10%
Autonomous vehicles 4% 64% 23% 5% 4%
3-D printing 4% 50% 28% 4% 13%
Digital currencies 6% 70% 21% 1% 1%
Blockchain 7% 49% 38% 2% 4%
5G private networks 8% 35% 45% 9% 3%
AI robotics 9% 40% 40% 6% 5%
Quantum computing 10% 64% 25% 0% 0%
Holograms 12% 57% 27% 2% 1%
Self-healing systems 12% 22% 54% 8% 3%
Wi-Fi 6 12% 13% 53% 16% 6%
Metaverse 13% 44% 37% 2% 4%
NFTs 13% 67% 18% 1% 1%
Digital twins 15% 40% 34% 9% 3%
Ultra-high-density storage 18% 46% 34% 1% 2%
Human-computer interface 19% 48% 29% 4% 0%
6G networks 24% 42% 33% 0% 0%
Source: Computer Economics, 2022 Figure 105
In the remainder of this section, we define each of these early adopter and future technologies and provide
the current view of IT organizations concerning them.
Biometric Identification
Biometrics is the use of technologies such as facial recognition, retinal scan, or fingerprints to identify or
authenticate a person. Thanks in large part to Apple’s iPhone, facial recognition is one of the better-known
technologies in our future technologies section.

PAGE 136
Facial recognition is a biometric technology that uses distinguishable facial features to identify a person. It is
used in many ways, from unlocking a smartphone, going through security at the airport, purchasing products
at stores, identifying friends on Facebook and other sites, and helping law enforcement officers identify
suspects. Facial recognition technology can be embedded in many applications and devices, ranging from
smartphones, airport surveillance kiosks, combined with a camera at a store or on a street, and social media
websites.
In a metaverse or metaverses (see below for our definition), biometrics ID will be important. As we leave
digital footprints across metaverses, identifying who is present, what they are doing, whether they are a safe
actor, and processing payments securely becomes even more important.
Among our respondents, 27% have biometric ID technology in place, while 11% are implementing it. About
41% see a possible use for this technology.
Digital Assistants
Digital assistants are commonplace in the consumer world, with Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, and Google’s
Google Assistant the most popular examples. They use a combination of voice activation, natural language
processing, artificial intelligence, and a lot of programming smoke and mirrors to create the impression of
having a human assistant. Currently, these devices leave a lot to be desired, but as natural language processing
and AI get stronger they may form the backbone of the way most humans interact with their computing
environment. The mouse and keyboard may give way to some form of voice interaction.
Once-glorified calendaring functions, digital assistants are getting more sophisticated. Many software
companies are including digital assistant capabilities into their applications, usually by making them
compatible with existing digital assistants. Digital assistants could help managers interact with daily metrics,
assist salespeople in managing their leads and opportunities, or mimic virtually any spoken task expected of a
mobile workforce. There are, however, security and privacy concerns. If one asks Alexa for the latest sales
projections, for example, the record of that conversation would go to Amazon’s cloud for storage.
Proprietary information should be handled with care. For this reason, many software providers are
considering or developing their own digital assistants for their offerings.
Of our respondents, 7% have digital assistants in place or are implementing them. About 22% do not see a
use for digital assistants in the enterprise, possibly because of the security issues.
Drones
Drones encompass a large variety of unmanned aerial vehicles. They may be controlled remotely by an
operator or fly autonomously to a designated destination. In the consumer world, this often means a small
multirotor vehicle with a camera attached. Although drones were first developed for military applications,
they are increasingly being used in business in a variety of applications, such as security, surveillance, aerial
photography, surveying, and agricultural scouting. They are especially useful in environmental conditions that
are unsafe, harsh, or too extensive for humans to cover. Eventually, drones may become vehicles for package
delivery. For example, there has been experimentation with drones for pizza delivery. Although drones are not
strictly an information technology, they rely on on-board computers and telecommunication systems and may
PAGE 137
interact with the organization’s IT systems. In this way, drones could be considered an edge device, like a
connected machine tool.
About 10% of organizations have drones in place or are implementing them. Another 22% see a future
possible use for drones in their organizations.
Although deployment of drones in some applications is restricted by the Federal Aviation Administration in
the US, we expect this obstacle eventually to be overcome. Like many other early adopter technologies,
drones augment and extend the capabilities of humans. We therefore believe drones will reach widespread
business use within the next five years, especially in industries with a wide physical and geographic footprint,
such as government, energy, utilities, agriculture, mining, and transportation.
Autonomous Vehicles
Autonomous vehicles operate on land without the need for a human driver. Self-driving cars are one common
example in popular culture. Robotic vacuum cleaners are another example on a smaller scale. In business,
autonomous vehicles already can be found in warehouse management (autonomous forklifts), manufacturing
(material movement), mining (mapping tunnels), and agriculture (harvesting, pruning). In some cities, grocery
and food delivery businesses have started to use autonomous vehicles the size of a large ice chest to deliver
groceries to (relatively close) residents. The driverless arena has some potential big gains. Eliminating the
driver frees up workers for higher-value roles, and most experts agree that once perfected, autonomous
vehicles will be safer than human-driven vehicles.
About 9% of our respondents are implementing autonomous vehicles or already have them in place. But
surprisingly, 64% do not see a use for them.
Autonomous vehicles extend the reach and productivity of humans. In the case of agriculture, the shortage
of field workers is already accelerating the automation of farm work with autonomous vehicles. As
mentioned, other industries such as mining, warehouse management, and manufacturing also represent
opportunities to increase productivity and improve worker safety through the use of autonomous vehicles.
We believe these benefits will increase the use of autonomous vehicles for the foreseeable future.
3-D Printing
3-D printing makes a physical object, usually from a digital model by layering materials until the object is
formed. Despite 3-D printing being one of the more mature technologies on this list, we do not necessarily
expect 3-D printing to grow to as great an extent as some other technologies in the study. At its heart, 3-D
printing is a manufacturing technology. It is used to make things, and not all companies make things. Of
course, 3-D printing does not have to be used to produce products for sale. In fact, it is usually best used by
end users, so some companies could implement 3-D printing to produce spare parts, marketing displays, or
anything else one can build with a digital model. It also can be used for one-off units, such as custom designs.
It is unlikely to ever be used for mass production, where traditional manufacturing methods are far more
cost-effective and faster.
About 13% of organizations already use some form of 3-D printing. But only an additional 28% of the
PAGE 138
organizations we surveyed see a use for it in their organization, so it certainly has room to grow.
As models get more sophisticated and more types of materials are available for 3-D printing, we expect it to
grow. But its ceiling is still somewhat limited.
Digital Currencies
Digital currencies, including cryptocurrencies, are currencies that are only available in digital form. Many of
the digital currencies are built on blockchain. In other words, they are specific applications of blockchain.
Bitcoin is the most famous, but other examples include Ethereum and Dogecoin.
Unlike blockchain, which has many potential uses outside digital currency, our respondents do not seem to
think digital currencies are likely to find a home in their organization, with 70% saying that do not see a use
for them. Only 2% of our respondents are either currently using or implementing them. Cryptocurrencies
may eventually become as common as the greenback, but many companies are not rushing to embrace them.
Blockchain
Blockchain is a secure distributed ledger or list of electronic records (blocks) that are linked using
cryptography. As such, blockchain can be used to record business transactions with a high degree of security
and integrity. Although blockchain is the technology underlying digital currencies such as Bitcoin, blockchain
itself has many applications, such as in financial transactions, smart contracts, supply chain management,
food safety, and copyright ownership. It may soon be used to prevent certain types of cyberattacks, collect
and store digital signatures, maintain the accuracy and privacy of electronic health records, and even protect
against voter fraud.
Given the amount of hype around blockchain, it is surprising that only 4% of respondents report having
blockchain in place. In fact, despite all the media hype around blockchain, 49% percent of respondents say
they do not see a use for it.
Despite the skepticism, we believe blockchain eventually could be used in many organizations where sensitive
data exists or trust in the integrity of records is a must. It will probably not become the panacea that some
analysts are predicting, but we do believe that it will ultimately play an important role in certain applications,
such as pharmaceutical distribution and food safety, where an immutable record of the chain of custody is
needed.
5G Private Networks
5G is the latest cellular network technology that began deployment in the US in 2019. While 5G comes in
several flavors, it is generally faster than 4G and can typically use existing cellphone towers as the point of
upgrade. However, the fastest form of 5G has a shorter range and will require denser deployment.
For the most part, 5G has the same business use cases as 4G. However, the greater speeds will be useful with
IoT projects. 5G should allow for a greater array of data as sensors become more diversified and complex.

PAGE 139
Of course, 5G also will increase the speed and capability of mobile devices. Consumer devices and cellular
networks are already touting the advantages of 5G.
Given that 5G is more of an upgrade to an existing technology rather than a new one, 45% of respondents
see a use for the technology. Thirty-five percent do not see a use for 5G. Twelve percent of respondents are
already implementing or have 5G in place.
We expect 5G to grow quickly, but it will not have nearly the impact of the other technologies on this list.
AI Robotics
The integration of AI into robots is a powerful combination, making them more autonomous and capable of
real-time decision-making. In recent years, AI has become an increasingly common presence in robotic
solutions, making robots smarter, more accurate, and more profitable.
This field is in its infancy, and use cases will grow in many sectors over the coming years. For now, about 11%
of organizations have AI robotics in place or are implementing them. Another 40% see a future possible use
for this technology in their organizations.
Quantum Computing
Quantum computing should not be viewed as an early adopter technology, as it does not yet have commercial
applications. In 2019, IBM offered what it called the first commercial quantum computing system. Truth be
told, it is still very much experimental. However, quantum computing has the potential to be the most
transformative of the technologies on our list. Traditional computers must work on one operation or
calculation at a time. Quantum computers can theoretically perform thousands (possibly millions) of
operations at the same time. They essentially are a massive set of parallel processors or a supercomputer. If
perfected, a single quantum computer could put a supercomputer’s worth of power on a desk and
significantly shrink the size and cost of data centers.
Around 10% of respondents admit that they do not know what it is. About 64% cannot imagine a use for it
in their organizations, although we suspect this number may drop if working prototypes become feasible.
It is not known exactly how long it will take for quantum computing to make its way into true commercial
distribution. Moreover, if and when quantum computing does become a viable technology, it is likely to only
take hold in a small percentage of organizations, probably those involved in scientific research or with large
and complex workloads.
Holograms
Holograms are what we think of as those common in the movies, at least since Princess Leia famously said,
“Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you’re my only hope.” They are simply devices that can create a 3-D image.
Rather primitive volumetric displays already exist in the home product market as desk lamps and novelties.
One obvious first business use might be 3-D presentations. But the uses should go beyond that. Holograms
PAGE 140
of equipment in the field could be used to aid maintenance personnel. Holograms also could be used as part
of medical diagnostics and training. In fact, volumetric displays may simply be looked upon as the natural
extension of virtual and augmented reality. They free the user from the associated headgear. As such, any use
for VR and AR could be applied to volumetric displays.
Three percent of companies surveyed say that they are already using or implementing volumetric displays.
About 27% see a use case in their business.
Because this technology is not as advanced as virtual and augmented reality, we expect its growth to be slow.
Many of the use cases overlap, and companies that invest in VR or AR are less likely to jump right over to
volumetric displays. However, in the long run, we expect this technology to have a longer lifespan if only as a
marketing tool to unsuspecting shoppers inundated with dozens of holograms as they walk through the mall.
Self-Healing Systems
Self-healing systems refer to any IT system that recognizes anomalies or poor performance and can correct
them in an autonomous manner. A common example is the self-healing database, which can detect
performance degradation, intrusions, or unauthorized changes and correct itself, always keeping itself
“tuned” for optimal access.
Self-healing systems will likely grow far beyond databases in time, however, and will find their way into many
IT systems. Roughly 40% of the IT budget today is allocated to personnel, and a large percentage of that
personnel is dedicated to supporting and managing systems. If those systems can manage and support
themselves, it represents a great cost savings. It also results in more accurate data, more uptime, more
efficient scaling up and down of resources and, perhaps most importantly, more secure systems. Systems that
can be programmed to respond to anomalies can be programmed to defend themselves in case of attack.
Self-healing or self-managing systems are being offered, or soon will be offered, by most of the top software
providers including Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and SAP. More offerings are likely to come in the near future.
About 11% of companies we surveyed already have or are currently implementing some form of self-healing
systems. Another 54% see the use for the technology. Twelve percent have not heard of the term. We expect
that to change shortly and for self-healing technology to enter into more mainstream use in the coming years.
In addition, one of the reasons why this technology might not be known is that it has been branded under
many names, including self-patching, autonomous, and “smart” systems.
Wi-Fi 6
Wi-Fi 6 is the latest version of the Wi-Fi network protocol, offering higher performance than predecessor
versions. It’s all about bandwidth and speed. Advocates say Wi-Fi 6 produces better upload/download speeds
due to increased bandwidth. Through a variety of techniques, it handles large amounts of network traffic
more efficiently.
Twenty-two percent of organizations have Wi-Fi 6 in place or are implementing it. Another 53% see a future
possible use for Wi-Fi 6 in their organizations.
PAGE 141
Metaverse Workspace
A metaverse workspace is a shared virtual workspace in which participants can collaborate for common
objectives. What is a metaverse? It is essentially a digital community or ecosystem that builds a virtual world
that more or less mirrors our own. It can have many of the same features our world has, such as avatars
representing us and what we own, digital real estate, gaming, media, and commerce. It is usually driven by an
immersive communications technology like VR and AR or at least robust video and audio communications
options. What makes the metaverse special is that it breaks down the walls between the physical world, the
augmented world, and the digital world.
Enterprises can now sell across the real world and into virtual and augmented worlds. At the same time, the
customer can now exist (and can be sold goods and services) across multiple planes of existence. For many
companies, this will lead to a radical change in consumer behavior and consumption and require rethinking
most go-to-market strategies to retool products and services for the different planes of reality that customers
will inhabit.
About 37% of our respondents see a future possible use for metaverse workspaces in their organizations.
However, 44% don’t see a possible use for them.
Non-Fungible Tokens
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are digital assets with a unique identity recorded on a blockchain, which securely
tracks their ownership or other attributes and can be traded securely from person to person. One of the key
benefits is that NFTs allow for free trade without a central authority due to blockchain technology, which
mitigates fraud. As more companies embrace selling products that exist across real and virtual worlds, NFTs
are a way for organizations and consumers to know that what they are purchasing is authentic and that its
usage is permitted.
NFTs are similar to cryptocurrencies as they are tokenized representations of a product of value. However,
the difference between NFTs and a cryptocurrency such a Bitcoin is non-fungibility. NFTs are considered
non-fungible because two NFTs in the same environment will sell at different price points, compared with
Bitcoin where one Bitcoin will always equal one Bitcoin
About 18% of our respondents see a future possible use for NFTs in their organizations. About 67% do not
see a use for them.
Digital Twins
Digital twins create a digital simulation of some entity, such as a machine tool, a data center, a production
line, or other physical environment, using real-time sensors and other data to get as clear a picture of the
physical object as possible. The digital twin allows for a maintenance staff member, a plant manager, or an IT
manager to get an understanding of an object without having to be present.
The classic example of the use of digital twins would be for a machine on a production line. Using telemetry
from the real machinery, the digital twin monitors the health of the system. A change in noise or temperature
PAGE 142
might trigger an alarm that there is a potential problem. The maintenance worker could examine the digital
twin before being dispatched to make a repair. The digital twin would also have all maintenance records, logs,
manuals, and other data needed to diagnose the problem. This would increase the chance that the
maintenance personnel dispatched to the problem could diagnose it right the first time, have the appropriate
parts and tools to fix the device, and limit unplanned downtime. Paired with AI, IoT sensors, and machine
learning, digitals twins can often save significant downtime and expense in repairs.
However, digital twins do not have to be limited to a single piece of machinery. Plant managers can use digital
twins to route production around problem equipment or manage personnel on the shop floor. Digital twins
can be used for fleet management or agricultural production as well. At the same time, digital twins no longer
need to refer to a machine. Digital twins can take advantage of sensors to create duplicates of people or other
living systems as well.
About 12% of those we surveyed are either implementing or already have digital twins in place. We expect
that, as IoT and AI grow within organizations, digital twins will be one of the first projects in companies with
the appropriate equipment to be “twinned.”
Ultra-High-Density Storage
This category includes any new technology used to store extremely high volumes of data, including but not
limited to use of graphene, synthetic DNA, synthetic metabolomes, or cell cultures. The ever-increasing
demand for storing massive amounts of data has spurred research and development of these innovative
technologies and new storage materials.
For now, only 3% of organizations claim to be using ultra-high-density storage technology or implementing
it. But 34% see a future possible use for it in their organizations.
Human-Computer Integration
Human-computer integration (HCI) is a broad category, consisting of any wearable or implantable
technology that allows the human body to interact directly with a system. Examples include but not are not
limited to microchip implants, electronic tattoos/textiles, ingestible technologies, brain-computer interfaces,
robotic limbs, smart contact lenses, and exoskeletons. “Connected humans” is another term that is sometimes
used for this technology category.
The use cases for HCI are growing and will likely explode in the next 10 years. Microchip implants are one of
the better-known technologies. These implants are small devices placed under the skin. For most people, their
experience with these implants starts with the family pet, where implants can be used to track them. They can
also be used with people to monitor life signs or even blood sugar for diabetics. They also could be used as
biometric authentication or security tokens or to pay for goods and services exactly the way people pay with
their phones now. In Sweden, thousands of people have already received microchips in their hands to pay for
goods. Implants can be used as a government ID and rail card as well.
A brain-computer interface is a computer-based system that acquires brain signals, analyzes them, and
translates them into commands that are relayed to a computer or external device to carry out a desired action.
PAGE 143
In the not-too-distant future, this technology promises to change the lives of those who suffer from paralysis
or amputations.
Not surprisingly, this technology is not in current use by any company taking our survey, although 4% are in
the process of implementing it. Interestingly, 29% see a possible use for human-computer interface in their
organizations.
6G Networks
6G networks are the planned successor to 5G networks, providing greater capacity and lower latency than 5G.
At this point, with the world still dealing with 4G and the beginnings of 5G implementations, 6G is many
years away from its debut. Much will need to be done when it comes to licenses, towers, frequency debates,
and more. But the 6G hype is starting, with promises of high-speed services available anywhere, anytime.
Twenty-four percent of respondents have not heard of 6G networks, and 42% don’t see a need for them in
their organizations. However, a healthy 33% see a possible future use for them.

PAGE 144
Methodology and Participants

The survey behind this study was conducted by Computer Economics between November 2021 to February
2022. We solicited organizations worldwide to participate in an online survey through a variety of means, with
the majority responding to email solicitation. We evaluated each respondent to ensure they were qualified, and
we validated responses for internal consistency. In some cases, correspondence with respondents was
conducted to clarify or correct responses. Nonqualified responses were eliminated from the sample.
The final sample includes 212 organizations, with 45.7% from North America, 34% from Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa (EMEA), 14.1% from the Asia-Pacific region, and 6.2% from Latin America.
By sector, manufacturing made up 19.8% of the sample; professional/technical services, 22.6%; financial
services, 11.4%; government/nonprofit, 11.3%; retail and wholesale distribution, 11.3%; healthcare, 8.0%;
utilities, 5.7%; and other sectors, 9.9%.
Small organizations with from $20 million to $350 million in annual revenue made up 54% of the sample,
midsize organizations with from $350 million to less than $1 billion in annual revenue accounted for 24% of
the sample, and large companies with at least $1 billion in annual revenue made up 22% of the sample.

PAGE 145

Technology Trends 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology Trends 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGY TRENDS 2022