One common question I get is, “What is the business value of the Utility Network versus what I already have with the Geometric Network?” That is not a simple or easy answer, which might surprise some of you. The answer mainly revolves around how people built up and use their Geometric Network. As I stated in Part One of this series, you can conceivably build a lot of the Utility Network functionality into the Geometric Network if you had the time, money, and expertise available to do it. And that’s the main question again: Is it worth it?
The Trucks Return!
For this discussion, the trucks will make their triumphant return!
For those who missed Part 1 of the Geometric Network vs the Utility Network, these are my two trucks – my 2019 Ford Ranger and my 2001 Ford Ranger. Both are trucks. Both have engines and wheels. Both will get you where you want to go. But what are concrete differences between the vehicles? And how does that correspond to the UN vs the GN?
Let’s dive in.
Under the Hood
2001 Ranger
With the 2001 Ranger, we’re looking at a 4.0-liter V-6 with 207 horsepower. Big engine that doesn’t actually put out much power but is needed to potentially just haul stuff. And this thing eats gas: 16-18 MPG if you’re taking it easy.
That’s like the GN. You need a decent-sized computer to handle the load of what it might do. It isn’t efficient, but you might tune it or add parts to it to make it more efficient. But you’ll likely never get the GN to run as efficient as the UN could run.
2019 Ranger
The 2019 Ranger has a 2.3-liter four cylinder engine with a turbocharger on it that puts out 270 horsepower. This brings about more fuel efficiency: low 20s MPG.
This is the UN. You can serve up more horsepower via server and web-based applications. The servers are your turbo charger. You don’t have to use the more power hungry ArcPro application if you don’t want to, but it’s there in case you need it.
The Business Value
The UN is designed from the start to be more efficient than the GN. And it’s easier to provide more horsepower to the UN by adding more ArcServers to the picture. The GN was never designed to be turbocharged, and while you can try, it will cost time and money to do it. One other thing to notice between those two engine bays: the 2001 Ranger is kind of a mess while the 2019 is clean and neat. This is analogous to the GN versus the UN: the GN for a utility is wired together with many different components to make it work. The UN is generally pre-staged for use. You don’t have to add on a bunch of parts to make it fire up and work for you.
The Dashboard
2001 Ranger
The dashboard is very basic. It tells me the things I need to know – speed, fuel, coolant temp, oil pressure, and voltage level of the battery. I’m going to do a bit of a reach, but if this was the Geometric Network, these are the basics of what you’re trying to track in you data model. I have enough detail to make decisions about how I proceed with my journey and do analysis in my head.
2019 Ranger
First off, we’re almost all digital. And I can cycle through all sorts of statistics and analysis to make better decisions.
For example:
- I can see what my average fuel economy and estimated range until empty (note: the truck can get low 20s MPG, I just have a heavy foot)
- I review my tire pressures, which is very important in warning me of potential problems
- I can also access my oil pressure, battery voltage, engine temp, and a host of other data. I can even see the tilt and yaw of the truck itself as it traverses offroad terrain!
If that dash was the UN, it’s a lot more granular in the data it provides. Do I need all the data displays available? No. But I have the option to see it or not. I choose which are my standard data displays to fit what I want to see about my vehicle. Again, it’s about the choices I want to make that will dictate what I want to see.
With the old truck, I’m stuck with what I can see. I can add all sorts of after market parts and sensors to track more data and show it to me, but is it worth it?
The Business Value
It’s very easy to see that the newer UN tech is natively built to track and display more data to the user. I can make my choices about what I use or not of that data set. If we’re talking the GN, I still can see the same types and amount of data, but I will be doing more work to integrate it into the native, older technology.
The Drive Train
Both of the trucks have selectable four-wheel drive :
2001 Ranger
2019 Ranger
But notice that the 2019 Ranger has some more options:
I can tell the 2019 truck to act differently in different applications:
- Target low gears and speed for offroad terrain
- Hauling a trailer
- Turn off the “auto-stop” at stop lights
- De-activate the collision sensors
- Lockout the rear differential
- Turn off the Traction Control
Unless I get a very smart computer system installed in the 2001 Ranger, I cannot replicate those options. I can manually manage a couple items, but the older truck is just not made to do it.
The Business Value
The drivetrain is analogous to the ways the UN and the GN can be consumed. The UN is natively designed to be served out and used by multiple applications: web, browser, app, tablet, phone, desktop, other enterprise systems. The GN can be served out in different ways, but it was never designed to run natively in those situations. It was built to run on desktop. With some add-ons or workarounds, It can run in a browser. It was not designed to run in an app, tablet, or phone. The UN is just built to tackle more scenarios.
The Center Console
The most visible difference between the interiors of the two trucks is the center console:
2001 Ranger
2019 Ranger
Anyone who has been in a vehicle in the last decade knows how computerized the center console has become and what is displayed there:
- Navigation
- Cell Phone Interaction (GooglePlay, CarPlay, etc.)
- Heating and Cooling Controls
- Radio
- Back up Camera and Sensors
Let’s compare that to the 2001 Ford Ranger:
I’ve got a radio and the heating/cooling controls (not shown in image). The most advanced feature of that set up is the fact I can burn MP3s to a CD and play it. If I want any of those other features that come standard with the 2019 Ranger? I can buy a very fancy radio with a screen and install all the cameras and sensors to install around the truck.
The Business Value
I equate this to the need to buy third-party tools in the GN to perform certain functions or properly model the electric system. Again, I can make the 2001 truck do those same functions, but I’ll be buying those as complete add-ons. Ford isn’t going to help me with it as they don’t install and maintain that type of stuff, especially now on a vehicle that old. The 2019 truck is like the UN in that regard – the vast majority of the functions I would be buying aftermarket from a third part vendor just come with the vehicle! The UN provides me the following feature out-of-the-box:
- Subnetwork management for circuits and zones
- Attribute rules for auto-data population and quality control rules and data checks
- Phase management for electric utilities
- Connectivity rules
- Tracing configurations
These are the things you typically pay third party vendors for in the GN world!
The New Tech is Where It’s At!
Expanding on my analogy from the Part 1 post, I hope you can see the business value of the Utility Network versus the Geometric Network. Yes, you can make the GN do a lot of the what the UN does, just like I can make the 2001 Ranger do similar things as the 2019 Ranger. But it requires a lot of workarounds, tinkering, and purchasing of third-party tools to make it happen. You have to keep critically asking yourself, is it worth it for the GN? Is it worth it to keep sinking money and effort into 20+ year-old technology that wasn’t designed for what you’re asking for today?
What do you think?