LET'S CHAT OVER COFFEE - CALL US @ (925) 315-5678
Man presenting to a team seated around a conference table with laptops, a slide on the screen behind him

IoT Evaluation Strategy

  • IoT Potential Assessment & Integration Evaluate IoT impact and develop strategies for seamless integration.

  • Innovative IoT Solutions & Scalability Implement IoT technologies that enhance efficiency and plan for scalable growth.

  • IoT SecurityEnsure robust security measures for protecting IoT systems and data.

  • Performance MonitoringContinuously monitor IoT systems to maintain optimal performance and address issues proactively.

CASE STUDY

Airport Technology Benchmarking for Dallas Fort Worth International Airport

Client Overview

Dallas Fort Worth International Airport was deciding how far to go with connected-device technology across its terminals, landside and airfield. Before committing, it wanted to know what comparable airports had actually deployed rather than announced. Acuvity Consulting delivered the external research for that decision in 2019, through Radius.

Challenge

Airport technology is announced far more often than it is deployed. Press releases describe pilots as if they were estate-wide rollouts, and vendor material describes capability rather than adoption. A benchmark built on announcements would have told the airport that everyone was already ahead of it — which was not true.

Solution

Benchmark actual adoption, airport by airport and technology by technology, on a scale that distinguished none from partial from advanced, with every rating sourced.

  • Define the Technology Set

    Seven categories of connected and disruptive technology were defined with their airport applications and the benefit each was supposed to deliver: biometrics, beacons, wearables and AR/VR, near-field communication, robotics and autonomous vehicles, IoT sensing, AI and chatbots, and blockchain.

  • Benchmark Real Deployments

    The top 10 international and top 10 US airports were assessed against each category and rated none, partial or advanced — every rating traced to a named source rather than to a vendor claim.

  • Map Devices to the Journey

    The device layer was then laid out across the airport by journey stage — landside, terminal, airside — and by the horizontals that cut across all of it: sustainability and energy, employee productivity, emergency management, and connectivity.
Three professionals in an office looking at a tablet, with holographic charts overlaid
Expected Outcomes

  • A realistic picture of the field. Almost every airport studied had only partially adopted these technologies and none had fully digitized any single area — most were still experimenting, because the technology was immature or prohibitively expensive at estate scale.

  • Why, not just what. Where adoption had stalled, the research identified the cause — legacy infrastructure and business-process immaturity as often as cost — which is what made the benchmark usable for planning rather than merely comparative.

  • A device layer with a purpose. Connected devices were framed as the foundation that produces the data everything else depends on, not as an end in themselves, and mapped to the journey stage and operational function each one served.

ConclusionThe useful finding was not that other airports were ahead. It was that almost nobody had finished anything, and that the reasons were usually structural rather than financial — which changed what an ambitious programme had to solve first.