Two of the themes behind our changes are worth explaining a bit more.
Industrial digital twins should created fit-for-purpose
This is why we’ve adapted this model to guide our own development roadmap.
This is why we have changed the Verdantix “progression” and flattened it – a continuum along which the right type of digital twin can be matched to each task.
Not every digital twin needs to be a sentient-AI holographic humanoid. If you are trying to understand how many assets you have and where they are, a map with accurate GPS points storing the relevant data can be sufficient. Conversely if you are trying to get feedback on a new building design or future urban planning, aesthetics and genuine experience matter more.
Categorization based on our development experience
One of the first differences you might note is that we have dropped the “Transformative” stage, the apex of the Verdantix model.
We’ve done this for two reasons.
First, in our experience all industrial digital twins are transformative.
Secondly, because several of the characteristics of Transformative twins are available during the other categories. For example 3D visualization, integration with AR and VR, modelling of an entire plant/facility or larger asset.
But mostly “Vendor agnostic integration with multiple real-time data feeds” as this is what lies at the heart of the Bruce platform.
Therefore if we accepted Transformative as the Vision for the foreseeable future of digital twin evolution, we’re already finished and the Verdantix model is of little use to us. Neither of which are true.