Minimum Viable Products for Internet of Things Applications: Common Pitfalls and Practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet of Things applications are not only the new opportunity for digital businesses but also a major driving force for the modification and creation of software systems in all industries and businesses. Compared to other types of software-intensive products, the development of Internet of Things applications lacks a systematic approach and guidelines. This paper aims at understanding the common practices and challenges among start-up companies who are developing Internet of Things products. A qualitative research is conducted with data from twelve semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis reveals common types of Minimum Viable Products, prototyping techniques and production concerns among early stage hardware start-ups. We found that hardware start-ups go through an incremental prototyping process toward production. The progress associates with the transition from speed-focus to quality-focus. Hardware start-ups heavily rely on third-party vendors in term of development speed and final product quality. We identified 24 challenges related to management, requirement, design, implementation and testing. Internet of Things entrepreneurs should be aware of relevant pitfalls and managing both internal and external risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it