HIStalk
A long-time reader whose background is clinical suggested I talk to the
folks at Meru Networks. I figured it takes a lot to get a clinician
excited about IT nuts-and-bolts stuff, so I was happy that Ken Creager,
senior director of strategic markets for Meru, agreed to chat. I hear
gripes regularly about wireless networks, even with the relatively
modest demands placed on them. I was interested to learn more
about what's changed in the time since many hospitals put up their
first 802.11b network. Thanks to Ken for the conversation.
Tell me about Meru
Networks.
Meru has been in business since 2002. We produce a family of access
points and controllers for mission-critical and life-critical
environments. The company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California,
with operations in all of North America, Europe, Asia, and R&D
in Bangalore, India. We’re not public so we don’t
provide financial numbers, but we’re about 280 people,
growing at a very rapid pace due to a lot of industry demand.
We’re having a great time trying to respond to the needs and
requirements of the field.
The lion’s share of our business is in the healthcare and
education markets. In healthcare, we solve unique problems as a result
of doing a lot of observation in the marketplace, getting assistance from people, and from our participation in HIMSS. We
don’t always go in and talk to the technical people.
We look at the nurse as the integrator. If the technology is going to
work, it has to be easy to use and functional to a nurse. If a nurse is
using a PDA at the bedside, that person doesn’t really care if it’s the applicaton, the
unit, or the wireless network if it fails. We work closely with our
clients and our partners to make sure we’re very functional
for the clinical staff in hospitals.
What’s the
penetration of wireless networks in hospitals and how are they being
used?
The actual penetration is close to 80%, but let’s clarify.
Many of those deployments are first- or second-generation, with fat
access points that are difficult to configure and lots of cost. They
also tended to have been installed for a single application or
department, like something radiology or oncology wanted to
put in. It wasn’t pervasive until recently. Most
hospitals report that they have some use of wireless, but
it’s not pervasive.
What we see happening is an absolute explosion of applications. Go to
HIMSS or trade shows and you’ll see applications and devices
using wireless as a transport. There was a time when wireless was nice
to have, like in the conference room. Today, it’s an integral
part of the architecture and an enabler for taking care delivery to the
bedside.
We spent a lot of time looking in hospitals and saw this snowball of
applications coming at clinicians, but found that networks
aren’t pervasive or are limited in their capacity and are
failing. Those first implementations may have worked well for an
application or two, but with 15 or 20, they are failing. Adoption of
devices is not being as well-received as it could have been with a more
robust network.
That has given us a window of opportunity to come in and show how our
technology is differentiated in the marketplace. We have better
coverage and performance and can prioritize traffic to assure
application delivery. Let’s say we have a Wi-Fi based phone
and we want to make sure that calls get through ahead of someone in the
back room who's Web surfing. We can inspect that traffic, prioritize
it, and makes sure it gets through. We have quality of service built
into both the upstream and downstream.
A great application of pervasive wireless that we have witnessed
first-hand are nurse-type devices like Wi-Fi based phones or
Vocera-type badges. You see clinicians walking the hall with those
devices. We noticed they stopped walking. They told us it was because
they had a good signal and stopped so they wouldn’t
lose it. We’re in the mobility business and we asked whether
that makes sense. We’ve seen areas where good coverage was
marked on the floor with tape. That’s the pervasive element.
Is if through the entire facility? Not yet today. We’re
getting there.
Common problems in
hospitals include dead zones, slowness, and overloaded access points.
How does your technology address those problems?
Wireless runs on a series of channels, usually 1, 6, and 11. Access
points have different channels and you roam between them, much like
when you’re on the cell phone in your car. That inherently
causes problems in your end device because it has to continually look
to figure out which one of these guys it wants to talk to. At some
point, it’s talking to two of them and has to decide how to
hand off.
RF planning is required to determine how access points in a general
area interfere with each other. Also, as devices move, they have to
decide which way to go. If I’m trying to talk to two
different access points to determine which is stronger,
that’s taking time on the network. Our advantage is that we
can put all our access points on a single channel. The end user device
sees it as one big network.
There’s no handoff. We make that decision for the end device
in our controller. If you’re walking between 15 access
points, that entire campus may be on one channel and you’ll
never know it’s happening. The advantage is a four to five
times performance increase because you’re not asking
questions where to go next. Also, it’s seamless between
access points. The opportunity to drop a call or device is almost
completely negated.
If you think about what’s happening with clinicians walking
down the hallway and looking at vital signs on the laptop and they hit
a dead zone, they’ve lost information. We take that away
because our coverage is more pervasive. We have quality of service
upstream and downstream and we guarantee delivery of those packets for
critical devices like a patient monitor or voice call. We can assure
the delivery of that piece of information.
This all plays into clinical adoption. We’ve seen the reports
come out. In the 100 Most Wired, technology today is having a positive
impact on health, safety, security, and mortality rates. Much of
that’s due to the deployment of technology solving errors at
the bedside, medical conflicts, wrong medications, those kinds of
things.
Another key thing we find in hospitals is that they’re amass
in assets – wheelchairs, infusion devices, phones. The
biggest question is “where are they?” COWS
and crash carts move to emergency situations, congregate around nursing
stations, and then get pushed into the hallway. We can do some
locationing with our management software that lets you determine where
those devices are.
Because we’re able to do a single-channel architecture of the
standard 12 channels, that gives you 11 available. You can stack
channels like a stack of pancakes. You can segment your traffic. As an
example, you could put voice traffic on Channel 1, data on Channel 6,
and telemetry on Channel 11. That increases your capacity on the
network and segments them. They can still talk to each other.
Because we don’t have channel conflicts, when you need more
coverage or bandwidth, you don’t need more RF planning. You
plug in a new access point, it figures out what’s around it,
and it becomes part of the community. That’s a low cost of
ownership.
Hospitals spend as much upfront with our competitors doing surveys and
channel planning as they do on the actual product. We can almost
eliminate that. You don’t need as many of our access points
to get the same or better coverage as our competitors. The cost of an
access point may be equivalent, but you don’t need as many.
When you look at a clinical environment and recognize that a critical
care nurse will take 1,000 data points in a shift and there’s
five or six of them trying to do something and they congregate, do they
have the bandwidth to get their job done? As they move out on the
floors, do they have the quality of connection to get their job done?
Also different is that we have an ability to create fairness in the
networks. That offers us the ability to do backwards compatibility. You
have the b-rated radios that operate at 11 megabits per second. The
g-rated ones are at 54 megabits per second. If a guy comes in to your
g-network area with a b device, everybody goes down the lowest common
denominator. Everybody gets slowed down because of that guy.
We can give all users their full capacity at the same time. We can
offer 802.11n megabits, but still allow g and b clients to work on the
same network together. In many industries, but especially true in
healthcare, devices stay in service for many years. They’re
not going to rip out technology to replace the radio cards. That gives
us an extensible architecture and investment protection for existing
clients.
Describe 802.11n and what
impact it will have on healthcare.
It’s the next generation of speed. It will give you six fold
the bandwidth of 802.11g. There’s a lot of technical stuff
around that, but from an end user perspective, you’re
bringing true desktop wired speed to the wireless world.
Most connections to the desktop are 100 megabits. You’re
going to have wireless signals that are three times as fast. If
you’re building a new facility, do you need to put those
wires in place? You can go to the all-wireless enterprise and have
speeds faster than that of the wired world.
In healthcare, most of the devices we see are operating very well at b-
and g-rated speeds. Ascom has a great g-rated phone purpose built for
healthcare with messaging and made for clinicians. On your hip, the
display is upside down so you can read it without using your hands. The
next generation of phones will have n-rated radios, so you can have
more of them out there.
The biggest impact will be in imaging and video. Today’s
early generation networks don’t have the capability to take
full-motion video or large images. In a shared PACS environment, you
might need to look at large images in real time. 802.11 n will allow
you to do that.
How important is wireless
voice over IP to hospitals?
We’re seeing it as becoming a much bigger element. They view
the network as being able to carry everything. We’re seeing
dual-mode phones – cellular outside, Wi-Fi based inside.
Doctors look like they have Batman utility belts with 15 pagers and
devices. You will continue to see an explosive rate of devices coming
down and then a convergence period. Blackberry is coming out with a
dual-mode device.
Voice is becoming a much bigger element of these networks in
healthcare. In many cases, it’s the driver for upgrades.
Then, you get into, “What’s the quality of the
call? Is it comparable to toll grade? If a bunch of users make calls,
is the network degraded?" We have technology that protects the quality
of those calls.
What patient care quality
issues can result from ineffective wireless architecture?
Time. Let me go back to the nursing station to see what’s
happening. If an application is readily available on a tablet PC,
laptop, phone, or multi-use device, you’ll save time. The
opportunity for errors is reduced. Where you find a low adoption rate
of handheld devices and point of care by clinicians, you find higher
error rates. Those have an impact on care delivery and quality of care.
If I’m a
hospital CIO, why shouldn’t I just buy Cisco like
I’ve always been doing?
Cisco has a great product. I used to work for them myself. But this
technology is truly differentiated. When you look at a Cisco product,
you have no single product in the top five. You’re not really
getting best-of-breed in any segment.
We use Cisco products in our demos. We can make their wireless phones
work better than they can because our wireless network is so robust.
Our technology is extensible and backward-compatible. There are no
forklift upgrades. Once you’re set up, you just stick an
access point in the ceiling.
CIOs have multiple vendors and multiple levels of code. With us, you
have one level of code that runs all controllers and access points. The
controller code is broadcast out the access points. You set a corporate
policy for HIPAA or JCAHO or whatever is required. Let’s say
you allow a certain number of guests, but you have to keep them away
from the business office and lab. You set those central policies and
the access points come online, assume those rules, and apply them
universally across the network however you’ve set it up.
Once you’ve set it up, you don’t have to
do it again.
We can also suppress rogue access points. Somebody runs down to Best
Buy and buys a D-Link box and plugs it into the wall. Suddenly you have
a new wireless hotspot with no security policies applied to it.
Somebody in the parking lot has access to your network. We have rogue
detection. We determine it’s there and
don’t let that person come in. We go one step further. Once
we recognize that the access point is there and it starts to broadcast,
we jam the signal. That keeps devices from taking time away polling the
access point. I see that guy broadcasting, I’m going to jam
the signal so the end devices never see it and can’t take up
bandwidth.
How do you justify the
cost of your technology to a hospital that already has a wireless
network?
Does your existing wireless network have the capacity to deal with
what’s coming? Most tell us no. People with a network in
place for 18 to 24 months are having to replace it because of the
applications coming. They have to put in an extensible one for the next
speed or the technology required.
The advantage we have is that most have already come to the decision
that something has to change. We come in and say, “We can
solve a lot of these problems with coverage and speed and ROI and save
you money as compared to the other vendors, and provide you a better of
quality of service.” Our value proposition is strong. Clients
are feeling the pain by finding low adoption rate by clinicians on new
devices. The end user doesn’t know what’s behind
it, it just doesn’t work. We try to build the most robust
infrastructure at the lowest cost to make sure those applications work.
Cisco convinced HIMSS to
create The Community for Connected Health, which seems to be a thinly
disguised Cisco trade group that paid HIMSS for exclusive access to its
members. Does that make it even harder to complete against the Goliath?
What’s interesting about that … they did that with
HIMSS and had tried to do the same thing with the AMA, who pushed back
and made Cisco take down some of their marketing. A week later, Cisco
announced their endorsement by AHA. Everyone I’ve talked to
on the client side and vendor side says this is an abuse of .org
facilities and people. The industry is policing that themselves.
I’ve instructed my team to not even respond to those
questions because it’s how Cisco markets today, defensively
and protecting their ground. Frankly, I’ve talked to folks
like yourself who view that as very offensive, "Cisco has infiltrated
HIMSS and I can’t believe HIMSS any more." I think the
industry will self-police that. People who have drunk the Cisco
Kool-Aid will buy it no matter what. For those wanting a best-in-class
solution, I don’t think them doing that with HIMSS or AHA
will influence them in making a purchasing decision.
Wi-Fi companies seem to
have had mixed IPO success. Meru was considering IPO this year.
What’s the most likely outcome?
We are going through a rapid growth spurt. We just tripled the size of
our sales team. There have been some successful IPOs, some not so good,
some consolidation. The opportunity for us to move forward and grow
this company is excellent. There’s a lot of opportunity out
there. We have a disruptive technology. I’m sure the company
and its founders and its venture funding would like to see us go out.
I’m not privy on whether it’s this year or next or
whenever, but when it’s time and the market dynamics are
correct, I’m sure we will go out.
Any final thoughts?
Our wireless technology is unique. We’re fully
standards-based and we help drive a lot of those standards.
We’re innovative in our technology. You’ll find
that many if not all of our customers are raving fans of what we do. We
have very large hospitals like University of Miami, Wake Forest, and
St. Johns. We continue to add and grow in this market almost on a daily
basis.
We’re something of a positive disruption. We’re
getting a lot of positive write-ups and are getting attacked by people
you’ve mentioned [laughs]. When we’ve reached the
point we’re being attacked by Cisco, that means
we’re a thorn in their side and are disrupting their
business. That’s good thing.
The challenge is getting the word out. We’re a small company
compared to Cisco. We only do wireless. Customers are benefiting
financially. I’m happy with where we’re doing.
We’re focusing not only on the IT buyer, but how the products
are used by the clinical staff. As we well know, doctors walk in with a
great application they found or something they use that they want you
to support. We’ll see more and more of that. Having a network
that is extensible and easy to add capacity to will have an amazing
capacity on the IT staff of hospitals and the budget.