Digital Futures. Making Homes Smarter

Abstract

Smart Homes are about more than automating routine domestic tasks and
providing safety, security and environmental control. New Information and
Communication Technologies provide an infrastructure which can support a
wide range of new activities in the home, ranging from shopping, banking
and working, to learning, entertainment, healthcare support services.
Many people are rightly sceptical about introducing more technologies into
their homes, others are fearful of the problems this may cause. This study
provides a critical assessment of issues relating to design, specification and
installation of Smart Home systems.

Full text

DIGITAL FUTURES:
MAKING HOMES SMARTER
DAVID GANN, JAMES BARLOW,
TIM VENABLES
PUBLISHED FOR THE JOSEPH ROWNTREE FOUNDATION
BY THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF HOUSING

ii
The Chartered Institute of Housing
The Chartered Institute of Housing is the professional organisation for all people who
work in housing. Its purpose is to take a strategic and leading role in encouraging and
promoting the provision of good quality affordable housing for all. The Institute has
more than 15,000 members working in local authorities, housing associations, the
private sector and educational institutions.
Chartered Institute of Housing
Octavia House, Westwood Way
Coventry CV4 8JP
Telephone: 024 7685 1700
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme
of research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to
policy makers and practitioners. The facts presented and views expressed in this
report, however, are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
The Homestead
40 Water End
York YO30 6WP
Telephone: 01904 629241
Digital futures – making homes smarter
Written by David Gann, James Barlow and Tim Venables
© JRF/CIH 1999
Prepared for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Published by the Chartered Institute of Housing
ISBN 1 900396 14 9
Graphic design by Jeremy Spencer
Cover illustration by Liz Pichon
Printed by Hobbs the Printers, Totton
Whilst all reasonable care and attention has been taken in compiling this publication, the authors and the
publishers regret that they cannot assume responsibility for any error or omission that it contains.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise
without the prior permission of the publishers.

The home is by far the most important institution in the lives of the British people. It
is a centre of interest, not only in the immediate family life, but equally in the wider
hustling world of trade and commerce, for its influence is far-reaching and all-
embracing … The powerful influence of a well-run home is of national importance …
Never before has there been such a demand for well-built, scientifically planned
houses. A new consciousness of home-making has been born. Men and women are
equally enthusiastic. Together they study houses, plans and schemes of decoration;
together they devise ways and means of owning homes of their own; and their interest
is fostered and encouraged by manufacturers and designers of home equipment and
household utilities. For indeed a modern, well-equipped home is a worthwhile
possession, whether it consists of three rooms or thirty. It gives a sense of security
and comfort and intimacy essential to real family life. Contributions to home services
come from world-wide sources. Each year - almost each month - science brings some
new discovery to the home. Ether waves are utilised for the preservation of food;
wireless waves are made to boil water for the household; invisible rays protect the
home from unwelcome intruders; and many other such wonders are rapidly being
included in everyday household services.
From The Home of Today, published by Daily Express Publications, London
c.1935, p.7: cited in Forty, 1986, p.114

v
CONTENTS
About the authors viii
Foreword ix
Acknowledgements xiii
Summary xv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Questions about new technology in our homes 3
1.2 About the research 5
1.3 Structure of this study 6
Chapter 2 The evolution of Smart Homes 8
2.1 Lessons from previous attempts to introduce
technology in the home 8
2.2 Home on the Net – a changing sense of place 12
Chapter 3 User needs and market niches 21
3.1 Market composition 22
3.2 Attitudes towards the home 27
3.3 Changing work patterns 28
3.4 An ageing population 29
3.5 Home carers 31
3.6 Usability and Smart Home systems 33
3.7 User needs analysis at Edinvar and Joseph Rowntree 37
3.8 Issues for the development of Smart Home systems 42
Chapter 4 Specifying Smart Home technologies 44
4.1 Towards automated, informational homes 44
4.2 Do we need integrated systems and international
standards? 47
4.3 Specifying technologies to assist in daily activities 54
4.4 A generic, functional specification 58
Chapter 5 Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh 62
5.1 Design and systems integration 64
5.2 Procurement and installation 67
5.3 Operation: the views of visitors 74
5.4 Technical assessment 83

Digital futures
vi
Chapter 6 Digital futures 87
6.1 Creating markets for Smart Homes 90
6.2 Technology suppliers and integrators 93
6.3 Training issues 95
6.4 Future research and development activities 95
Appendices
Appendix 1 Technical specifications 99
Appendix 2 Technical standards 108
Appendix 3 European Smart Homes research and development
projects 127
Appendix 4 Bibliography 131
Appendix 5 Web resources 138
Appendix 6 Glossary of terms 140
List of tables and figures
Tables
2.1 Examples of electrically powered equipment in the home 9
3.1 Criteria by which buyers of new housing make their choices 23
3.2 Edinvar and JRHT residents’ and carers’ Smart Home
requirements 39
4.1 Types of information processes and activities in Smart Home
systems 46
4.2 Examples of digital control and communication equipment and
systems in the home 49
4.3 Potential applications of technology and likely systems solutions 57
5.1 Key events from the York experience 65
5.2 Key events from the Edinburgh experience 69
5.3 Comparative costs of installation at York and Edinburgh 71
5.4 Percentage of different types of people expressing an interest in
the demonstration projects 79
5.5 Age distribution of respondents 80
5.6 Importance attributed to different functions 80
5.7 Average ease of use scores, ranked by visitors 81
5.8 Amount of additional expenditure (either on purchase or through
rent) respondents would pay for Smart Home systems 82
5.9 Importance of interoperability between different sub-systems and
functional areas 82
6.1 Panasonic’s vision of the future for consumer information
appliances 89
6.2 Market development model 92

Contents
vii
A2.1 CEN/TC247 selected protocols for HVAC systems 120
A2.2 Examples of protocols for compatibility in building management
systems applications 120
A2.3 Comparison of features of main protocols 123
A3.1 Other European Smart Homes research and development projects 130
Figures
2.1 Advertisements promoting the benefits of electricity in the home 11
2.2 Japanese Smart Home technology which failed to achieve
market acceptance 15
3.2 New and second-hand house prices 35
4.1 From stand-alone systems and services to integrated Smart Homes 50
4.2 Smart Home standards in the USA, Europe and Japan 54
4.3 The 3-level generic specification 60
5.1 Specially designed ceiling rose, using customised Echelon input
and output nodes 66
5.2 Provision of cableways in the Edinburgh flat 68
5.3 Estimated timescales for procurement and installation for
subsequent projects 72
5.4 Equipment and facilities installed in York 73
5.5 Equipment and facilities installed in Edinburgh 76
5.6 Siemens equipment – designed for use in commercial or industrial
buildings 85
6.1 Market potential and technical solutions 93
6.2 Competition in the emergent Smart Homes market 94
A1.1 Schematic design for the York Smart Home 101
A1.2 Schematic design for the Edinburgh Smart Home 103

Digital futures
viii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
David Gann holds the IMI/Royal Academy of Engineering Chair in
Innovative Manufacturing, carrying out research in construction and other
project based industries. He is Professor of Technology Policy at SPRU where
he leads the Programme on Innovation in the Built Environment.
James Barlow is a Senior Fellow at SPRU. He is currently researching the
potential for 'mass customisation' housebuilding, and barriers to technical
and business process innovation in the UK housebuilding industry.
Tim Venables is a research officer at SPRU, he is researching innovation in
housing both in the UK and overseas. At the same time he is conducting his
doctoral research into the diffusion of Information and Communication
Technologies into the structure of the home.

ix
FOREWORD
Smart Homes – what are they?
Cars have central locking, electric windows, remote controlled mirrors, CD
auto changers – and the rest! And factories, offices and shops are often highly
automated, giving staff control over their environments, and making
buildings more efficient. Automatic doors, blinds that close when the sun
comes out, infra-red lighting controls – they are all becoming commonplace.
But you don’t find that sort of thing in people’s homes much … or do you?
We do have remote controls for our TVs, we do have smoke detectors and
passive infra-red burglar alarms, we do have timers on our central heating.
But all these devices are separate entities. Each affects only one activity or
aspect of the home.
Smart Homes are about something much more exciting. They are about using
the latest information and communications technology to link all the
mechanical and digital devices available today – and so create a truly
interactive house. They started by designers examining the way people live
now, and then exploring how society might look in the future. This generated
a number of new ideas that could improve people’s lives and help them stay
independent for longer. Then the team investigated how existing technology
could be used to turn those ideas into reality.
So it’s not science fiction, its quite matter of fact – just some relatively simple
technologies brought together – inventively – to create something rather
special.
To test the ideas in reality the project created two Smart Homes – a Joseph
Rowntree Foundation bungalow in York and an Edinvar Housing
Association flat in Edinburgh. Both are only prototypes, but they represent
the start of a revolution – because Smart Home thinking can be applied to any
type of building.
We’re not just talking about mansions for the very rich, or sheltered houses –
although this technology is a godsend to people with disabilities, of course
–we’re talking about tower blocks, terraced houses, stately homes, crofts and
cottages as well as newly-built homes.

Digital futures
x
And it’s not just new build. Smart Home retrofitting involves less effort then
rewiring – so existing buildings can easily be converted. The system is
flexible and the components are getting smaller and more affordable all the
time. In reality the applications are limited only by the imagination of the
person installing it.
So here is just as a taster are some of the things you can do, starting with the
front door.
You walk up to your house. One contact with the tag reader, and the alarm
switches off … the door unlocks … and the lights and fire go on. And when a
visitors calls, you could have any kind of alarm, such as lights flashing, for
those who like listening to loud music, or the hard of hearing – or a spoken
message, for the partially sighted. Then thanks to a tiny camera in the
doorbell, the TV is automatically switched on to display a picture of the caller
for instant identification.
Everything is completely controllable. This can be done by something that
most people are probably comfortable with – a normal TV remote control. But
instead of just changing channels, this can be used to open the front door,
turn on the hall lights, light the fire, close the window, and even switch on the
hi-fi.
There are infrared sensors in every ceiling, so it doesn’t matter which room
you are in – you can make things happen anywhere in the house.
For example, special extensions can give you remote control over any
household appliance that plugs into a normal mains socket. Or you can build
motors into the furniture, and do some more radical things like having
cupboards that glide down for easy access, solving the dilemma of whether
to have workspace or storage space in the kitchen. Or you can have a sink
that goes up and down – ideal for households where one person is in a
wheelchair. Or where the children can actually be persuaded to do the
washing up!
And of course you can have normal switches for all these features, as well as
the remote control.
But the Smart Home is not just about push button control. It really comes into
its own when your choices are enhanced by information from the various
sensors that are built into the house. The system knows which doors and

Foreword
xi
windows are open, which are closed, how warm each room is, what the
weather’s doing, if there’s any smoke or gas in the atmosphere – it even
knows which rooms have people in them thanks to the passive infrared
detectors. It can also be programmed to do certain things at certain times of
the day, like switch on the central heating – or changing the lighting, or
checking for activity around the house.
So, say you like to listen to the radio in the evening while you are getting
ready for bed. You can set up the system so that the radio will come on
automatically when you step into the bedroom but only if it’s after 10.30 pm.
Or you can have it so that the radio wakes you up in the morning, the kettle
comes on to boil as soon as you sit up, and the bath starts running as soon as
your feet hit the floor.
And don’t worry about it overflowing, there are checks and safety
mechanisms built into everything. For example, the bath is timed to fill for
exactly seven and a half minutes, and it can even add hot water to take
account of the air temperature in the bathroom!
There are virtually no limits to this kind of thinking. Curtains which close
when it gets dark are already available – but wouldn’t it be handy if the
windows also closed – to just a crack when it’s chilly, or nice and wide on
balmy summer nights? Or, again only in the summer, how about if the
window stayed shut to keep insects out while you read your book, then
opened automatically when you turned off the light!
Of course Smart Homes also offer some serious benefits when it comes to
safety and security. The gas detectors will detect any gas leak, so the system
can switch off the gas before an explosion can happen. Or the smoke
detectors can be hooked up to a local monitoring system. You could use infra
red to check that people are OK, maybe sending an alarm to a warden – or by
phone to a relative – if there’s been no movement by, say, 10.00 in the
morning.
In creating Smart Homes the aim is not to automate for the sake of it, but to
build up a specification that responds to real needs which people may have.
The report identifies four groups who might benefit especially – households
in which both partners are working, highly mobile households, families in
middle age, and people with physical disabilities and older people. Smart
Homes ideas can help people to make better use of their home, do more things
there and (in many cases) live more independently.

Digital futures
xii
Many people are convinced that Smart Homes will be commonplace within a
very few years. This study looks at the potential and the possibilities, based
on experience of the two trial homes. Much of it is concerned with the
technicalities – but with the aim of bringing the concept of the Smart Home
closer to reality, especially for those who are elderly or have disabilities, for
whom the benefits are only too obvious. We hope that it will start a debate
about the usefulness of Smart Home technology, and lead to much greater
awareness of its possibilities.
Chartered Institute of Housing and
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
September 1999

xiii
We wish to thank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Scottish Homes for
supporting the research for this report. We are particularly grateful to
Edinvar Housing Association and Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust who
provided demonstration sites in which Smart Home technologies were
installed. The project would not have been possible without the enthusiasm
and endeavours of Robin Burley and Steve Bonner at Edinvar, and Peter Giles
and Colin Taylor at the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust. At times, it seemed
against all odds that Colin and Steve managed to make progress on the
demonstration sites, dedicating many evenings and weekends to procuring,
installing, integrating and commissioning systems. Without them, we would
have had no means of showing and testing the technology. We wish to thank
the many suppliers of equipment and systems who helped in numerous ways
to produce the demonstration dwellings. We are grateful to the EIBG and
BRE for hosting the suppliers’ workshop. Clare Xanthos surveyed other
European Smart Homes projects.
We are also grateful to members of the Advisory Group who provided
valuable information and guidance throughout the research. Members of the
Advisory Group included:
Julie Cowans – Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Jane Scott – Scottish Homes
Tracey Roose and Mary Hopkinson – Anchor Trust
Clare McKenna – Oxford Brookes University
Phil Buckle and Graeme Wool – Electrical Contractors’ Association
Bob Harris – R T Harris & Son Ltd
Peter Colebrook – Strategic Engineering
John Gill – Royal National Institute for the Blind
Helen Forsyth – Edinvar Housing Association
Robin Burley – Edinvar (now an independent consultant)
Charlie Legg – Housing Corporation (now a consultant)
Peter Lloyd – Sussex Gerontology, University of Sussex
We wish to thank the many potential users and carers for sparing their time
to provide us with views on specific requirements, participating in focus
groups and interviews. We are particularly grateful to Peter Senker for his
paper on the role of carers. A large number of people completed our
questionnaires in the demonstration houses, we are grateful to them too.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Digital futures
xiv
We wish to thank Ken Bromley of the Building Research Establishment for his
work in analysing the issues concerning Technical Standards. This is
reproduced in Appendix 2.
Finally, we are most grateful to Ritsuko Ozaki for her comments on early
drafts of the text and to Charlotte Huggett for her assistance throughout the
project, and in preparing the final report for publication. Nevertheless, we
remain solely responsible for any errors in the content.
David Gann, James Barlow and Tim Venables
SPRU, University of Sussex
April 1999
In 1998, the Edinvar Demonstration Home won three awards:
• National Housing Award organised by the Chartered Institute of
Housing and Inside Housing magazine
• Award for Innovation in Social Housing in Scotland, sponsored
by the Scottish Office
• 2000 Homes Innovation Award
A video, showing the demonstration houses in use, and CD-ROM
providing design details have been produced to accompany this study.

xv
Smart Homes are about more than automating routine domestic tasks and
providing safety, security and environmental control. New Information and
Communication Technologies provide an infrastructure which can support a
wide range of new activities in the home, ranging from shopping, banking
and working, to learning, entertainment, healthcare support services.
Many people are rightly sceptical about introducing more technologies into
their homes, others are fearful of the problems this may cause. This study
provides a critical assessment of issues relating to design, specification and
installation of Smart Home systems.
❑Aims of the project
The study presents the findings of a research and implementation project
carried out between October 1996 and March 1999. The aims were to:
• produce a model user specification for the development and use of
Smart Home technologies in the affordable and social housing markets.
The specification is presented at the end of chapter 4;
• assess likely markets for Smart Home technologies;
• evaluate supply-side issues and lessons from integration and
installation in the two demonstration projects.
❑Main findings
•Smart Home markets, technologies and supply industries are immature:
consumers are ignorant or sceptical about potential benefits;
SUMMARY

Digital futures
xvi
technologies are difficult to integrate for interoperability; the industry
is fragmented and there are no one-stop-shop suppliers providing a full
range of bundled products and services.
• There is little standardisation across industries and countries and the
development of common protocols to facilitate interoperability has
been slow.
• There are no cheap appliances readily available to work on affordable
systems.
• The pace of technological change is rapid. Lifestyles and the demand
for new functions within the home are changing equally fast. Once
potential benefits of integrated Smart Home systems have been proven
it is likely that more people will be prepared to purchase them – in a
similar way to investment in electricity or central heating in the home
earlier this century. Systems will then begin to diffuse throughout the
housing stock, costs will fall and a new supply industry will emerge.
❑Main recommendations
• Producers of new housing and those responsible for major
refurbishment work should provide an infrastructure to enable
connectivity to new Information and Communication Technologies
inside and outside the home.
This generic infrastructure should provide the facility to connect to
context-specific systems designed and installed to meet the needs of a
broad range of users in different types of dwellings, with the capability
of supporting personalised systems, tailored to specific individual and
household requirements.
• In some cases, cableways can be provided at little or no additional cost.
However, the routing of these must be carefully planned by someone
competent to design a system that will meet a wide range of potential
user needs. Access to cableways should be provided to accommodate
future changes in information and communication technologies.
• New skills are needed, particularly in understanding user requirements
and in integrating and installing systems.
• Further research is needed to understand benefits and problems of
using Smart Home systems and to explore issues concerning adaptation,
maintenance and service provision.

Summary
xvii
❑Potential markets and user needs
There are five main reasons for the slow growth in markets for Smart Home
systems:
• poor understanding of user needs on the part of suppliers and
designers;
• lack of information about potential benefits and fears about systems
operation, failure, loss of privacy and other ethical issues on the part of
users;
• difficulties in integrating and installing systems, including lack of
common standards;
• the cost of equipment and systems – they are too expensive to be
affordable in low-cost and social housing;
• immature technology, causing concern about systems defects, rapid
obsolescence, and potential upgradability and adaptability.
Nevertheless, there is a large and growing potential market for Smart Home
technologies. The market ranges from young people with interactive
educational and entertainment requirements to the growing number of elderly
people who have a wide range of health and care needs. In the coming years,
many people are likely to carry out more routine functions from their homes,
including shopping, banking and paying bills, and some aspects of their work.
Technical requirements therefore vary considerably depending upon the type
of property and individual circumstances. Many people are also concerned
about issues such as safety and energy use in the home and digital
technologies can be of use in managing these safety and energy systems.
Smart Home technologies could be used by occupants, visitors, carers and
service providers in the home in four functional areas relating to:
• general labour-saving technologies around the home;
• technologies designed to assist in management and adaptation of
internal environments;
• interactive systems for communication between the home and the world
outside;
• assistive devices and systems for older people and those with
disabilities.

Digital futures
xviii
❑Demonstration sites
Two demonstration sites have been established by Joseph Rowntree Housing
Trust in York and Edinvar Housing Association in Edinburgh. Trial systems
have been installed at these sites for assessment by users and others
associated with housing management and the provision of services in the
home. It was not possible to purchase off-the-shelf components that could
easily be assembled in customisable, plug-and-play systems. Systems had to
be integrated, and in many cases, components were modified to achieve
satisfactory solutions.
❑Costs
The cost of equipment installed in the demonstration projects was in the
region of £1400 per room. This was far higher than the target of a few
hundred pounds per room, to prove affordability. However, more equipment
was installed than would be necessary in many ordinary applications. For
this reason, and because of the one-off nature of the demonstration projects,
insufficient evidence was available to evaluate likely future costs. Larger-
scale demonstration projects could provide better data in future.
❑Housing providers
The main lesson for private housing developers, social landlords and housing
contractors wishing to install Smart Home systems is that they will need to
invest in new skills. Both the housing associations in this project have
invested heavily in systems integration and user-interface skills, without
which it would have been difficult to develop the demonstration sites.
❑Technology suppliers
A narrow technology-driven approach persists amongst many suppliers who
have so far generally failed to take adequate account of user needs or of
systems integration and installation issues. User interfaces tend to be
cumbersome to operate and equipment is usually designed for particular
standards which hinder the type of interoperability required for costs to fall
and markets to grow. Moreover, systems are mainly based upon those

Summary
xix
developed for office buildings and they are often over-engineered and
expensive when applied in housing.
In future, emphasis should be placed on functionality rather than technical
features in order to sell Smart Home systems. People are more interested in
what new technologies offer in terms of improvements to their daily lives
rather than detailed technical specifications.
Suppliers need to develop better interfaces and improve interoperability
between sub-systems and components.
New systems integration service providers are emerging. There is likely to be
increasing demand for firms with this type of expertise if markets begin to
expand.
❑Government
In future, the use of Smart Home systems could provide a variety of benefits to
users and housing providers including access to new interactive services such
as telecare, or lifelong learning facilities. Some of the capital costs of
providing such systems could be off-set against savings in areas such as
routine care and health checks. This has implications for inter-departmental
policies, for example between the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions and the Department of Health.
The provision of more functions in the home raises a number of issues about
quality of life, how it is delivered and how it is measured. New indicators are
likely to be needed to measure housing quality including issues such as
provision of technical infrastructure and support, to provide access to new
Information and Communication Technologies.
❑Standards
Common standards are required to provide interoperability between sub-
systems and components. When bespoke, proprietary standards are used
they can lock users into a particular set of equipment. Attempts to develop
standard specifications are painfully slow and generally result in
cumbersome documents with little general agreement on the way forward.

Digital futures
xx
In consequence, the use of Smart Home technologies has been limited to those
who can afford to pay for expensive one-off solutions, often based on security
and entertainment systems.
❑The future
Both Edinvar and Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust are involved in further
research and demonstration work. It is essential that larger-scale
demonstration projects are undertaken and that technologies are tested for
extended periods with users. Results from these and other projects should
help to build a new body of knowledge and capability to design, install and
use Smart Home technologies.

1
The idea of introducing more technology into our homes may fill many
readers with horror – computers seem to go wrong for inexplicable reasons
with alarming regularity. Others are surprised that we do not already live in
wired-up, modern, clean, sustainable, affordable and healthy homes. For
them, the notion of a fully automated house represents the ultimate technical
utopia. Whatever our views, it seems that we cannot escape from an
increasing reliance upon digital communication and control systems in our
work, for our entertainment, leisure and travel, for dealing with illness and
disabilities and for managing our homes. Our intention is to explore how
technology can help people in their homes, rather than make their lives more
complicated.
Over the last 15 years, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
have become ubiquitous. Computers control programmes in our washing
machines and central heating, engine management systems and automatic
braking devices operate in cars, digital signalling systems are used on our
railways and funds are transferred automatically at supermarket checkouts.
But whilst many of our household appliances and utilities are managed using
small micro-processors we make little use of the potential to combine these
technologies to alleviate routine and tedious tasks, or to facilitate greater
independence for older people and those with disabilities.
This study focuses on the opportunities and constraints to harnessing
benefits of ICTs in our homes. We use the term Smart Homes to describe
homes in which ICTs have been installed to help control a variety of functions
and to provide communications with the world outside (see: Moran 1993).
Integrated systems controlled by microprocessors are at the heart of these
new applications.1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Digital futures
2
There is nothing new about the Smart Homes idea, it became a popular term
in the early 1980s around the time that the ‘intelligent building’ concept was
first used in the USA.2But automation of domestic tasks has been the goal of
many developments in mechanical and electrical products over the last 100
years or so. In the past 30 years an increasing range of electronic products has
been developed, and added to existing appliances and systems in our homes.
Consumer electronics, electrical equipment and heating and security systems
manufacturers have been developing digital technologies for domestic
appliances and consumer products. Service providers such as
telecommunication companies, water, gas and electricity suppliers have been
developing systems to provide new interactive services. Technologies and the
services they provide continue to evolve at a rapid pace.
Yet there are no precise definitions of the technologies or functions involved.
The new underpinning technologies involving computers, communication
devices and network infrastructures – such as the Internet – have not yet
reached maturity. Driven by the search for new mass consumer markets,
hardware, software and service providers are developing new applications
that they believe will offer people many new benefits in their homes.
Many people have not heard of Smart Homes. Moreover, a large proportion of
those who are familiar with the term are unlikely to have a clear idea of what
it means. For example, is it more than just another technological fad, dreamt
up by marketing departments in consumer electronics firms, waiting for the
right conditions to push technology into the marketplace?
The purpose of this study is to provide a critical appraisal of the direction,
benefits and constraints to installing and using Smart Home technologies.
Many of the technologies currently available are relatively expensive and are
aimed at middle and upper income home owners. Our research and
development work centred on testing these ideas in two demonstration
projects, in the lower income and affordable housing markets, in consultation
with different groups of users.
In the study we explain some of the underlying assumptions about
specification, development, installation and use of new digital technologies in
our homes. We evaluate the possibility of providing occupants with
substantial improvements in the performance and use of their homes. We
focus particularly on facilities that improve the quality of life at home and
reduce costs in use. The areas covered include:

Introduction
3
• safety
• security
• convenience and usability
• control of domestic appliances
• energy and environmental management
• new forms of entertainment
• business, homeworking and learning applications
• home services such as shopping, medical and care provision.
We set out to test whether it is possible to meet changing occupiers’ needs
and help them achieve greater independence, so that people can remain
living in their existing homes for longer. Our contention is that appropriate
Smart Home technologies could play an important part in advancing the
concepts of flexibility and adaptability in Lifetime or Barrier Free Homes.3Such
technologies could also increase the range of choices over how we live at
home. Such benefits are only likely to be realised, if inexpensive, easy-to-
install, simple-to-operate technologies are developed. Moreover, they will
almost certainly need to be modular, expandable and upgradable operating
on an open infrastructure, with simple user interfaces and communication
protocols.
❑1.1 Questions about new technology in our homes
For much of the two and a half years we worked on this study we were
confronted with more questions than answers. Some were of a purely
technical nature, others related to economic, social, ethical and regulatory
issues. For example:
• What are the consequences of Smart Home technologies for the ways in
which we design, construct, adapt and maintain our homes in terms of
physical structure and layout?
• How can we plan to get more from technology in our homes and what
will it cost?
• How will systems and new services be paid for?
• To what extent do we need to integrate systems to achieve better value
services and new functionality?

Digital futures
4
• How much do Smart Home technologies depend upon related
infrastructure such as new cabling in our homes, or satellite dishes on
our walls?
• Will we need to dig up our streets and garden paths, and disrupt the
inside of our houses to make way for new cabling?
• How do these systems relate to, or depend upon other systems such as
the telephone, transport, healthcare, banking, shopping, entertainment,
water, gas and electricity, television, radio or the internet?
• What needs to be done to install a generic infrastructure that will
facilitate the use of ‘plug-and-play’, or ‘click and go’ technologies
which anyone can use?
• Who will supply the technology, how will it be installed, who will
maintain and update it?
• Will Smart Home technologies be easy to operate and how might they
affect what we do and how we live at home? Will people have
adequate knowledge about their use?
• What types of systems would enable people with disabilities and frail
older people to live more independently in their own homes?
• What problems might these technologies create for users, visitors, or
professionals in housing, social services and healthcare?
•Are Smart Home technologies likely to be dangerous or stressful to use?
• Will people trust systems or fear that equipment may fail – are they
fail-safe?
• Will there be adequate support and backup if systems do not function
properly?
• Will Smart Homes provide people with more opportunity to socialise or
will they create isolation?
• What are the ethical issues and social consequences associated with
using ICTs in the home, including issues of remote surveillance and
privacy?
In this study we provide answers and insights to these questions, drawing on
the experience and lessons learned in developing two demonstration projects.
We also comment on the rate and direction of technical change and discuss
how digital technology might affect the ways we live at home.

Introduction
5
❑1.2 About the research
It was with the questions in mind that we set out to develop and test two
demonstration homes. Our previous studies on housing and home
automation highlighted a number of reasons for failure in the technology-
push approach.4We wanted to start with a better understanding of what
people do in their homes and how technologies might be designed to assist
them in everyday tasks. Moreover, we wanted to develop a specification for
technologies in affordable and social housing markets. This project was the
first of its kind to be driven by academic researchers pursuing a user-focused
approach in affordable housing markets.
We began our work with a user needs analysis, running workshops to assess
the potential for using new digital technologies in the home with different
user groups in Edinburgh and York. These included people with a variety of
physical and learning difficulties living in accommodation with on-site care
services. Our workshops included people from different age groups, with a
variety of needs and with different abilities in using ICTs. We also held
workshops with carers and visitors to elicit their views about needs and
potential uses of technology.
In parallel with our user needs analysis, we conducted a technical review of
communications protocols aimed at assessing the potential for inter-
operability of systems and their application in Smart Homes and residential
buildings, including links to remote control centres. This review was carried
out by Ken Bromley of the Building Research Establishment (BRE). It focused
on applications such as the management and control of heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting control, fire detection and prevention,
security and access control (including the use of video), metering of fuel and
power, telemedicine, etc.
A supplier workshop was held at the Building Research Establishment in
collaboration with the European Intelligent Building Group (EIBG) with the
aim of informing potential systems manufacturers and component suppliers
about the specific needs of the project.
An outline specification was written for the two demonstration sites in York
and Edinburgh, and tenders were invited from a short list of suppliers. The
demonstration homes were developed by Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust in
York and Edinvar Housing Association in Edinburgh. Components and

Digital futures
6
systems were procured and installed in these homes for assessment by users
and others associated with housing management and the provision of
services in the home. An evaluation of supply-side, technical, installation,
operation and maintenance issues was carried out. Users, carers and owners
were invited to assess the systems and user reactions were analysed. The
demonstration sites were opened to members of the public for several
months, and visitors were asked to complete a questionnaire asking about
their reactions to what they saw. This survey yielded 88 responses.
❑1.3 Structure of this study
This study is aimed at all those who have an interest in the future
development of housing in the UK. The starting point was to understand the
likely needs of users, occupants, residents and people visiting our homes,
including carers, and people from health and social services. We hope that the
study will be of interest to everyone from a user perspective. The report is
also aimed at owners, public and private housing developers, housing
finance organisations, regulators, technology suppliers, installers and the
many different new digital service providers. For these organisations, Smart
Homes may represent new market opportunities, or the need to find
innovative solutions to construction, assembly, maintenance and adaptation.
They may also require changes in regulations and building control.
The main body of this study is organised in five chapters. Chapter 2 provides
the background to some of the key issues relating to the installation and use
of technologies in our homes. There is an implicit assumption held by many
people involved in our demonstration projects that the introduction of Smart
Home technology has radical consequences for the ways in which we produce
and use our homes. We explore this view with reference to previous periods
of major change such as electrification in housing. Chapter 3 focuses on user
needs and different markets for Smart Home technology, it provides the
results from a number of focus-groups held with potential users and visitors
to our homes. In chapter 4, we discuss trends in technology and requirements
for interconnectivity and integration between systems. A functional
specification for Smart Home systems is developed, drawing upon analysis of
work with users and suppliers, and in consultation with Edinvar Housing
Association and Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust. The experience of
procuring, installing, operating and adapting Smart Home technologies in the
demonstration projects in York and Edinburgh is discussed in chapter 5. This

Introduction
7
describes reactions from potential users of these homes and explains the
results of our questionnaire survey of those visiting the demonstration sites.
Chapter 6 concludes with a discussion of the main lessons for future projects,
issues about how the market for home systems could expand, and
recommendations for policymakers in various public and private sector
institutions.
For readers wishing to review work of a more technical nature, we have
included the technical specifications for both demonstration projects in
Appendix 1. An assessment of different standards and communications
protocols for Smart Homes is provided in Appendix 2, and a description of
other European research and demonstration projects is given in Appendix 3.
A list of useful Web addresses and resources is provided in Appendix 4.
Some of the technical terms we have used are described in Appendix 5.
Notes
1 The term Smart Homes is used to describe homes in which ICTs have been installed to help
control a variety of functions and to provide communications with the world outside.
Others have called them ‘computer homes’ (Mason and Jennings 1983), ‘electronic houses’
(Mason 1983), ‘intelligent homes’ (Gann 1992b), ‘interactive homes’, ‘home informatics’
(Miles 1988), ‘home telematics’ and ‘domotique’, in France.
2 The ‘intelligent building’ concept originated as a marketing ploy by ShareTech, the ill-fated
joint-venture between AT&T and United Technologies, established in the wake of the break
up of the Bell telephone system. The concept spread quickly from the USA throughout
Europe and Japan in the mid-1980s.
3 Others have approached this issue from the perspective of people’s changing needs from
their housing as they get older and their circumstances change. One specific perspective is
the concept of flexibility and adaptability implied in Lifetime or Barrier Free Homes (Bright
1996; Burley 1994; McCafferty 1994; Martin 1993).
4 See Gann et al 1994 and 1995.

8
The Smart Homes concept is the latest expression of the various ways in which
technology in the home has developed. This chapter looks at the history of
home-based technology and how Smart Homes have emerged. It also
considers how information exchange between the home and the outside
world has developed, and the recent rapid growth in the use of the Internet.
❑2.1 Lessons from previous attempts to introduce
technology in the home
The installation and use of technology in the domestic environment has
played a major part in shaping the design and construction of housing over
the last century. The introduction of new technology in the home can be
understood at three levels. First, it has been necessary to connect houses to an
external infrastructure, such as water and sanitation, gas and electricity
supplies, telephone and increasingly, cabled television and other interactive
services. Second, it has been necessary to provide a means of distributing
basic utilities around the home on an internal network or infrastructure.
Examples are plumbed hot and cold water, central heating and drainage for
waste and soil; electrical wiring for power and lighting; twisted-pair cabling
for telephone lines; co-axial cable for televisions. Third, there are the domestic
appliances and terminal equipment themselves which connect to the internal
infrastructure, providing a variety of functions and in some cases acting as
interfaces between users in the home and the world outside. Technology is
generally more portable and takes the form of consumer-goods at the
appliance level, whilst in the first and second levels it is often embedded
within the building, street or surrounding area, forming part of the fixed-
capital infrastructure.
For the purposes of supporting everyday domestic activities, mechanical
technologies have always been important and will very likely remain so for
CHAPTER 2
THE EVOLUTION OF
SMART HOMES

The evolution of Smart Homes
9
many centuries. The automation of routine physical tasks has successfully
liberated us from drudge-work in the home and helped people with special
needs to live more independently. They have been equally important in
helping to reduce the risk of disease and illness. Issues concerning cleanliness
and hygiene grew in importance in the late nineteenth century with better
scientific knowledge about consequences for health. Widespread public
understanding of these issues was closely linked with the successful
development of new businesses for kitchen and sanitaryware product
manufacturers: flushable water closets and manually operated washing
machines, are among early examples.
The development of electric power represented a major technical change in
our homes. Not only did it provide new, safer forms of light and heat,
replacing gas and incandescent sources, it also provided a source of power
for many hand-operated mechanical tools and aids in our homes. Moreover,
from around 1915 onwards, electrification in the home brought with it the
introduction of new electrically powered machines and gadgets for domestic
use including vacuum cleaners (health and cleanliness), sewing machines
(homeworking and repairs) and food-processors (home automation). A
number of manufacturers grew to fame and fortune from the sales of
electrical equipment, promising to ease the burdens of domestic work
Table 2.1: Examples of electrically powered equipment in the home
Kitchens General systems
Kettles Clocks and timers
Toasters Boilers
Milk sterilisers Radiators
Cookers Thermostats
Potato peelers Meters
Coffee pots Water pumps
Egg boilers Macerators
Food mixers and processors Fans
Yoghurt makers Alarms
Knife grinders Utility rooms and cleaning
Dish washers Washing machines
Bathrooms Tumble dryers
Shavers Sewing machines
Hairdryers Vacuum cleaners
Toothbrushes Irons
Entertainment
Radios
Music centres
Televisions
Telephones

Digital futures
10
advertising everything from ‘spring cleaning with electricity’ to the ‘all
electric breakfast’: examples of household brands include: Belling, Creda,
Electrolux, Ferranti, Hoover and Kenwood. Table 2.1 illustrates a number of
the more common electro-mechanical products that provide comfort, safety
and remove routine chores in the home. The labour-saving house was a cliché
of the 1920s onwards, with the introduction of the small electric motor. It was
in part a response by the emerging middle-classes to the perceived shortage
of domestic servants (Forty 1986: 118). The main aim was to replace domestic
servants with machines, so that one person could look after the whole house
with time to spare for other activities (Hardyment 1988: 177-179).
Most of us take electric light, power and associated appliances and consumer
products for granted. But it was not so long ago that their introduction was
accompanied by major upheaval both in physically locating them within our
homes, and in terms of the ways in which we integrated these new functions
in our daily lives.
The Electrical Development Association (EDA) played an important role in
creating the conditions for the expansion of markets for these types of
products. Diffusion into the market started in around 1900 and continued for
about 30 years. Adrian Forty argues that in the mid 1920s, the conditions
were right for demand for electrical appliances to grow. These included cheap
supply of electricity, cheap and reliable appliances and the installation of a
distribution and wiring system. There could be a number of parallels here
with the potential growth of Smart Home systems.
Between 1918 and 1939, the extension of mains electricity supply to both new
and existing houses meant that the proportion of households connected to
the mains rose from 6% to about 66%. A large number of houses were
equipped only for lighting between the inter-war years. Those houses that
had electricity for power often only had one 5 amp socket. Probably only one
third of all homes had more than two electric sockets, and they were
principally newly built houses in the upper price bracket (Forty 1986: 189).
Moreover, people were fearful of the consequences of wiring up their homes.
Anecdotal cases known to Adrian Forty include two old ladies who
anxiously kept plugs in all the electrical sockets to prevent electricity from
leaking out; another old lady was said to be terrified by the installation of
even an electric bell lest the workman be killed in the process.
The need for labour-saving, hygienic, safe, and secure homes has been a
priority for many decades. Manufacturers, installers and housebuilders have

The evolution of Smart Homes
11
Figure 2.1: Advertisements promoting the benefits of electricity in the home
Daily Mail, 1955
Electrical Development Association, 1928
US electric cooker, 1961
Hoover, 1927

Digital futures
12
successfully integrated many products into the home which have improved
the standard of living and changed the expectations of occupants. These
changes took time and were often closely related to changes in design and
construction of new housing, particularly in bathrooms, kitchens, utility
rooms and living rooms: the TV lounge. Houses were designed for new styles
of living with modern technologies. This spawned new design services such
as kitchen planning. A number of lessons can be taken from these experiences
for the contemporary situation associated with the introduction of Smart
Home technologies. Perhaps the most important are the conditions that need
to be satisfied before markets are likely to grow. For example:
• a reliable infrastructure must be built and serviced;
• regulatory approval must be obtained after safety compliance testing
for new equipment;
• safe, affordable and reliable appliances need to be produced and
marketed;
• housing needs to be redesigned to accommodate new equipment and
activities;
• cultural acceptance needs to be gained by demonstrating advantages
and allaying fears.
In some instances, success has also been associated with free provision of
technology to users. The contrast in growth of viewdata services in the UK
(Prestel), with France (Minitel) shows that in the French case, the provision of
free terminals was a significant factor in the successful adoption of the
technology.
❑2.2 Home on the Net – a changing sense of place
Many of the products and systems listed in Table 2.1 now include micro-
processor controls to enable users to select different performance functions.
So called ‘intelligence’ has been added to domestic appliances. But given
these experiences, is there something new happening with the introduction of
ICTs to lead us to believe that the Smart Home concept will at last become a
reality? There are at least two forms of Smart Home which are emerging
because of different imperatives. One involves the traditional approach to
home automation associated with the use of ‘intelligent’ domestic appliances.
The other is more recent, involving interactive computing, communication
and entertainment services within and beyond the home.

The evolution of Smart Homes
13
Major computer, software and entertainment services providers are
beginning to explore the convergence of the more traditional automation
aspects with newer informational features. Numerous writers and film-
makers have speculated about future homes, sometimes in threatening,
sometimes in comical terms. In many of these visions the home is seen as a
physical access node for ‘electronic spaces’ within advanced communications
networks. Typical is Alvin Toffler’s notion of the ‘electronic cottage’ as a locus
for employment, production, leisure and consumption (Toffler 1981).
Common to many perspectives is a redefinition of the home to allow the
household to reassume roles – such as work, education, medical care and
entertainment – which have increasingly been externalised. Driving this is a
desire by individuals to retreat from the environmental, social and political
problems of late twentieth century industrial cities, with – according to
Toffler – fundamental economic implications:
… if individuals came to own their electronic terminals and equipment, purchased
perhaps on credit, they would become … independent entrepreneurs rather than
classical employees meaning … increased ownership of the means of production
by the worker. We might also see groups of home-workers organise themselves into
small companies to contract their services or … unite in cooperatives that jointly
own the machines. All sorts of new relationships and organisational forms become
possible. (Toffler 1981: 223)
This utopian view of liberation through technology seems quaintly old
fashioned now and as we argue below, the technologies upon which it was
based have been developed, but the form of social use has generally not
transpired.
The evolution towards the multi-functional home is also, some suggest, a
result of changes in the spatial organisation of advanced society. As Lorente
(1996) puts it, ‘global houses’ are needed if we are to live in ‘global villages’.
He argues that fully inter-connected housing can act as an interface between
Castells’ (1989) ‘flow space’ – the increasingly important network of
information flows – and ‘physical space’, where the experience and daily life
of most people takes place. In this way the home becomes the location from
which people access information from anywhere in the world. Furthermore,
the home will not only become a place for passive reception, but also an
active producer of information and energy – the latter, for example, through
the generation of solar electricity.
These perspectives which tend to be technologically determinist, or utopian,
have been criticised because they reduce what are complex interactions to

Digital futures
14
crude and homogeneous models of technologies and their urban impacts
(Graham and Marvin 1996; Robins and Hepworth 1988). Furthermore, they
tend to ignore the social and political processes through which technologies
are actually developed and applied, especially the assumption that local
social and political actors have little or no scope to shape developments.
More than 30 years ago Nicholas Johnson argued that:
The home will ultimately be the communication centre where a person works,
learns, and is entertained, and contributes to society by way of communications
techniques we have not yet imagined – incidentally solving commuter traffic jams
and much of their air pollution problems in the process. (Johnson 1967, quoted
in Graham and Marvin 1996: 92)
During the 1970s and 1980s, in spite of the futuristic visions and hype of
organisations with a vested interest in developing products and services,
there was only limited progress towards the introduction of Smart Home
technologies. To some extent the view expressed in 1989 holds true today,
that:
… a combination of home computers, consumer electrical goods, videotext
services, and home security systems, even in a “smart house”, wired with heating
and lighting sensors … hardly adds up to a revolution in ways of living (Forester
1989: 224).
In the 1980s and early 1990s manufacturers of integrated home systems had
generally failed to develop mass-markets for their products and services.
Technical standards failed to create the right conditions for the growth of
mass-markets for Smart Home applications. Attempts to develop standard
specifications have generally resulted in cumbersome documents (ESPRIT-
HS Consortium 1991). One of the main problems was a narrow technology-
push approach by suppliers who failed to take adequate account of user
needs. Systems and components were expensive. User interfaces were
cumbersome to operate and manufacturers’ bespoke systems locked users
into a particular set of equipment, failing to provide the type of inter-
operability required for markets to grow. Markets failed to grow even in
Japan, where there was huge investment in R&D and new product
development: one of the reasons for market failure was the unacceptably
complicated controls interface – see Figure 2.2. Between 1990 and 1995, home
automation systems had only penetrated the market to a level of 1⁄30 of that
projected in the 1980s.

The evolution of Smart Homes
15
Figure 2.2: Japanese Smart Home technology which failed to achieve market acceptance
Bathroom controls Bathroom controls
Central control panel
Kitchen robot

Digital futures
16
Attempts to develop standard specifications were painfully slow and
generally resulted in cumbersome documents with little general agreement
on the way forward. In consequence, the use of Smart Home technologies was
limited to the rich and famous who could afford to pay for expensive one-off
solutions, often based on security and entertainment systems. With the
exception of some applications in the USA, there was a general trend towards
acceptance of discrete technologies rather than attempts to provide fully
integrated solutions. For example, markets for computer and video games,
security systems and alarm call services all grew strongly, but there appeared
to be little interest from purchasers or from most manufacturers to link
systems together in a manner that would deliver the benefits described by the
technological visionaries.
Nevertheless, significant changes have occurred in the use of information and
communications technologies within our homes. Many systems that were
once solely the domain of the office have now become ‘domesticated’
(Silverstone 1994). Digital ICTs are the most significant technology to be
introduced into our homes since electricity, telephones, radio and television.
Moreover, the pace of these changes has been extraordinary when compared
with the speed of electrification or the rate of adoption of the telephone, TV
or radio earlier this century.
For example, use of the Internet has been growing in Britain at a rapid rate in
the past two years. An NOP Research Group study showed that nearly 11,000
new adult users are logging onto the Net every day. Some 11 million adults
accessed the Internet at least once during 1998, a 48% increase compared with
1997. The location of Internet use has also changed with around 6 million
people using the Internet from home by December 1998, compared with 3.4
million in December 1997 – a 76% increase. Around 1.3 million people
shopped online in the second half of 1998 and the rate of expansion of
Internet use is predicted to be 2% per month during 1999 (NOP Research
Group – online information, and Financial Times coverage of report from E-
Commerce, FT.com, January 1999).
In spite of its rapid growth in home use, access to the Internet continues to
rely upon a cumbersome user interface, requiring keyboarding skills and
perseverance on the part of the user to navigate through a confusing morass
of information. Cawson and Lewis argue that the television appears to be a
promising means for access to interactive services such as teleshopping and
telebanking, but is not favoured for general Internet access. Apart from the

The evolution of Smart Homes
17
telephone and television, Teletext is the most pervasive ICT in UK homes. In
those households with access to the Internet, more time is being spent at the
computer terminal, at the expense of time spent watching television (Jonscher
1999).
Whilst the main use of home PCs is for playing games, it is closely followed
by use for educational purposes. Children usually have greater access to PCs
at home than other age groups. This is consistent with views of parents who
believe that ICTs can improve their children’s education and that they make
learning more enjoyable. But the importance of children as a driver of PC
ownership may be declining (Cawson and Lewis 1999). Moreover, there is
considerable evidence that the gap between those able to use the Internet and
those who are not Internet ‘literate’ is growing and may continue to do so as
long as the PC remains the main access technology.
Until recently, surveys showed that many people reported that cost and lack
of access were barriers to their use of ICTs at home. One significant factor in
the rapid expansion of Internet usage was the introduction of Dixon’s
Freeserve in the last quarter of 1998 – this gave the company a 20% market
share and there are comparisons here with the provision of free terminals in
the 1970s, by Minitel in France. Perhaps most significantly, free (of annual or
monthly fee) service providers are attracting new types of Internet users,
generally older people from middle and lower income groups. Previously,
users had been of a predominantly younger age and from middle and upper
income groups (NOP Research Group). There are parallels with the
introduction of pay-as-you-use mobile telephone tariffs, which have resulted
in rapid penetration of mobile phones into new markets.
In the USA, the use of the Internet for ‘e-shopping’ has grown rapidly over
the past few years, with new schemes to attract frequent shoppers –
Netcentives and Clickrewards. The use of e-commerce in Europe is generally
thought to lag two or three years behind the USA. However, in the UK,
TescoNet and Virgin.net have been receiving increasing numbers of visitors:
the Virgin homepage receives more than 6 million hits per month (Ody 1999:
v). Moreover, trials of other electronic shopping devices such as Safeway’s
PalmPilots may also lead to new ways of purchasing basic items. The
PalmPilot is a small hand-held electronic personal organiser that can be
programmed using bar-code scanners, to store data about items recently
purchased in the supermarket. It assists the purchaser in deciding which
items to re-order, using a simple tick-box list. The unit can then be plugged
into the telephone line to down-load the order to the supermarket.

Digital futures
18
With the rapid rate of growth in Internet usage it is difficult to predict the
likely trends in interactive home technologies even one or two years into the
future. The use of these technologies tends to change our traditional
perceptions of space and time, breaking away from the limits imposed by
physical boundaries of the home. Bill Mitchell argues that the Internet has a
fundamentally different structure from more traditional physical forms of
communication and interaction. It negates physical geometry, operating
under quite different rules from those that organise action in the public
places of traditional cities. For example an exchange of e-mail can link people
at indeterminate locations. In contrast, in the traditional spatially defined
city, ‘where you are frequently tells who you are and who you are will
frequently determine where you are allowed to be’ (Mitchell 1995: 10). He
argues that in this new world, the property industry’s traditional rallying cry
of:
… location, location, location becomes bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth –
tapping directly into a broadband data highway is like being on Main Street... the
bondage of bandwidth is displacing the tyranny of distance, and a new economy
of land use and transportation is emerging … in which high bandwidth
connectivity is an increasingly crucial variable. (Mitchell 1995: 17)
In this technological vision of the future, our homes would need to provide
spaces that can be programmed for work, education, and entertainment.
New forms of interactive space will be needed rather than the traditional
rooms in which activities are dictated by the needs of various biological
functions. Rooms could provide sites where:
… bits meet the body – where digital information is translated into visual,
auditory, tactile, or otherwise perceptible forms, and conversely, where bodily
actions are sensed and converted into digital information (Mitchell 1995: 105).
Whilst these predictions may seem fantastical and even terrifying to
contemplate, in the long run, it may even be possible to generate new living
environments by automatically manipulating housing systems according to
changing user needs. In the more immediate future, the Smart Home concept
we wished to test would embrace a combination of applications relating to:
• safety, security and convenience in the control of household appliances;
• energy and environmental management;
• assistance and medical care for older people and those with disabilities;
• new forms of education, entertainment and business applications.

The evolution of Smart Homes
19
Applications would include home security and control over the domestic
environment. These range from cookers, which automatically detect when
pans are boiling over, to more effective management of heating and
ventilation. Medical applications could include the provision of advice and
remote monitoring or diagnosis of medical conditions. Memory-joggers could
help people with learning difficulties, or mild forms of dementia.
Technologies to summon help, such as pendant radio transmitters, are
already widely used. Smart Homes may link these to other monitoring
systems triggered by sensors. People with reduced vision could benefit from
‘smart-cards’ that could be programmed to switch devices on or off as the
person enters and leaves the room. Automatic door entry or central locking
could help those with problems in mobility or manipulation, as well as
providing simple convenience when entering or leaving the home.
The use of these technologies raises many ethical questions from those
concerning privacy and the degree of ‘tele-surveillance’ to issues relating to
independence and control. The introduction of technologies which require
registration for use or access, such as plastic credit cards, has resulted in
widespread debates about the protection of privacy in modern society
(Abercrombie et al 1986: 148-152). Nevertheless, they may also offer the
benefit for more effective and efficient communication between those who
need assistance and those who can provide it. This is potentially a boon for
the increasing numbers of older people living alone and for resource-
constrained health and care services.
For most people, Smart Home systems could simply offer additional
convenience in everyday activities adding to the benefits provided by the two
previous eras of technological change in the home, represented by the
introduction of mechanical and then electrical technologies. However, we
believe that digital technologies have the potential to offer more than this by
providing an interactive window to the world outside, and by providing us
with information and feedback that was previously impossible to obtain.
In the USA, about 50% of all households have a personal computer. Once PCs
become commonplace in our homes it is possible that utilities companies,
supermarkets, retailers, travel agents, local authorities and other providers
will take advantage of delivering their services using new digital media. It is
possible that most information, from paying bills to booking travel, will
arrive and be transacted in our homes in a digital form. Bill Gates predicts

Digital futures
20
that this will occur within the next ten years and that we will witness a shift
to self-service digital transactions between businesses and their customers.
Human involvement could shift from routine low-value tasks to high-value
personal consultancy (Gates 1999).

21
The future implementation of Smart Home systems will largely depend on the
extent to which they offer improvements in the quality of life, solutions to
actual household problems and reductions in occupiers’ costs. There needs to
be proven benefits and not burdens from their installation. At issue is how
technology will affect everyone – young and old, those who are active, fit and
healthy and those with illnesses and disabilities.
Many innovations fail to gain market acceptance because their design and
function are not adequately aligned with users’ real requirements, or they are
difficult to use, with complicated interfaces. Sometimes, people simply do not
want them, or they are incompatible with existing systems and customers are
not prepared to spend the money necessary to re-equip their homes to
accommodate new products. Other innovations fail because they have not
been properly marketed and potential customers have little idea of the
benefits on offer. They cannot see the point in spending their money on the
product or service. Yet more fail because the price is too high for mass-
markets to grow.
These difficulties have all contributed to the failure of mass-markets to
emerge in digital home systems over the past 20 years. They represent
different sides of a common problem: a poor understanding of user needs on
the part of technologists, manufacturers and suppliers. Our earlier work on
home automation in the UK and Japan identified these problems as barriers
to growth in Smart Home markets.1For this reason, our efforts to develop the
demonstration homes in York and Edinburgh began with a review of social,
economic and housing policy trends affecting patterns of ownership and use,
and the potential implications of these for Smart Home technologies. This
work was followed by a detailed study of user needs, analysing requirements
across different groups of people.
CHAPTER 3
USER NEEDS AND
MARKET NICHES

Digital futures
22
This part of the study presents the main issues emerging on the demand-
side. In many cases there is simply no obvious demand. At this stage, people
do not know what Smart Homes are and therefore have little interest in
spending money on more technology or services, without clearly defined
and proven benefits. We approached this problem from the perspective of
analysing what current needs go unmet in the home, and assessing where
gaps could possibly be filled by providing appropriate technologies and
delivering new services. We begin by focusing on the changing nature of
housing markets in the UK and assessing different attitudes to the home, and
follow with a discussion on usability issues and the results of our user needs
analysis.
❑3.1 Market composition
In 1996, there were more than 24.5 million dwellings in the UK. Of these, 16.5
million (67%) were owner-occupied, 4.6 million were rented from local
authorities, 1.1 million rented from housing associations and 2.3 million were
privately rented. Stock replacement rates are close to zero and the majority of
new housing supplies the need for additional dwellings stimulated by
demographic change and new household formation.
There is considerable latent demand for new housing in the UK. Projections
of future requirements suggest that around 250,000 new dwellings are
needed per annum for at least the next 18 years. Current output produces less
than 200,000 new dwellings per year. Existing build rates are therefore too
low to meet potential demand. Forecasts of new housing requirements
indicate that the largest element will be for single people in the 30 to 50 year
age range. Most will be owner-occupiers and wish to live in town houses
rather than flats (Hooper et al 1998). In England, the number of ‘married
person’ households is expected to grow by over 23% between 1996 and 2016,
with the average annual increase rising from 43,000 to 272,000. The number
of single person households aged 65 and over is expected to grow by nearly
31%, with the annual increase rising from 126,000 to 352,000.2
The dynamics of UK housing markets are therefore changing. Recent research
by FPD-Savills indicates that younger buyers who traditionally moved most
often are renting for longer and buying later. Moreover, there is a mismatch
between people’s aspirations and the quality of housing provided, such that
there is strong demand for ‘high quality’ properties (in terms of their

User needs and market niches
23
construction) and little interest in the rest (Spackman 1998). Furthermore, a
recent opinion survey indicated that more than 83% would like increased
flexibility, offering greater choice over initial design of their homes. Almost
80% wanted their homes to be more adaptable to accommodate changes in
layouts at some stage during the use of their homes.3
In general, most people purchasing new homes make decisions about where
to live and what type of dwelling to buy based on the criteria shown in Table
2.1. Issues of choice of layout, amenities and internal fittings are not such a
high priority as location. Many people purchase housing that they believe
will be easy to sell later, maintaining it as an investment. This tends to
encourage conservatism in choice of aesthetics and design, inhibiting an
interest in customisation which they perceive as detracting from the resale
value.
Table 3.1: Criteria by which buyers of new housing make their choices
First-time buyer Trading-up buyer
1. Price 1. Location
2. Location 2. Price
3. Internal amenities/size and number of rooms 3. The estate/external appearance
4. External appearance 4. Internal amenities
5. Quality of construction 5. Quality of construction
Source: Based on work in support of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Construction Task Force, 1998, with
thanks to Ruth Clifton, Ove Arup & Partners
Around 40% of all new private dwellings are built by the 25 largest
housebuilders.4The majority of these producers focus solely on
housebuilding and are no longer involved in other forms of construction
activity. They compete for sales in a tough market place, which is generally
segmented as follows:
• housing for first-time buyers;
• housing for those trading-up to larger family homes;
• executive housing;

Digital futures
24
• retirement homes – including a number of niche markets such as
‘empty-nest’ housing and private sheltered schemes;
• conversion and redevelopment schemes – such as conversion of offices
into flats;
• self-procure and self-build housing.
Developers rarely include the types of products and systems one might
expect in a Smart Home. They typically offer security systems and fire
detection devices and sometimes entertainment systems in more expensive
properties such as in executive housing. However, even in many of these we
have found provision of only one telephone line, indicating that developers
have not thought about future uses and requirements for multiple
communications for telephone, fax and Internet connection. This contrasts
with the USA, where there is now considerable interest by housing
developers in providing appropriate cabling and communications
connections. In some large urban areas, such as Dallas-Fort Worth it has been
estimated that in 3% of all new housing in the Worth area, developers have
installed a particular cabling system (Haddon).
UK private housing development is closely related to the value of land and
profits accruing from returns on land development. Developers currently
only take a short-term interest in the total lifecycle of the buildings they
construct. Most construction work is procured from subcontractors
specifically for each site. Moreover, British housing production is often slow,
laborious and fails to deliver the choices found in other countries in
Northern Europe, Japan or North America. Housing is expensive to run,
difficult to maintain and often does not provide users with the functions and
quality they expect. Housing repair and maintenance accounts for one
quarter of total construction output and British people spend more than
twice as much on fixing old and often out-of-date housing than they invest
in new stock.5
In the UK, newly built dwellings only account for a small proportion of the
total number of housing transactions each year – less than 10% of all sales,
the majority being second-hand transfers. One reason for most people
choosing to buy second-hand is that they gain more choice over location, and
space standards are usually higher. New housing also tends to cost more
than second-hand housing, although it is difficult to compare like with like
in these calculations – see Figure 3.2. The type of housing produced is often

User needs and market niches
25
not attractive enough to second-hand buyers to bring them into the new
homes market, in spite of poor quality and low environmental performance
in parts of the existing stock. There is therefore potential to capture a much
larger share of the market by developing new and better products. It is
possible that if new housing production were more competitive in terms of
cost and quality its share of the total number of housing transactions could
be significantly increased.
Housebuilders face uncertainty over what to produce and where to build,
with growing environmental pressures forcing difficult choices about the
use of green or brownfield sites. European directives are likely to promote
increased levels of energy efficiency and reductions in greenhouse gases
caused by heating new homes. Pressures are mounting to develop
recyclable components and sustainable housing technologies. These issues
could potentially add to the cost of development, exacerbating the
differences between new and second-hand house prices. Perhaps for these
reasons, the climate for innovation has improved, with a number of
initiatives involving housing associations, developers, contractors,
suppliers and the government working in partnership to increase standards
and the industry’s performance.
Figure 3.2: New and second-hand house prices
Source: Housing and Construction Statistics, DETR

Digital futures
26
Rented housing in the UK – particularly social-rented housing – has become
stigmatised partly because of landlord and housing professionals’ practices,
and its treatment by successive governments. The social rented sector is
perceived by many as the tenure of last resort, and in consequence people feel
that they are either in temporary accommodation or have no sense of
investment and ownership in their housing.
Social housing landlords are directly responsible for about 20% of all new
dwelling completions. This sector has steadily moved from housing a cross-
section of the community towards an emphasis on households who are
unable to buy in the private market and to providing housing to support care
in the community. In recent years the level of government funding received
by social landlords has declined substantially, increasing their reliance on
capital markets. This means that most smaller social landlords find it difficult
to borrow for development and the majority of new dwellings are built by the
40 largest housing associations.
A fundamental problem when addressing the usefulness of Smart Home
systems for potential users is the diversity of household types within the
context of different market segments. A number of authors have attempted to
segment the population in terms of household size and composition, social,
employment and age characteristics to derive categories of needs and
requirements relating to the possible use of different Smart Home applications.
For example, Meyer and Schulze (1996) argue that there are nine household
types (e.g. single-person households comprising younger or older people,
family households, single-parent households), of which four have the most to
gain from Smart Home systems:
• households in which both partners are employed;
• highly mobile, single-person households;
• families in middle age;
• older persons with limited physical abilities and disabled people.
Housing demand is often seen as an aspect of needs created through
demographic change or the inability of particular social groups to gain access
to adequate housing. However, pressure on the housing stock also arises
from the way we use our homes. This is partly a function of demography,
partly shaped by trends within the labour market and partly the result of
attitudinal shifts. Additionally, developments in information and
communication technologies clearly have the capacity to create demands
from households for new services.

User needs and market niches
27
Many of the newly forming households will comprise elderly people, but an
even larger number will comprise middle-aged single person households.
The latter may well generate a growing demand for new tele-mediated
consumer services, as well as having the economic capacity to invest in new
Smart Home technologies. Growth in numbers of the elderly is also generating
particular interest amongst technology suppliers and government.
❑3.2 Attitudes towards the home
Current experience with technologies in our homes, workplaces, travel and
leisure activities creates a culture of understanding about what we are likely
to accept by way of Smart Home systems. It also frames expectations of
functions, usability and performance of future new technologies.
Changes in attitude to the way the home is used relate to the types of
technologies installed in housing. Some have suggested that the purchase of a
home may increasingly be seen as a lifetime investment, with first-time
buyers delaying the decision to buy and existing owners remaining in their
homes for longer. This may stem from increasing disillusionment over the
financial benefits brought by owner-occupation and concern over insecurity
in the labour market. There may also be a trend towards ‘post-materialist’
values, emphasising freedom to choose lifestyles, the aesthetic improvement
of one’s surroundings and desire to enhance intellectual ability (Ingelhart
1990; Abramson and Ingelhart 1995; Hirschman 1982; Wilkinson and Mulgan
1995).
The rapid growth in ownership of home-based leisure goods including PCs,
video-recorders, fitness equipment, gardening, DIY etc. suggests that
people’s lifestyles have become increasingly home-centred. It is possible that
these changes will translate into an even greater focus on the home as a
centre – and, consequently, a demand for on-line services. However, over the
next two decades the large growth in single person households, with a high
propensity to consume new products and services, suggests there may be a
growing demand for information and entertainment services and Smart Home
equipment from this group.6
There is also a large and growing potential market for assistive technologies
in the home. The market ranges from young people with interactive
educational and entertainment requirements to the growing number of older

Digital futures
28
people who have wide ranging health and care needs. Many people are also
concerned about issues such as safety, security and energy use in the home.
Requirements vary considerably depending upon the type of property and
individual circumstances.
❑3.3 Changing work patterns
Another area of social change likely to have consequences for demand for
Smart Home systems arises from the changing structure of advanced
economies, driven by globalisation and intensified competition. This involves
a decline in traditional rigid forms of employment and economic organisation
and a rise in more flexible and responsive networked corporations. It has also
been accompanied by a number of negative consequences, including the loss
of jobs-for-life, and an increase in unemployment.7Associated with this is
growth in the number of people setting up their own businesses from home,
an increase in temporary employment in the service sector and what might
be called ‘information rich’ economic.8
At a macro level it is possible to identify two types of employment
decentralisation in the service sector: one geared towards the use of
information and telecommunications technology to allow more flexible
working for senior executives and professionals; and another for routine
information processing jobs.9These have led to shifts in the division of labour
between workplace and home, although progress towards mass teleworking
has been far slower than commentators predicted in the 1970s. Using the
home for work activities has certainly grown, but a more realistic view of
teleworking involves individuals spending some of their time working at
home, some in the office and some whilst travelling or wherever
convenient.Teleworking involves a flexible combination of physical and
electronic movements and spaces, rather than a total substitution of the
physical by the electronic.10
Teleworking is attractive to employers because it offers them the chance to
shift some of the costs of employing workers onto the home as well as
potentially increasing productivity by overcoming the problems of lengthy
journeys to work. This is likely to promote the continued rise in teleworking
for routine activities where there is only a limited need for physical
interactions with the office.11 Employers’ attitudes are changing and many
will accept homeworking from freelancers, consultants and in cases when

User needs and market niches
29
employees must largely work from home because of the need to care for an
infant or older person.
Nevertheless, in spite of the much vaunted image of ‘life on the Internet’ the
need for human proximity and social interaction remains. As Jonscher
argues, people still go to the movies, pubs, cafes, and take holidays abroad.
Face-to-face contact appears to be irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.
Predictions of increases in power of computing and communication
technologies are often understated, whilst those of its consequences for
everyday life are usually overstated. We might have achieved the technical feat
of wiring the planet – with more than 80 million km of fibre optic cable
installed in the last 20 years – yet at another level, much less is changing in
terms of our complex interactions in social and economic settings (Jonscher
1999: 248).
For the application of teleworking in housing organisations, see Grinyer, 1999.
❑3.4 An ageing population
That the population is ageing is incontrovertible. The number of households
with members aged 65 or over will rise substantially over the next 20 years. An
ageing population has implications for the housing market, particularly if the
current housing stock is deficient in terms of meeting changing social, care and
medical needs. These can be very wide ranging. Experiences of the ageing
process and its ensuing social, care and medical needs can vary widely
between the ‘young’ and ‘old’ elderly, and between elderly men and elderly
women. Distinctions based on social class and ethnic group and on lifestyle
may also be important influences on differing social needs (Cullen and Moran
1991; Taylor and Ford 1981).
As people get older they often experience multiple and increasing physical
and sensory impairments. There is an increasing prevalence of health
impairments and chronic illnesses amongst older people and this can have
major implications for their housing requirements. The ageing process can
make independent living, mobility, and the maintenance of social relationships
considerably more difficult (Mollenkopf 1993). Nevertheless, most elderly
people welcome the opportunity to remain in their own home (Smith et al
1993). Together, these factors suggest there will be a growing demand for
appropriate servicing and adaptation of the existing housing stock to allow
‘barrier-free’ living – maintaining independence within one’s own home.

Digital futures
30
Barrier-free or Lifetime homes can be created by relatively minor design
modifications. The installation of digital control and communication systems
represents the next stage on from changes to the physical environment and
installation of mechanical aids. Telecare is an evolving field in which care,
health and support services are partly provided for using new high-speed
digital telecommunications infrastructure. Initial trials suggest that this can
also offer possibilities for enabling greater independence in the home and
overcoming isolation in the community (Gann et al 1998; Tang and Venables
1999).
The types of activities which could be supported include routine diagnostics,
monitoring, screening, basic counselling and advice. Telecare offers a variety
of benefits to users who can receive routine treatment almost immediately
without travelling to, and waiting in surgeries; they can participate in routine
monitoring and diagnostics which is less intrusive than traditional forms; or
they can be assisted in routine treatments, including reminders about taking
medication. The possibility of using Smart Home systems for continuous
monitoring of people’s health and wellbeing could increase the possibility of
diagnosing changes in health status, automatically triggering an appropriate
response from local community services or medical professionals. This can
have benefits for both those with established medical conditions and those
without. Single electronic records that can be held on smartcards, read by
equipment in the home can be used as a means of transferring and updating
medical records cheaply, as well as providing users with potentially greater
control over sensitive information. However, the possible use of these
technologies raises a number of financial and ethical issues. The latter arise
from the increased capacity to monitor activities and resource deployment.
Concerns fall into two related areas. First, the extent to which housing
providers, social services or health authorities could use new systems for
random monitoring. For some, ethical concerns associated with monitoring
people’s movements within their homes, or recording the frequency of using
the toilet or regularity of eating, could counteract the advantages of various
Smart Home technologies for providing independence. For others,
‘electronically tagging’ a person with mild forms of dementia may give them
increased freedom of movement without personal face-to-face supervision.
Second, questions have been raised about who benefits from Smart Home
systems for older people and those with disabilities – the reassured relative,
the relieved care staff or the person it is designed to help? Some applications

User needs and market niches
31
can help to preserve individual dignity – for example when they obviate the
need for help in the toilet or bath – and allow carers to provide a better
quality of personal contact by removing much of the drudgery of caring.
Furthermore, digital and physical aids offer the possibility of reducing
management costs by providing remote access to dispersed homes and thus
benefit users indirectly.
At all levels of dependency the option for older people to remain living in
their existing homes is considerably cheaper than moving them to specialised
accommodation. The economics of care provision may therefore influence
government, health authorities and social services in decisions about whether
to provide services remotely using telecare systems. This could increase
demand for suitable Smart Home applications from individuals and
households seeking to remain in their own homes. A number of specific
activities could be serviced in part through the use of these systems including
help for people with reduced vision and hearing, those with manipulation
and mobility difficulties or with memory loss. Additional comfort, security
and control of the domestic environment may also be achieved.
Within the next decade, older people are likely to become the new generation
of Internet users – ‘silver surfers’. This technology opens up possibilities for
more involvement in running community activities and newsletters,
managing businesses and charities, participating in lifelong learning and
remaining mentally alert and active.
❑3.5 Home carers
The majority of help to frail and disabled people is provided by the informal
sector. The main legislation underpinning the current form of provision was
the National Health Service and Community Care Act, 1990. But ‘care in the
community’ has been the dominant theme of government policy since the
1960s. This was regarded as both the best form of care and the most cost-
effective. However, a large expansion of publicly funded private residential
care has created pressure to find more cost-effective ways of caring (The
Royal Commission on Long Term Care, 1999). Estimates from the results of
the 1995 General Household Survey (GHS) indicate that there were about 5.7
million carers overall in Great Britain. Over the last five years there has been
a consensus that this figure of around six million carers is not helpful for
planning purposes (see Parker 1992: 17; and BMA 1995: 3).

Digital futures
32
The GHS estimates that in 1995 there were about one million carers in Great
Britain who were looking after dependants for more than 20 hours per week,
and whose dependants could not be left for more than two hours. While
anxieties have been expressed about the declining willingness or ability of
families to support frail older people, there is little evidence to support this.
In the 1980s, supporting carers was seen as a highly cost-effective strategy to
assisting delivery of care in the community. It was a means of providing care
at a cost far less expensive than alternatives, although, as Twigg and Atkin
(1994: 5-6) note:
The argument was rarely expressed in its most naked form, whereby the only
reason to alleviate the circumstances of a carer was in order to ensure that he or
she continued to give care.
Respite care is mainly needed by carers who spend a high proportion of their
time caring, and particularly by those who cannot leave their dependants for
any significant time. In 1985, 24% of carers spent more than 25 hours a week
caring. This fell to 23% in 1990, and then rose to 32% in 1995 (Rowlands et al
1998: 29, Table 22). On this basis, it has been estimated that about 1.7 million
adults devoted at least 20 hours per week to caring in 1995, up from 1.5
million in 1985. It is from amongst this group that the main need for respite
services arises. A most significant finding of the survey from our point of
view is that 64% of carers spending at least 20 hours per week felt that they
could not leave their dependant for two hours.
The use of Smart Home technologies offers prospects of removing some of the
more mundane daily tasks of carers by facilitating new combinations of home
care, medical support and remote care delivery. However, much work needs
to be done to trial new combinations of delivery involving face-to-face and
remote contact. New forms of care services might include reassurance and
the provision of advice and routine monitoring using video links. Memory-
joggers could also be helpful for some people with learning difficulties, or
mild forms of dementia. Technologies to summon help, such as pendant
radio transmitters, are already widely used. Some people wanted these to be
linked to other monitoring systems triggered by sensors. Moreover, people
with reduced vision could benefit from ‘smart-cards’ which could be
programmed to switch devices on or off based on proximity.
The use of these technologies raises many ethical questions from those
concerning privacy and the degree of ‘telesurveillance’ to issues relating to
independence and control. Nevertheless, they also offer the benefit of more

User needs and market niches
33
effective and efficient communication between those who need assistance
and those who can provide it. This could be a boon for the increasing
numbers of elderly people living alone and for cash-strapped health and care
services. The introduction of Smart Home technologies for this market is,
however, far from easy, as we will show in the next section.
❑3.6 Usability and Smart Home systems
There has been a general lack of research on issues concerning usability of
Smart Home systems, particularly in the UK. To ensure that technologies are
designed to perform in a useful way with user-friendly interfaces, expertise
from a number of different disciplines is required, at concept and prototyping
stages, including: ergonomic, psychology, occupational therapy, sociology,
economics and other specialist inputs. Equipment and systems testing in the
Domotique laboratory in France has shown the benefits of this type of
prototyping. Work of a similar nature has not been carried out in the UK.
As well as technical and funding problems, there are a number of social
barriers to the introduction and diffusion of the technologies discussed
above. These are partly related to attitudes and awareness on the part of user
groups and carers, and partly to concern over ethical and privacy issues such
as increased monitoring or the potential for greater isolation of individuals
arising from remote service provision. To a large extent, however, these
cultural and social barriers result from a lack of user input into the design
process and lack of systematic empirical evaluation of these technologies.
Involving real users in the design of Smart Homes projects and in the
evaluation process is critical to the development of new technologies
(Keinonen 1994). Involving users ensures there is an appropriate analysis of
their requirements and design solutions. User participation also promotes a
sense of ownership, commitment and understanding of the design solutions.
Failure to involve users can lead to products and services which are poorly
matched to their requirements, and which seriously under-perform from a
user perspective. In the long run this is likely to result in persistent
disappointment with new technologies and financial costs arising from poor
market take-up.
Product usability is a relatively new factor in industrial design, which has
traditionally sought to support engineering and marketing by improving the

Digital futures
34
physical appearance and feel of products. In traditional design, usability has
largely been concerned with ergonomics, embodying in physical forms,
knowledge about how people use artefacts (March 1994; Devries et al 1994).
However, user-centred design also needs to encompass the cognitive aspects
of using products and services, for example, issues of logic and how people
feel about using them. Designing products in such a way as to eliminate fear
of using them, and making them engaging to use, involves building in a
combination of simplicity, ease of use, as well as offering distinctive value to
customers.
User-centred design therefore requires the integration of knowledge from
sociology, anthropology, computer science, cognitive psychology, visual
design and ergonomics. Designing usable systems raises a number of issues,
including the need for manufacturers to acquire knowledge about:
•Who will use the system – the physiological and psychological
capabilities of users and their socio-cultural characteristics. This relates
not only to the specific characteristics of a given user population and
individual users, but also to universal human characteristics;
•What it will be used for – repetitivity of tasks, variability in nature of
tasks, skill/knowledge requirements of tasks;
•The context and environment in which it will be used – physical conditions,
health and safety;
•What is technically and logically feasible – costs, development timescales,
building constraints.
(March 1994; Preece 1993)
The number and diversity of the potential users, the variable context in which
products and services are used, and the need for manufacturers to balance
usability and other design goals, make the aim of user-centred design
complex. Using interviews or rank order techniques to ask direct questions
aimed at exploring consumer requirements can be difficult because of
problems in developing instruments which allow people to talk about
commonplace, obvious or routine issues. This makes it hard to investigate the
way technology that is integrated in everyday life (household appliances, TV,
telephone, etc.) is used. More significantly, it is difficult to develop survey
instruments which investigate people’s use of products and services that have
yet to exist.

User needs and market niches
35
Workshops and focus groups can help tease out common problems or wishes,
and elaborate on areas that may not arise in individual interviews or surveys.
They can be particularly useful because they allow users to exchange ideas on
a ‘peer to peer’ basis, whereas in other experimental or observational
evaluation procedures ‘experts’ frequently outnumber users and tend to set
the agenda themselves.
In many consumer goods industries, these problems have driven
manufacturers to spend more time testing products and concepts in the
actual context of use, although this as yet does not appear to be the case in
many Smart Home applications. The objective of in-use testing is to
investigate the utility, usability and acceptability of products and gather
information on possible corrections and improvements. Performing usability
tests poses a number of problems, though. Research in Human-Computer
Interaction (HCI) can shed some light on the processes and problems of
evaluation (Bannert and Kunkel 1991; George 1995; Hix 1993; Shackel 1984).
In particular, decisions need to be made about:
(1) When to do the evaluation. Evaluation can essentially be carried out at two
stages:
• before implementation, in order to influence the product (known as
‘formative evaluation’); or
• after implementation, to test the functioning of the product or system
(‘summative evaluation’).
(2) How to do the evaluation. This can take the form of:
• analytic evaluation, using formal or semi-formal interface descriptions
to predict user performance (this tends to be used early in design
cycles);
• evaluation using experts to assess an interface (this lies between
theoretical approaches and empirical methods);
• observational evaluation – monitoring or observing users’ behaviour
when using the product or system (this involves real users, with no
task restrictions);
• survey evaluation – eliciting users’ subjective opinions;
• experimental evaluation – using scientific experimental practices to test
hypotheses.

Digital futures
36
(3) Which usability areas to test and what measurement indicators to use. Key
considerations are:
• ease of use – whether the application can be correctly used first time;
time taken to learn to use; success rate in meeting the specified range of
users, tasks and environments;
• effectiveness of use in terms of performance – number of problems
occurring each time the application is used, their nature and cause;
• user satisfaction with ease of use – judgements about convenience,
comfort, effort, satisfaction.
Issues of ease-of-use are very important in terms of building customer
confidence in new technologies. People need to feel that ‘they are all right
with this new little device’. They need a sense of security that they will
understand how to operate it, not just in everyday use, but in case something
goes wrong – the sense of ‘relief’ offered by being connected to a source of
help through simple ‘alarm-call’ systems is a case in point.
Failure on the part of product and service designers to undertake rigorous
evaluations such as those described above is one of the reasons why Smart
Home systems have not been developed to meet users’ needs. Another
problem is that many systems and products probably require producers to
invest in training and familiarisation programmes to help people get the most
out of their systems. Most evaluations have been made outside the UK. One
study, carried out in 1992-93 by the Helsinki University of Art and Design,
found that evaluating the following key variables was critical for achieving
user-friendly interfaces:
• the number of visual elements and the impression of reality of the
representation – more figurative interfaces were preferred;
• the functional layout of buttons and close connections between buttons
and related labelling – the use of a compact keypad with few modal
buttons and a separate display can cause users major difficulties;
• the fact that users did not make use of textual information on a screen
apart from one button label at a time;
• a style of interaction which involved separate phases for initialisation,
editing parameter default values without immediate response and
explicit approval commands, was poorly understood by elderly users;
• improved control over home systems by elderly users can be achieved
by the user helping to design master commands.
(Keinonen 1994)

User needs and market niches
37
Meyer and Schulze (1996) argue that since women remain responsible for the
main burden of domestic tasks, the acceptability of Smart Homes technologies
is also related to their attitudes towards innovation. Acceptance will therefore
vary by household type, notably its size and composition, internal division of
labour and stage in the family lifecycle. Certain types of households have the
most to gain from implementing integrated Smart Home systems. These
include: households in which both partners are working, highly mobile
single-person households, and those with elderly people or people with
disabilities.
❑3.7 User needs analysis at Edinvar and Joseph
Rowntree
A number of focus-group meetings and discussions were held with residents
and carers at Edinvar and the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, using a
standard semi-structured questionnaire checklist to elicit views and opinions
about residents’ needs and the potential benefits of using Smart Home
systems. Problems were experienced in explaining what we thought was
meant by Smart Home systems to people who had never heard of the concept
or technology. This highlighted the need to build demonstration homes or
customer experience centres – along the lines of those found in Japan (Palmer
et al 1998) – in which technologies could be piloted.
Among the main features emerging from our user-needs focus-groups was a
desire for Smart Home systems to address the needs of residents in the
following areas:
• safety, security and convenience in the control of household appliances;
• energy and environmental management;
• improved internal and external communications, including access
control in and out of the home;
• assistance and medical care for older people and those with disabilities;
and
• new forms of entertainment and business applications.
Requirements varied considerably depending upon individual
circumstances. They included door entry systems, home security and control
over the domestic environment such as automatic lighting or the possibility

Digital futures
38
to control motorised window and door openers. Automatic door entry or
central locking could help those with problems in mobility or manipulation.
Others required cookers which automatically detect when pans are boiling
over, and some wanted more effective management of heating and
ventilation.
The principal problems residents and carers wished to see addressed, and the
possible implications, are summarised in Table 3.2.
■Access
Access to the home itself (opening and closing doors) and receiving visitors
(identification, letting them in/out, checking door is locked) can be
problematic. Access problems can also arise within the home because
residents leave hard to manipulate doors open or they lose keys.
Carers at the JRHT scheme had some concerns about the awkwardness of
some doors for mobility impaired residents. While there was interest in the
possibility of remote controlled door entry systems, with a control on the
zimmer frame or wheelchair, it was also pointed out that too many automatic
doors, security systems and ‘lifetime’ homes access facilities can deter
potential residents. These facilities were therefore more likely to be acceptable
in bungalow accommodation than residential homes.
Shop- or library-style exit gates to warn residents they have left their keys
behind is a possible feature, highlighted by the Edinvar carers and residents
but not the JRHT interviewees. The latter felt that problems over residents
forgetting or losing keys could, however, grow as the age profile of the
scheme changed.
Interviewees at both schemes felt that their current voice-only entryphone
systems are hard to use for people with hearing difficulties. There can also be
problems for people with restricted mobility in reaching the entryphone
when visitors arrive. Some residents sometimes found it hard to remember
how to use the system. These problems could to some extent be alleviated by
video-based entry systems – perhaps connected to the resident’s TV set and
the use of some form of ‘silent bell’, such as flashing lights. Video systems
could have the further advantage of allowing residents to monitor visitors
and reduce their fears of unwelcome visitors.

User needs and market niches
39
Table 3.2: Edinvar and JRHT residents’ and carers’ Smart Home requirements
Problem area – carers
Access problems
• Awkward doors
• Loss of keys
• Inadequate
entryphone systems
Identifying and acting
on abnormal
situations, e.g.
• Fire
• Water leaks
• Windows open
• Power off
Security problems
• Leaving windows
open or doors
unlocked on exit
• Identifying visitors
• Medical emergencies
General comfort
• Alert to inadequate
heating
• Night-time confusion
when going to
bathroom
• Confusion about
what appliances are
switched on
• Problems using
washing machine
Improving the internal
communications system
Problem area – resident
Access problems
• Awkward doors
• Loss of keys
• Inadequate
entryphone systems
Discontentment over
smoke detectors
• Confusing individual
room heating
controls
• Unsophisticated pre-
set water
temperature control
in bathroom
• More sophisticated
washing machines &
indication of
completed washing
cycle
Improving the internal
communications system
Possible solution
• Remote controlled
door entry systems
• Shop-style exit
monitoring
• Video entryphones
• Improved and
centralised
monitoring systems
• Automatic cut-out for
cookers
• Better identification
of switches
• Central locking
system
• Lighting systems
connected to front
doors
• Monitoring systems
to locate residents
when alarm raised
• Easy to understand
energy management
system
• Remote monitoring
of central heating
• More advanced water
temperature control
system
• Lighting system to
light path to
bathroom
• Centralised
monitoring of
domestic appliances.
Interactive TV and
video links
Issues
• Too many automatic
doors
• Security systems and
‘lifetime’ homes
facilities can deter
potential residents
• Ethics of monitoring
human movement
• Ease of use
• Ease of use
• Ability to override
centralised systems
• Ethics of remote
monitoring
• Need to avoid
deterring people from
using their central
heating because of
concern over its cost
• Ease of using
equipment and
programmes

Digital futures
40
■Safety and security
Safety and security problems largely relate to fire hazards from kitchen and
other appliances, rather than the threat of external intruders. There was a
high level of discontentment over the existing smoke detectors in both the
Edinvar and JRHT schemes. These were felt to be poor quality and
inaccurate. Some interviewees suggested that carers should be able to
check centrally whether alarms were ‘live’ or not. It was noted that there
was resistance from some informal or family carers to residents doing their
own cooking because of concern over kitchen hazards. Other safety
concerns relate to the provision of cues to allow better identification of
switches.
These issues point to the need for systems which warn of appliance
breakdowns or misuse, such as detection devices and automatic cut-out
systems to prevent pans boiling over or over-heating, or alarms which detect
when the fridge has been accidentally switched off. There was also felt to be a
need for cues which tell residents that electric hobs are switched on.
However, interviewees were concerned about the cost of such facilities in
cases where residents owned their own cookers and other electrical
appliances.
Carers suggested that it might be useful to introduce systems which allowed
them to remotely check whether cookers had been turned off and windows
closed when a resident left the building. The introduction of some form of
central locking system, with an emergency override for carers, was seen as
potentially beneficial, as were lighting systems connected to front doors or
which light up paths from the main door to individual doors.
Carers also saw potential benefits, as well as ethical problems, in forms of
remote monitoring systems. Of particular concern was the ability of carers to
determine the location of residents when an alarm was raised. Video
monitoring, infra-red detection or pressure pads were felt to offer
advantages, although there was concern over the ethics of monitoring
residents’ movements.
■Environmental control and central control of appliances
Some tenants found the individual heating controls in each room confusing
and would consequently switch off the entire system. This suggested that it

User needs and market niches
41
may be useful to introduce an easy-to-understand energy management
system which could not only ensure that residents are able to make
adjustments easily to the heating controls in each room, but also provide an
indication of energy use. Some residents and carers were, however,
concerned that too much information on energy use might deter people from
using their central heating because of concern over its cost. Nevertheless,
remote monitoring of central heating by carers could provide indications of
inadequate heating. JRHT interviewees pointed out that although there were
now fewer disconnections by utilities for non-payment of bills, there had
probably been an increase in ‘self-disconnection’, the voluntary non-use of
heating.
In the bathroom it was felt that the current system for pre-set water
temperature control was not sophisticated enough and an advanced water
temperature control system was needed. This should allow users to pre-set
personal temperature parameters.
Improved, user-friendly lighting systems, which light the path to the
bathroom or toilet were also seen as useful for helping residents who
sometimes wake up confused in the night. Some interviewees felt that
dimmer switches were not as important as systems which allowed residents
to remotely switch from main to side lights.
Although some residents felt that the centralised switching of appliances
could be beneficial, there was not much interest in systems to allow
monitoring of appliances via the TV. However, carers felt that some
centralised monitoring of domestic appliances would help to overcome
problems arising from residents’ confusion about what is switched on and
consequently switching all appliances off. Simpler programmes on washing
machines was seen as a key improvement, along with some form of
mechanism to inform people with reduced sight when washing cycles were
completed.
■Improved communications
There was considerable interest on the part of carers and residents in the
possibility of improving the communication systems, perhaps through use of
interactive TV and video links with carers and other residents.

Digital futures
42
❑3.8 Issues for the development of Smart Home
systems
As we have noted, a fundamental difficulty when addressing the usefulness
of Smart Home systems is the diversity of households types and needs. This
raises questions about the kinds of conclusion that can be drawn from the
JRHT and Edinvar demonstration projects. Both of these will be used by
residents with a range of social and physical needs, and differing learning
capabilities.
Testing products and concepts in the context of use raises questions about
when to do the evaluation (before or after implementation), how to do the
evaluation (there is a wide range of approaches), which usability areas to test
and what measurement indicators to use.
The best methods for carrying out post-implementation evaluation are likely
to include a combination of observation – monitoring or observing users’
behaviour when using the product or system – and survey work to elicit
users’ subjective opinions. Usability can be tested by measuring a number of
indicators, for example, to collect data on whether the application can be
correctly used first time, how long it takes to learn how to use it, and the
number of problems occurring each time the application is used. Users’
judgements about convenience, comfort, effort, and satisfaction can be
collected.
Notes
1 See Gann 1992b; Gann et al 1994; and Gann et al 1995
2 In 1996, nearly 188,000 new dwellings were completed in the UK, of which 153,400 were
built for the private sector, 32,500 for housing associations and the remainder by local
authorities (Housing and Construction Statistics, DETR). Figures on growth of single person
households come from DOE 1995.
3 The survey of 1000 people was carried out by 2000 Homes at the 1998 Evening Standard
Home Buyers Show. Further details are available from: 2kh, 108-110 Judd Street, London,
WC1H 9NT.
4 See Barlow 1999.
5 In 1996, the value of work carried out by British contractors producing new public and
private housing was £7bn compared with £15bn in repair and maintenance (at current
prices; source: Housing and Construction Statistics, DETR).
6 Although a survey conducted by Haddon et al (no date) recently found that products and
services ranked low by consumers included systems which take over household budgeting
and ordering, and systems linked to enhancing entertainment.
7 See Sennett 1998

User needs and market niches
43
8 See Castells 1998; Dicken 1992; Hepworth 1989; Knight and Gappert 1989
9 See Graham and Marvin 1996
10 See Hillman 1993
11 See Graham and Marvin 1996

44
The previous two chapters of this study explored issues concerning the use of
technologies in the home, together with technical, economic and social
drivers and constraints to the adoption of Smart Home technologies. User
requirements and housing markets are changing. At the same time, digital
technologies and the functions and services they facilitate are evolving at a
rapid pace. Smart Home systems, and many of the variables within which
such technologies can be deployed are therefore changing rapidly, making it
difficult to determine what systems to specify and how much should be paid
for them. This chapter aims to make sense of technologies for automating
activities within the home and emerging interactive communication systems,
their potential uses and the benefits they offer. It draws upon experience of
specifying systems for the two demonstration sites, in York and Edinburgh. It
also questions a number of common perceptions and assumptions about the
ways in which systems are configured and integrated and the role of
international standards. The main functional activities and requirements are
aligned with particular technical solutions. Finally, a simple, generic
specification for Smart Home systems is provided.
❑4.1 Towards automated, informational homes
Earlier we provided a number of insights into the ways in which the
diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are
changing social and economic activities, the ways we organise life at home
and the domestic environment itself. These technologies embody a number of
generic qualities, which, if organised in the right way, can improve quality of
life and the provision of new services. In particular, they can assist in
activities which have hitherto been constrained by the need for physical
and/or temporal proximity – the need to touch a machine to turn it on or off,
CHAPTER 4
SPECIFYING SMART
HOME TECHNOLOGIES

Specifying Smart Home technologies
45
and/or for it to operate whilst one is present. Digital communication and
control systems in theory permit users better command over their own space
and time, by storing and acting upon pre-programmed information. The
ability for individuals to programme software in systems and equipment is
important in this context.
These attributes may provide new opportunities for automation in the
domestic environment. Automation can range from:
a) simple fixed applications with pre-defined and pre-established
operations; through
b) programmable applications and devices; to
c) fully flexible and automated applications and networks of devices
sharing information and providing it to consumers.
But ICTs may enable more than simple automated functions, by generating
their own information about product, environmental or service performance.
The ability to present and transmit information in digital forms – whether by
telephone, radio, television, email, or around a circuit (bus system) in the
home – has the potential to alter radically the ways in which we use
information at home; especially when considered from the viewpoint of
traditional printed matter. Such technologies offer the potential to introduce
new interactive information services, transaction services such as on-line
banking, invoicing and bill-paying, teleshopping, and messaging services
including electronic mail. Service providers can now be located outside the
local community, hence telecommunications technologies have an important
role to play in the development of network based services to, and within the
home.
The notion of ‘informating’ processes was first explained by Zuboff (1988) in
the context of changes occurring in the workplace due to the introduction of
Information Technology. However, the concept has equal relevance in the
domestic environment where it is possible to organise systems in such a way
that they provide users with improved information, not previously available:
for example, on energy usage, about callers and visitors or self-diagnostics of
faulty equipment. Some systems can even ‘learn’ repetitive functions or
actions, adapting internal environments to suit different occupants’
requirements – intelligent fridges which alert users to food which has gone
beyond its use-by date is one example. This property of ICTs – to enable new
knowledge to be created about processes and events – particularly when

Digital futures
46
coupled with the use of new external information services, may provide new
opportunities for improving the ways in which people manage family and
professional life. This is what we call the ‘informational home’. It has the
potential to offer users far more flexibility and value than traditional
automated functions. In order to understand how these systems might work
in the domestic environment it is necessary to differentiate between different
types of information processes. Table 4.1 illustrates the main processes which
need to be considered in the design of Smart Home systems.
Table 4.1: Types of information processes and activities in Smart Home systems
Types of process Types of activity and technology
Production of information Sensing, creating, monitoring and informating devices
Storage and retrieval Interfaces and accessing systems
Transmission and receipt Communication systems
Transforming Computing and manipulation devices
Relating and displaying Presentation, interface and display equipment
Acting on information Alarms, prompts, actuators and motor devices
Source: adapted from Miles 1988: 7.
Many people reading this may feel fearful of the unknown consequences of
technology, or the potential loss of control over their home environment.
Whilst such fears may be justified by contemporary experiences with ICTs,
Smart Home technologies can be designed and engineered to enhance
individual control over the home environment. People are good at processing
knowledge and making decisions in uncertain environments, whereas
computer systems are useful for handling large quantities of routine,
standard data. Moreover, communication networks can enable computers in
different systems or components to respond to one another. It is much more
difficult, if not impossible, to automate what we do with our minds in
comparison to what we do with our hands (Jonscher 1999). Yet, if Smart
Homes can be designed to harness the best from all three domains then they
may provide real benefits to everyone using them.

Specifying Smart Home technologies
47
It was with these ideas in mind that a specification was written for systems
for the demonstration sites in York and Edinburgh. We wanted to find out
what routines could be assisted in the home and what information could be
collected which was not available before the use of ICTs. What technologies
are available and how might they be used? Table 4.2 illustrates a number of
examples of key Smart Home technologies and systems. The pace of
technological change is rapid and this list therefore remains necessarily
incomplete. Moreover, we have omitted many specialist systems and items of
equipment such as those classified within the field of telecare and
telemedicine. These are the subject of a forthcoming report (see Gann et al
1999, forthcoming).
❑
4.2 Do we need integrated systems and international
standards?
For the past two and a half decades large consumer electronics companies,
electrical equipment manufacturers and to some extent, utilities companies,
have been developing systems and components for use in the home. These
have relied on the development of digital technologies to facilitate a variety
of functions, and the ability to integrate systems. There is nothing new about
the enabling technologies upon which the notion of the Smart Home has been
developed. Key technological developments underpinning these systems
include the replacement of electromechanical switching by digital switching,
and traditional twisted pair and coaxial cables by optical fibres in long-
distance telephony and the capability for bi-directionality (two-way
communications) and developments in end devices such as ‘Web TV’ and
video phones.
Broadly, these developments allow the integration of household functions
within homes and between homes and outside services. The ability to
communicate and control lies at the heart of these systems, and it is often
believed that it is necessary to integrate systems in order to provide the types
of functions that people will want to use. Combined in the right way they
may achieve the goal of increasing functionality in the home. Figure 4.1
shows a number of levels of systems integration en route to the fully
automated, informational Smart Home.
In this representation, equipment manufacturers and systems suppliers from
different industries are shown to be converging to reach the ultimate goal of

Digital futures
48
integrated home systems. Telecommunication companies, water, gas and
electricity suppliers and building services (heating and electrical) firms are all
developing systems to allow greater connectivity and the provision of value-
added services. These include interactive and multimedia information
services, remote energy management, and automated monitoring and control
of domestic appliances. However, these attempts have generally failed to
create the right conditions for the growth of mass-markets in Smart Home
applications.
The integration of different systems is driven by attempts to provide new and
better services to users, and to reduce costs. Costs can be reduced because it
is possible to add more control points to digital systems at very little
additional expense – the same system can be used to control lighting,
security, heating etc. Traditionally these systems would be wired separately
and users would control them from different devices. Achieving the same
level of functionality in traditional hard-wired, stand-alone systems could
therefore often involve expensive installation work. Their integration and
provision over one cabling network with control from one device has the
potential to reduce costs to users.
In some cases, the trend towards convergence of technologies has become so
strong that what were traditionally independent systems can no longer be
regarded as separate. The boundaries between different systems are
becoming blurred because of integration. But systems integration can only be
achieved through changes in the technological infrastructure – the provision
of integrated networks and new software packages to run them. Changes in
legislation such as fire regulations are also required if integrated systems are
to be used.
Nevertheless, a number of reasons lie behind slow market acceptance of these
products and realisation of supposed benefits of integrated systems in the
home. For example, most commercially developed technologies are relatively
expensive and tend to be aimed at middle and upper income homeowners,
and there has been a narrow ‘technology-push’ approach, which fails to take
adequate account of user needs. A third reason could reside in a poor
awareness of the drivers and constraints to integration. Without an adequate
number of proper field trials with actual users it is difficult to assess what
functions need to be integrated together and which ones can remain stand-
alone. The general drive towards systems integration therefore largely
remains unchallenged and the costs and benefits of pursuing the type of

Specifying Smart Home technologies
49
Table 4.2: Examples of digital control and communication equipment and systems in the home
Internal infrastructure: control and
communications
Wired or ‘bus’ systems:
• Powerline
• Twisted pair (inc. D.I.N. or Linkpower)
• Co-axial
• Fibre optic
Wireless ‘signalling’ systems:
• Infra-red
• Radio
Interactive systems and external
connectivity
• Interactive/digital TV
• Digital radio (RDS)
• Telephone
• Answerphone/voicemail
• Home computer (email and Internet access)
• Computer peripherals
• Intelligent meters (powerline and radio)
• Warden call systems
• Medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment
• Barcodes
Internal appliances, terminals and equipment
User interfaces:
• Television
• Telephone (land line and GSM)
• Computer and peripherals
• Remote control handset
• Door entry system
• Voice activated equipment
• Pressure switches
• Touch-pads
• Control panels
• Digital watches with infra-red
communication facilities
• Personal data assistants, memory
joggers (personal organisers)
Monitors and detectors:
• Passive infra-red (PIR) detectors and
receivers (inc. microwave)
• Thermostats
• Smoke detectors
• Alarms
• Seismic sensors
• Contact sensors
• Iris recognition sensors
• Medical monitoring devices
Controllable, electric-powered devices and
systems:
• Electric switches
• Lighting
• Ventilation equipment
• Window openers
• Shutters and blinds
• Door openers
• Cupboard lifters
• Tap controls
• Entertainment equipment (HiFi, video etc.)
• Clocks
• Security systems
• Heating systems
• Programmable white-goods (micro-waves,
cookers and ovens, washing machines and
dishwashers, fridges etc.)
• Garage doors
• Sprinkler systems
• Pet-feeders

Digital futures
50
approach indicated in Figure 4.1 have not been adequately explored: do
smoke detectors need to ‘communicate’ with video door-entry systems? Or
will a simple battery operated smoke detector and door bell suffice?
Figure 4.1: From stand-alone systems and services to integrated Smart Homes
Telecare
Telemedicine
On-line services:
Internet: WWW,
e-mail, digital TV
Computing:
Homeworking,
education, leisure
Satellite,
cable TV/
telecomms
TV, radio
hi-fi
Telephone,
fax
New
interactive
home services
Remote
diagnostics
Timer delay
for appliances
Washing
machine,
dishwasher
Load
management
Automatic
diagnostics
Combined
safety and
security
Security,
fire protection
Lighting,
heating,
ventilation
Gas,
water,
electricity
Entertainment Education and business Telecomms
Domestic
appliances
Building
services
Utilities
From standalone To integration
Remote
metering
Integrated
Smart Home
Moreover, equipment and appliances capable of receiving and transmitting
performance data are required before integrated systems can be used
effectively. Until recently there have been few domestic appliances produced
for the European market that are compatible with any of the competing
communication protocols. In spite of this, manufacturers have steadily
increased the level of internal intelligence in their appliances providing, for
example, time delays and performance monitoring. The capability of linking
one appliance to another or to a wider home system has only just started to
appear in products on the market. For example, Electrolux recently produced
kitchen appliances with a variety of interactive and remote control facilities:
including infra-red links between hob and extractor fan, enabling the fan to
automatically run at a speed appropriate to the level of usage of the hob. The

Specifying Smart Home technologies
51
hob also has the ability to ‘learn’ the heat characteristics of pans used on it.
In addition, ovens have been produced with remote control facilities,
provided by the addition of GSM modules; and washing machines and
dishwashers can interact with electricity meters to identify the cheapest
times to run. These types of appliance are relatively new. Among the first to
be able to exchange information with wider networks were released by
Ariston Digital in March 1999.
Finally, integrated systems are unlikely to perform in a useful manner
unless they have common interfaces, allowing users swift and easy access.
Much research is being carried out on person-machine interfaces,
particularly given the age and difficulties of use imposed by the main means
of using computers – the QWERTY keyboard. It is possible that natural
interfaces, touch-sensitive, voice recognition and/or eye-movement
detection will be developed sufficiently for use in Smart Homes during the
next decade. For example, a significant proportion of Microsoft’s $2bn
annual research budget is being spent on this and Bill Gates talks about
developing computers which can ‘hear you, see you and understand you’
(Jonscher 1999: 216).
■Standards
For devices to communicate – for example to share and exchange data about
temperature readings – they must comply with the same communication
protocols, speaking a common digital language. The issue of standard
protocols has bedevilled information and communication industries over
the last 30 years (Hawkins et al 1995). The concept of open systems
standards is often espoused because they aim to facilitate seamless flows of
information for software developers and users. There are three aspects:
portability, scalability and interoperability. Portability aims to allow the same
software to be run on different computers. Scalability aims to allow software
to work on different sized machines. Interoperability aims to allow diverse
hardware and software components to work together across networked
systems.
For the past 20 years firms and industry associations in the USA, Europe
and Japan have been working on the development of different standards to
cover particular application areas and specify communication protocols. But
attempts to develop standards have been painfully slow and generally
resulted in cumbersome documents with little general agreement on the

Digital futures
52
way forward. Partly as a consequence of this, mass-markets have failed to
emerge and the use of Smart Home technologies has therefore been limited to
those who could afford to pay for expensive one-off solutions, often based on
security and entertainment systems.
The following features of protocol standards are of importance in the
development of Smart Home systems: these are addressed in detail in
Appendix 2.
•Typical applications: their history and development, including whether
they are intended for use in homes, commercial buildings and/or
factories.
•Physical layer: possibilities for using mains signalling (power-lines),
copper wiring (including unscreened twisted pair, screened twisted
pair, coaxial), optical fibre, cordless infra-red and radio technologies.
•Main characteristics: transmission speed (kbit/s), suitability for audio,
data and video, topology, maximum number of devices on bus,
maximum length, expandability, need for repeaters, and power
requirements.
•Compatibility: with other protocols, with structured cabling systems,
availability of gateways for interlinking systems, schemes for product
certification.
•Acceptance: incorporation in European/international standards,
adoption by manufacturers and users.
•Ease of installation: requirements for cabling and power, opportunities
for using structured wiring, need for installation precautions (against
electrical interference and for safety).
•Ease of commissioning: method of setting device addresses (hardware or
software), availability of plug and play, need for user programming.
•Ease of use: quality of user interface.
•Adaptability/expandability: constraints imposed by power, cabling and
network design, existence of third party suppliers of hardware and
software, cost.
•Reliability/robustness: immunity to electrical interference, use of error
correction, complexity of hardware and software, effect of heavy
network traffic.

Specifying Smart Home technologies
53
•Security: security of data transmission, suitability for use in safety-
related applications (for example fire detection), data privacy.
•Safety: use of extra low voltage and any restrictions on use in
bathrooms and outdoors.
•Power requirements: voltage, current, availability of power from bus.
•Costs: hardware costs per communications node, and of cabling; costs
of system and applications software; costs of maintenance and
upgrading.
•Future developments: in standardisation, adoption by market.
There are currently a number of competing standards for protocols and
languages, which ultimately restricts the ‘interoperability’ of devices and
systems. At the European level there is an agreement to achieve convergence
between the three principal systems – EIB, BatiBUS, EHS – see Appendix 2.
The goal is to establish common standards, a common system platform,
compatible products and a unified approach to certification. Whether this
will be successful remains to be seen since there are fundamental differences
in the basic structure of the protocols and addressing mechanisms.
Furthermore, other standards operate in the USA and Japan, and the
LonWorks standard remains outside the converging model in Europe – see
Figure 4.2. It is widely believed that LonWorks will become the de facto
standard, as many companies are gearing up to provide this as an option to
users. This will operate alongside the EHS system, which has the facility of
carrying conventional analogue – not digital – video as well as control and
information data.
Other ways around the problem of differing standards have been mooted,
including adding a ‘plug and play’ (PnP) layer to existing standards or using
the Internet as a communications medium. The Internet may offer the means
for interoperability, although there remain problems since each device needs
to be assigned a separate Internet address and linked to the computer
network. Even if suppliers are able to develop these solutions, considerable
support for systems integration and maintenance will still be required.
Genuine PnP in personal computing remains elusive, despite the emergence
of a demand driven market. It is likely to be a considerable time before it is
possible for consumers to ‘mix and match’ components from different
manufacturers of Smart Home systems.

Digital futures
54
❑
4.3 Specifying technologies to assist in daily activities
Analysis with users in Edinburgh and York indicated two key areas for Smart
Home application: internal environmental control, and home security, safety
and emergency aid:
Internal environmental control
More sophisticated control of heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) involves the monitoring and control of the climate in individual
areas of the home, permitting users to adjust the system to meet their own
requirements.
Security and emergency aid
The development of new security systems involves more sophisticated
sensors, alarms and user interfaces (Bedrosian and Bedrosian 1994).
Integration with the telephone system could permit systems to be armed or
disarmed remotely as well as enabling residents or operators to dial the home
Figure 4.2: Smart Home standards in the USA, Europe and Japan
TRON House
EIAJ HBS
Schneider BatiBUS BatisBUS Club
Siemens EIB EIB Association
EUREKA ESPRIT EHS Association
NHBA Smart Home
EIA CEBus
Echelon LonWorks LonMark Interoperability
Association
Convergence
Consumer oriented
approach
Consumer hardware
approach
Installation industries
approach
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Source: Developed from Jeck (1997), Bromley (see Appendix 2), Heimer (1995).

Specifying Smart Home technologies
55
and listen for the sounds of an intruder. However, technological possibilities
are in advance of what is usually found to be acceptable by police
organisations and insurance companies, for whom remote arming and
disarming of security systems is distinctly unwelcome. Alternatively, a
recorded message can be sent to the resident or operator in the event of a fire
or break-in.
Technologies used to summon help are also developing. While triggers such as
button or pendant radio transmitter are common, new approaches involve
increased use of sensors and remote monitoring to monitor the location of
residents. In the longer term, researchers are investigating the possibility of
‘smart rooms’ (Pentland 1996). These may allow the recognition and
interpretation of faces, expressions, sounds and gestures. Apart from
identifying where people are, a smart room may help speed up the provision
of help when it is needed.
The development of enhanced communication networks also greatly increases
the capacity to monitor activities or resources. Systems comprising a series of
sensors hooked up to a central data processor and sophisticated processing of
information enable three types of ‘flow’ to be monitored (Dard 1996):
•Human flows: supervision of private and collective entryways, and
spaces;
•Energy flows: monitoring of utility networks and calculation of energy in
each residence;
•Information flows: managing the transmission and reception of messages
between, say, carers and residents.
■Functional areas
The technologies described above broadly address three functional areas
relating to activities of daily living (ADL):
• assistive devices – including those for older people and those with
disabilities;
• environmental adaptations; and
• labour-saving innovations.
Within the home a range of integrated and interactive systems potentially
address specific ADL problems, but also raise a series of questions which have
yet to be answered. These include how to create trust in the systems and

Digital futures
56
prevent fear of equipment failure; how the system or service is paid for; and
assurance that technical support services will be available. Furthermore,
these systems bring together a variety of diverse technologies, which are at
various stages of development, and it has yet to be seen whether or how they
can be integrated.
Smart Home systems can be used to assist in every-day routine functions as
well as assisting in meeting needs of people with a variety of different
requirements. These include:
Reduced vision
This can be helped by good design of products and interfaces, including
improvements in materials and lighting, and alternative input and output
devices, such as speech recognition.
Poor hearing
This can be addressed by improved personal or group hearing aids, adjusting
the voice signal or allowing an alternative medium to be used for telephony,
subtitling in TV programming etc.
Manipulation difficulties
Many difficulties associated with manipulation can be addressed through
design of basic mechanical aids and systems such as improved switches and
upper limb aids (handrails and grab bars; general purpose hoists). However,
digital systems also have a part to play, including voice activation systems
and robotic arms.
Reduced mobility
Again, assistance is often best provided initially through the use of simple
mechanical aids. However, digital systems can be used in lifting robots and
sensor-guided wheelchairs.
Medical applications
These offer the prospect of removing some of the more mundane daily tasks
of carers by allowing greater use of home health care and remote care.
Prevention (e.g. automated screening) and monitoring (by self or remote
diagnostic systems) are two options, as are improvements in access to
information about services and memory-joggers, which remind people to
take their prescribed medication (see Gann et al 1999 forthcoming for further
details).

Specifying Smart Home technologies
57
Table 4.3: Potential applications of technology and likely systems solutions
Potential application areas
General comfort and safety:
Adequacy of temperature and ventilation controls
Fear of accidents and risks of injury
Fear of crime
Mobility difficulties:
Stairs
Reaching
Distances to shops etc.
Reduced strength and endurance
Cleaning, routine maintenance:
Recognition of cleaning need
Strength, mobility and endurance
Memory joggers and learning:
Forgetting crucial daily activities
Learning new routines and activities
Nutritional difficulties:
Forgetting to eat; reduced motivation to eat
Problems with shopping, food preparation
General age related changes:
Reduced vision and hearing
Increased learning times, longer reaction times
Potential Smart Home designs and systems
More sophisticated sensors, centralised
monitoring of human movement
Fire and other alert systems
Security systems
Adequacy of lighting in areas where falls are
common
Provision for lifting and mobility aids
Accessibility and design of equipment and
services, e.g. keys, handles, switches designed for
access
Even and non-skid surfaces
Equipment designed to use as little muscular force
as possible
Assistive devices, e.g. automatic door openers
In future, image processing and other dirt and
bacteria detectors
Manipulation aids
Monitoring household appliances
Help with night/day discrimination
Reminders of appointments, social events,
medication
Identification of changes in eating habits
Remote ordering of shopping
Good design of products and interfaces –
ergonomic, cognitive and emotional usability
Replace devices functioning on visual or aural
abilities with other functional modes, e.g. tactile
cues replace visual, acoustic cues replaced by
visual cues
Communication aids or non-vocal language skills
to cope with speech impairment
Reduced dependency on written instructions and
communication, e.g. pictures rather than numbers
on a key pad

Digital futures
58
Even if manufacturers succeed in generating more widespread
understanding of Smart Home technologies, evidence from the early days of
the personal computer industry suggests that a number of acceptance
barriers will slow its initial adoption. These relate to consumers’ concerns
about:
• price stability;
• lack of information;
• standards compatibility across applications and when upgrading
within specific applications;
• reliability, susceptibility to breakdown and foreseeable servicing costs;
• complexity in use.
Meyer and Schulze (1996) argue that acceptance will also vary by household
type, notably its size and composition, internal division of labour and stage
in the family lifecycle. Certain types of households have the most to gain
from implementing integrated Smart Home systems. These include
households in which both partners are working, highly mobile single-person
households, and households containing elderly people or people with
disabilities.
❑4.4 A generic, functional specification
In presenting the following general functional specification we have drawn
on lessons from the above analysis of technical trends together with
requirements from the user needs analysis discussed in previous chapters.
The general Smart Home specification has been developed on three levels –
see Figure 4.3:
1. Basic infrastructure to accommodate general functions
2. Context specific requirements
3. User specific functions.
Level 1: the basic infrastructure is intended to be appropriate for use in any
housing situation. This provides the backbone and central nervous system to
which more context specific technologies can be added. The main decision at

Specifying Smart Home technologies
59
this level concerns the communication medium, for example, what type of
bus system or power line communication system is appropriate. Choice of
infrastructure has implications for all other decisions about what
technologies can be supported, where they will be located and how they will
be used. One of the most important decisions is which protocol to use for
signalling and communication between devices. The basic infrastructure may
also include a number of standard components applicable to all housing
types regardless of form of ownership, location, size or value. The choice of
basic infrastructure will also have implications at an organisational level for
housing developers, social landlords, builders, and systems integrators,
because it is likely to define the types of capabilities required for design,
installation, maintenance and adaptation.
Level 2: context specific requirements for particular housing types. This is the
level at which the basic Smart Home infrastructure is adapted to the particular
installation environment in the context of different types of housing. It
provides universal applications to be used by any occupant or visitor within
the home. Choice of equipment at this level will also depend upon whether it
is to be installed in apartments or houses and whether these are to be linked
to particular service providers. Specification of general systems and
equipment such as lighting controllers, alarm systems, and environmental
controls could all depend on the size, position and intended types of
occupancy of the dwelling. At this stage, the location of major pieces of
equipment and cabling need to be defined.
Level 3: user specific functions provide features aimed at accommodating the
needs of individual occupants. It is desirable that Smart Home systems should
accommodate special features and performance criteria required by
particular users. Where possible, this level should also accommodate portable
plug-and-play devices and systems. For example, the ability to use particular,
customisable interfaces can often assist in meeting specific user preferences.
Familiarity with devices such as infra-red remote controllers makes these a
general favourite although other interfaces have advantages to certain users,
particularly those with special needs. Devices to support specific needs are
also specified at this level: from assistive devices for the elderly or people
with disabilities, to safety devices for parents with young children. Of equal
importance is the way in which devices interact and this may also need to be
specified by an individual user. This can generally be done once installations
are complete, either by installers or by users themselves.

Digital futures
60
In addition, every level must satisfy a number of general conditions
including:
Figure 4.3: The 3-level generic specification
User
specific
Context
specific
Generic
Interfaces
Specific devices
Scale dependant devices
Transmission medium
Common devices
Communication
protocol
Potential number of users
Level of speciality
Functionality
The system must have clear and
unambiguous functions.
Affordability
The system must be inexpensive, with
demonstrable benefits for individuals and
housing providers.
Ease of use
The system must be capable of supporting
use by a wide range of different types of
occupants, visitors and where necessary their
carers. It must be safe and easy to use,
assisting independent activities within the
home.
Replicability and ease of installation
The system needs to be available as a
standard, reproducible product which has a
low-installation impact and is easy to install
in refurbishment and new build projects.
Suppliers must be prepared to train for
necessary installation skills required.
➔

Specifying Smart Home technologies
61
Reliability and maintainability
Manufacturers must indicate data on
reliability, provide a full back-up and
maintenance service, and where required
train maintenance and operations staff.
Upgradability
The basic infrastructure must have a long
shelf-life, it must be upgradable at low cost
and effort.
Flexibility and adaptability
The system must be programmable, accept
add-ons and interface with other suppliers’
equipment. Systems need to be capable of
development as user needs change.
Interactivity
The system must offer wide interconnectivity
and comply with recognised standards.

62
Mitch was bored with being Ray Richardson’s technical coordinator. He wanted to
go back to being an architect, pure and simple. He wanted to design a house, or a
school, or maybe a library. Nothing showy, nothing complicated, just attractive
buildings that people would like looking at as much as being inside them. One
thing was for sure. He had had quite enough of intelligent buildings. There was
just too much to organize. (Kerr 1996: 43)
Putting new ideas into practice is never easy. This part of the study describes
the experience and lessons from designing, procuring, installing and operating
digital systems in two demonstration Smart Homes in York and Edinburgh. It
also raises issues about the rapid rate of technological change and the need to
adapt or upgrade systems during use. Some of the issues discussed are
necessarily of a technical nature and it is advisable for those not concerned
with detailed technical design and integration to skip section 5.1. The main
focus of activity was on the installation of systems to provide automation of
simple functions within the home. The addition of new communication
systems providing interactivity between the home and the world outside was
not attempted in a systematic way in these demonstration projects.
The original intention had been to test benefits and constraints in two different
installations: one, a new-build scheme, the other a refurbishment project. For
reasons discussed below, this did not prove possible, and systems were
eventually installed in a new bungalow in York, and a new apartment in
Edinburgh. However, in practice, both represented retrofit projects because the
dwellings had already been constructed before Smart Home systems were
installed, although in the case of Edinburgh some provision for future
adaptation had been made during construction. Two different systems and
standards were chosen for demonstration purposes in order to make
comparisons about design, installation and operation.
CHAPTER 5
IMPLEMENTATION: LESSONS
FROM YORK AND EDINBURGH

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
63
In terms of basic infrastructural requirements, there is a need for two types of
data signalling around the home: low frequency or bandwidth, used to
switch lights on or off, etc.; and high frequency for transmitting video,
images and large quantities of data etc. Smart Homes need to be able to
support both forms of communication. Installing new cabling can be
expensive, time-consuming and disruptive. Existing electrical cables can be
used to provide the means of communication for low frequency data
signalling and, in theory, using these for data signalling can facilitate rapid
installation with minimal disruption. However, they tend to be less reliable
for high frequency communications and additional cabling is therefore often
necessary.
In York, the Echelon-based LonWorks system and protocol was chosen to
provide the basic, generic infrastructure. In this installation the intention was
to use existing power lines as the main communications medium for control
of devices. LonWorks is a control system which was originally designed to
work primarily on a special communications network, or bus system, but also
supports power line and radio signalling. It has been successfully deployed
in office and industrial buildings.
In Edinburgh, the Siemens EIBus system was used to provide the generic
infrastructure. This requires installation of a new cable network – bus system
– around the building, on which communication and control signals can be
passed. The system has been successfully used in office and industrial
buildings and has also been used in a number of housing demonstration
projects.
The project team learnt from the commercial office sector in which design,
installation and commissioning were found to be critical stages in the
construction of so called ‘intelligent buildings’ (Gann 1992b). Lessons show
that most problems arise at the interface between one technology – or
specialist skill – and others. Problems that had been identified in attempts to
install ‘intelligent building’ systems in offices were found often to have their
origins in errors occurring in design or in the supply chain. Three critical
factors for success included:
• how the process is organised;
• single point management responsibility for the entire process;
• availability of appropriate skills, particularly for systems integration.

Digital futures
64
Moreover, successful installation of digital office technologies usually
resulted when there was close co-operation between users and producers.
The need for designers and systems integrators to understand users’
demands was found to be important, although many users lacked the
capability to draw up comprehensive briefs for their requirements. In the
commercial office sector, it took time, and successive attempts at integrating
systems in different projects, to improve the information flows necessary to
achieve success.
A similar learning curve was thought to be needed in integrating digital
technologies within housing. If lessons could be successfully captured from
the prototype homes in York and Edinburgh they could provide participants
and others with a significant step along the learning curve. This chapter
describes what was learnt, starting with design and systems integration,
followed by analysis of procurement and installation, including a discussion
of costs and timescales. It concludes with analysis of different user
perceptions of the demonstration projects, and a technical assessment of the
two systems piloted.
❑5.1 Design and systems integration
Apart from a detailed understanding of different user requirements,
designing Smart Home systems requires knowledge about technologies and
systems integration, as well as how systems can be installed within the fabric
of the building. Having drawn up specifications for the two sites, and held a
workshop and briefing meetings with potential suppliers, it became evident
that there were few organisations capable of integrating systems at an
affordable price. It was therefore necessary to employ systems integrators
directly in each housing association. In York, Colin Taylor, Chief Electrician at
Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust took over the role of systems designer and
integrator. In Edinburgh, Steve Bonner was recruited to Edinvar Housing
Association to carry out these tasks.
The first lesson had been learnt: it was necessary to have significant, in-house
technical expertise in order to proceed. Further resources had to be brought in
to both demonstration schemes. In the current phase of technical
development and market penetration, it is therefore difficult to conceive of
how an organisation wishing to develop Smart Homes could do so, without

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
65
investing heavily in training and internal technical capabilities. On the
evidence of this project, the main lesson for housing providers wishing to
install Smart Home systems is that they will need to invest in similar skills.
Resolving a number of other issues met during design and integration
proved critical to the overall success of the two demonstration projects. Key
lessons from the York experience are described in Table 5.1, perhaps the most
important being the need to ensure interoperability between different, but
supposedly compatible, components and testing this on a mock-up
demonstration board. This allowed many sub-systems to be tested in
laboratory conditions. For example, a system was built using Phillips lighting
controllers, Zytron multi-sensor smoke, light and heat detectors and a speech
unit. Frogability controls were used for door and window openers and Plumb
Centre radiator controls were installed. MPS, Videx and Alarm Express
systems were also used. Control of this system was tested using a PCTVnet
television interface.
October 1997 – the decision to use Echelon-based technology had been taken and Colin
Taylor attended a LonWorks training course on Echelon systems. The majority of control
equipment was ordered (Echelon LonPoints; Asgard cable spheres; Zytron smoke detection
equipment).
November 1997 – a demonstration mock-up board was built to enable testing of equipment
and experiments with different parts of the system to avoid disturbing the occupant in the
proposed bungalow in which it had been planned to install the technology. Assembly of
the board took 2 months part-time work, enabling a thorough familiarisation with
technical matters.
January 1998 – the system appeared to work, but there were a number of problems:
software for programming the system was only on beta (test) release. It had a number of
inherent bugs that caused errors during tests and commissioning. This has now been
resolved with the full release software.
Interoperability problems were experienced between Asgard spheres and Echelon network
settings, which appeared to be incompatible. Echelon overcame the problem by modifying
LonPoint and using this as the technical interface. Similar problems were experienced with
some of the Zytron devices.
Table 5.1: Key events in the York project

Digital futures
66
Construction of the demonstration mock-up board proved to have a number
of uses, not least that it showed others what the project was attempting to
achieve. It was used to assess the viability of using different types of
equipment, illustrating how these could be of benefit in a real-life situation.
Success at this stage convinced Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the main
funders of the York project, that additional investment should be made to
purchase more equipment for installation in the demonstration home.
Experience with design and integration had caused a number of concerns
over reliability and it was decided to make further trials before installing
systems in the demonstration home, which at the time was a refurbishment
bungalow in Lime Tree Avenue, York. Agreement was reached to build a
second prototype demonstration board to include additional features.
At the same time, a new ceiling rose was designed to incorporate both input
and output nodes and an Echelon compatible detection sensor – Figure 5.1.
This product removed the need to use LonPoints at both switch and outlets of
sub-systems and permitted control aspects of the system to be housed in a
less obtrusive manner.
Figure 5.1: Specially designed ceiling rose, using customised Echelon input and output nodes

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
67
Unlike the York project, where a prototype system was mocked-up, work at
Edinburgh proceeded with the intention of procuring a system for
installation directly in the demonstration property. The main lessons from the
early stages of the Edinburgh project are described in the following section.
Further technical details and scheme designs for the York and Edinburgh
dwellings are provided in Appendix 1.
❑5.2 Procurement and installation
Different issues arose at Edinburgh, the most significant being the need for
suppliers to deliver equipment and provide adequate training and technical
support on time – Table 5.2. Moreover, it was found that many of the
components advertised by manufacturers were not ready. Some were still in
prototype form and were not yet in manufacture.
An outline specification was developed and sent to a number of suppliers
who were asked to provide tenders for supply and installation of equipment
at the two demonstration sites. Tenders received were all more expensive
than expected and fell well outside the remit for affordability. Moreover, most
suppliers had difficulty in responding to the specific brief in spite of their
previous statements of ability to supply. Delays occurred in choosing
suppliers and time was spent checking suitability and capability. It became
evident that in spite of much marketing hype and demonstration of technical
competence in commercial office markets, no suppliers were able to meet the
needs of the Smart Home demonstrators on their own.
The Edinburgh property, a flat at St Leonard’s Court, was constructed in
1996, but the particular flat had never been occupied as it was ear-marked as
a show-flat and for use in the trials. During construction of the flat, attempts
had been made to build in flexibility for future changes anticipated in the
development as a whole, and for the demonstration flat in particular. For
example, cableways had been left behind skirting boards and conduit was
installed under each door threshold in anticipation of the need to install
Smart Home cabling – Figure 5.2. The cost of providing space for additional,
future cabling in new housing or in major refurbishment work is negligible –
less than £100 per dwelling on the Edinvar scheme. Issues concerning spread
of smoke and fire through cableways and the likely implications for building
regulations were not addressed, but they may have consequences in future
applications of this type.

Digital futures
68
Figure 5.2: Provision of cableways in the Edinburgh flat

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
69
It became evident that installing cabling would be more difficult than
expected, in spite of provision of cableways behind skirting boards and
under door thresholds. The dwelling had been fitted out as a show flat and
gripper rods used to fit carpets prevented skirting boards from being easily
removed. In addition, routing of the radiator pipework hindered the use of
intended cableways. As well as hindering the initial installation this was also
likely to cause difficulties in future adaptation.
Table 5.2: Key events in the Edinburgh project
August 1997 – Steve Bonner was appointed to manage the project within Edinvar Housing
Association. Siemens’ InstaBus control equipment was ordered, based on a pared-down
specification of the original requirements (reducing the expected cost from £10,000 to £5,000).
Delivery was expected in early September. There was concern that the equipment ordered
would prove insufficient to fully achieve the anticipated utility in the demonstration flat.
September 1997 – significant delays in delivery of Siemens equipment were experienced, but
cabling was delivered to allow work to commence on installation. At this stage, Steve Bonner
had not been able to attend specialist training and was therefore unclear about cabling
requirements. Ideally, training should have been provided, followed by detailed design,
equipment delivery and installation. It was not possible to achieve this at the time, because no
training facilities were available in the UK.
October 1997 – Siemens equipment began to arrive and continued in a piece-meal manner
throughout that month, making it difficult for consistent work to take place.
October through December 1997 – installation of the Bus and associated equipment. Original
lighting circuits needed to be rewired from 2 ring circuits to 9 point to point circuits.
Additional cableways needed to be installed in mini-trunking for equipment to be mounted at
high level (such as passive infra-red sensors) and a number of doorways needed to be
repositioned to accommodate door opening equipment.
All Bus wiring at this stage was installed on the premise that it would function in the same way
as a 2 wire communications system as the only wiring guide available was an appendix to the
product catalogue. Equipment installed by the end of December was set up to function as
stand alone with no interoperability, although cabling and control equipment was fitted in
preparation.
January 1998 – the first EIB (European Installation Bus) training course was held in the UK,
attended by Steve Bonner. As well as learning how the system should be installed, the
programming software was also made available to start introducing interoperability in the
system.
January to March 1998 – other manufacturers’ equipment is obtained requiring corresponding
control equipment from Siemens. Previous problems in delivery by Siemens were not
experienced on this occasion as orders were placed direct from Siemens, without using an
electrical wholesaler, other than for processing invoices and payments.
March 1998 – Steve Bonner attended a visualisation software training programme (CNC Hub)
which provided new skills to programme touchscreen controls for the entire system.

Digital futures
70
On the York project, timing of the development of the new Joseph Rowntree
Housing Trust Hatrigg Oaks scheme provided an opportunity to carry out
the first installation of the Echelon system. This was to facilitate
demonstrations in a show home, permitting visitors to see the system
working without disturbing residents. It was therefore decided to carry out a
full installation on this site before proceeding with installation at Lime Tree
Avenue.
■Costs
Table 5.3 provides a comparison of costs for equipment installed in the two
demonstration projects. In general, the costs appear prohibitive- around
£1400 per room. They are certainly higher than a threshold of a few hundred
pounds per room or a few thousand pounds per dwelling, which was our
target to prove affordability. Costs are high in part because a wide range of
equipment was installed which would normally be in excess of individual
needs. But individual items such as light switches are also expensive when
compared with standard, non-digital components. These costs are high in
part because there is no volume market in which economies of scale come
into play. Many components and systems were manufactured and sold for
use in commercial offices, where volume of sales could provide bulk-
purchase cost reductions and multiple devices could be controlled on the
same system. Moreover, the savings made in large buildings are likely to
provide a pay-back in areas such as energy saving, whereas these issues need
further examination and research in the housing arena.
■Time
The demonstration projects took much longer than planned. Reasons
included difficulties in finding appropriate suppliers, the need to recruit and
train in-house personnel and delays in delivery of equipment by suppliers.
Such delays are perhaps to be expected in a research and prototype project
and the formal project period was extended by 10 months.
Due to the fragmented nature of the work carried out and the piecemeal
delivery of equipment for the demonstration projects it is not easy to provide
a realistic estimate of how much time would be spent on each stage of a
subsequent project. However, Figure 5.4 provides estimates of the time
required to procure and install systems in a hypothetical project, based on
data collected from the demonstration schemes.

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
71
Table 5.3: Comparative costs of installation at York and Edinburgh (£)
Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (York)
Edinvar Housing Association (Edinburgh)
Room contents
Intelligent ceiling rose 110
Multi-sensor 70
Movement detector 45
Infra-red receiver 45
Intelligent plug 90
Window opener 240
Door opener 375
Curtain opener 195
Radiator control 40
Interfaces for the 4 above 180
Standard total per room 1390
Room contents
Lighting control 129
Thermostat 119
Smoke/heat detector 140
Movement detector 91
Infra-red receiver 52
Intelligent plug n/a
Window opener 200
Door opener n/a
Curtain opener 600
Radiator control 70
Interfaces for the 4 above inc.
Standard total per room 1401
Alarm Video Gas Warden Computer Power Cable, Cup- Total
control door detection call inter- supply & joints, board
entry link face controller etc. lifters
Bedroom 1 1390 45 1435
Bedroom 2 1390 45 1435
Living room 1390 45 50 125 100 2610
Hall 1390 1390
Kitchen 1390 100 800 500 800 3590
Bathroom 1390 1390
Outside 210 210
Standard total 8340
135 260 100 125 1000 800 500
House total (ex VAT) 12,060
Alarm Video Gas Warden Computer Power Cable, External Induction Tel. Possum Bathroom Total
control door detection call inter- supply & joints, door loop strobe controls per
entry link face controller etc. opener room
Living room 1401 1000 100 1300 3901
Hall 1401 120 800 1100 40 3461
Kitchen 1401 75 150 2867 1100 5593
Bathroom 1401 1500 2901
House total (ex VAT) 15,756

Digital futures
72
Figure 5.3: Estimated timescales for procurement and installation for subsequent projects
Edinvar Housing Association Smart Homes Timescale Estimates
Duration (man – weeks)
Task
Schematic design and ordering of equipment
Reconfigure existing system and make good
Wiring for a new property
Install Siemens control equipment, download control parameters
Install other manufacturers’ equipment
Prepare software and commission individual items for 1st time
Context specific commissioning (setting up interoperability)
User specific adaptation and programming of the system
Joseph Rowntree Housing Association Smart Homes Timescale Estimates
Duration (man – weeks)
Task 123456
Schematic design and ordering of equipment
Wiring for a new property
Install power line and linkpower connections and test
Install linkpower system wiring
Install other manufacturers’ equipment
Connect up link power systems
Fit ceiling roses and modify switches
Prepare software and commission individual items for 1st time
Program up interfaces
User specific adaptation and programming of the system
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Precontract work
Retrofit only
Based on 1/2-1 day additional control wiring
Reduced to 1 week for repeat installation
3 days of interviewing user and carers, 2 days to program software
Precontract work
5 day
5 day
5 day
5 day
4 days to repeat
3 days for good touchscreen graphics
3 days of interviewing, 2 days of programming

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
73
❑5.3 Operation: the views of visitors
The types of equipment and systems installed in the two demonstration
houses are illustrated in Figures 5.4 and 5.5.
Figure 5.4: Equipment and facilities installed in York
Sink in lowered position
Door entry camera and security control token

Digital futures
74
Figure 5.4: Equipment and facilities installed in York – contd.
PC-TV interface
Kitchen cupboard in lowered position

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
75
Figure 5.4: Equipment and facilities installed in York – contd.
Door motor Window motor
Ceiling rose multi-function smoke detector head and infra-red detector

Digital futures
76
Figure 5.5: Equipment and facilities installed in Edinburgh
Door entry system

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
77
Figure 5.5: Equipment and facilities installed in Edinburgh – contd.
Curtain motors
Remote control of front door

Digital futures
78
Figure 5.5: Equipment and facilities installed in Edinburgh – contd.
Movement sensitive tap controls

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
79
Figure 5.5: Equipment and facilities installed in Edinburgh – contd.
At the time of writing, the demonstration homes had not been tested in full
use with people living in them. One reason was the number of people
interested in visiting the sites, which meant that they were kept open for six
months longer than originally planned. Nevertheless, the project team were
able to survey visitors’ opinions using a questionnaire handed out at the
sites. This provided valuable information about people’s immediate
reactions, likes and dislikes and viewpoints from a range of perspectives. It
also provided an opportunity to compare views of the different approaches to
Smart Home systems demonstrated in York and Edinburgh. A total of 88
responses were received, analysed below.
Table 5.4: Percentage of different types of people expressing an interest in the demonstration
projects
Type of Person Number (%) Type of Person Number (%)
Housing Provider 32 Tenant 6
Carer 17 N/R 5
Home Owner 14 Building contractor 4
Other 12 Equipment Supplier 2
Design 8
Light, curtain and power switches

Digital futures
80
Table 5.4 shows that there was a relatively even split of responses from those
broadly classed as users and those that might be termed producers. It has
been possible to compare some of the response sets from the questionnaire
survey and identify any major differences between user and producer
opinions. Table 5.5 shows that the majority of visitors were in the 26 to 60
year old age bands. Ideally, it would be useful to compare views and
opinions between young and old people, but there were insufficient
responses in these age bands to provide any meaningful analysis.
Table 5.5: Age distribution of respondents
Age No. of visitors in age band (%) Age No. of visitors in age band (%)
<25 4 60+ 6
26-40 30 N/R 9
40-60 51
Respondents were asked to score a variety of different functions in terms of
the importance they would attribute to them if it were possible to have such
functions in their own homes. Based on a five point scale they scored one as
being unimportant and five being important. Table 5.6 shows the ranking of
importance based on the average responses from the questionnaires. This
suggests that respondents considered issues of health, safety and security to
be more important than comfort, control and labour saving devices.
Table 5.6: Importance attributed to different functions
(1 = unimportant, 5 = important)
Function Importance Function Importance
Gas detection 4.7 Activity monitoring 4.0
Security alarm 4.6 Light switching controls 3.8
Warden call 4.6 Curtain opening device 3.7
Entry phone 4.4 Bathroom controls 3.7
Door opening device 4.3 Moveable kitchen units 3.7
Infra-red control 4.2 Light level control 3.5
Room heating controls 4.1 Touch screen display 3.2
Window opening device 4.0 Pressure pad switches 3.1

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
81
A similar approach was used to obtain views about the ease of use of
different functions within the demonstration homes. The results are shown in
Table 5.7, ranked from the most easy to use downwards. In terms of user
interfaces for control of systems, there seems to be a preference for infra-red
remote control units rather than the PC-based touch screen display. This
could be a question of affordability (the PC and screen add considerably to
the cost of installation) or purely an issue of familiarity with the hand held
remote control equipment. In general, equipment and systems in the York
demonstration home achieved a higher rating for ease of use than those in the
Edinburgh project.
Table 5.7: Average ease of use scores, ranked by visitors
(1 = difficult, 5 = easy)
Function Ease of use Function Ease of use
Gas detection 4.4 Curtain opening device 4.1
Pressure pad switches 4.3 Bathroom controls 4.1
Warden call 4.3 Infra-red control 4.1
Door opening device 4.2 Moveable kitchen units 4.1
Window opening device 4.2 Activity monitoring 4.0
Security alarm 4.2 Room heating controls 3.9
Entry phone 4.2 Light level control 3.9
Light switching controls 4.1 Touch screen display 3.6
Visitors to the demonstration homes were asked whether they would be
prepared to pay more, either through rent or on the purchase price of their
home, for Smart Home functions. It was recognised that providing Smart Home
technologies would have a cost implication, and the vast majority of
respondents were willing to pay more for added utility – Table 5.8. People
generally expressed a willingness to pay between 5 and 10% more. This
remains much lower than the actual costs of setting up the demonstration
homes, although it is close to the projected costs if a volume market emerges
and systems are produced using mass-produced components. It is unclear
why all the respondents who were unwilling to pay more were visitors to the
Edinburgh site.

Digital futures
82
Respondents were asked to indicate between which sub-systems they would
like to have interoperability. Visitors were asked to indicate this on a diagram
illustrating the main systems within the dwelling. Table 5.9 illustrates the
percentage of respondents choosing interoperability between different
functional areas. Issues of safety and security dominate – a fire alarm system
which can either activate or shut down other systems in the home is seen as
especially important. Also significant is linking the security system to
lighting, which would allow the mimicking of occupation when the security
system is active and residents are away. Interoperability relating to comfort
and labour saving functions seems to be of lesser importance.
Table 5.8: Amount of additional expenditure (either on purchase or through rent) respondents
would pay for Smart Home systems
Additional amount prepared to spend Number of respondents (%)
0% 6
5% 36
10% 29
15% 9
20% 3
No response 16
Table 5.9: Importance of interoperability between different sub-systems and functional areas
Interoperability between sub-systems No. of Respondents (%)
Fire/Security 71
Security/Lighting 55
Fire/Lighting 45
Fire/Heating 39
Fire/Appliances 39
Heating/Lighting 20
Entertainment/Appliances 18
Security/Heating 17
Entertainment/Lighting 16
Appliances/Lighting 16
Heating/Appliances 13
Heating/Entertainment 11
Security/Entertainment 10
Security/Appliances 9
Fire/Entertainment 5

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
83
Finally, one estate agent who visited the York Smart Home said that
electronically controlled gates, doors and entry systems (including garage
doors) were an enormous selling point, making properties potentially more
attractive to future purchasers.
❑5.4 Technical assessment
It is not possible to provide a full and detailed assessment of technical
performance and possible future applications in a trial limited to two
demonstration sites. A far larger research and development programme
would be required including extended tests with different user groups and
many refinements to prototypes. Indeed, one of the difficulties in developing
the Smart Home concept has been an inability on the part of housing
producers to carry out the type of research, development, prototyping and
testing that would be found in other industries producing sophisticated
products. For example, new product development in the automobile industry
often costs hundreds of millions of pounds and several hundred prototypes
are built and tested in different environments before a new model is
launched. In contrast, the Smart Home project was limited in scale and scope,
costing no more than an estimated £250,000 in equipment, staff time and
research. The following are therefore observations and comments about the
technology and how it might be deployed, rather than rigorously proven
research results.
■Generic infrastructure
•Echelon system: it is unlikely that the LonWorks system will be suitable for
retrofit or refurbishment applications in its bus wired form, using
LonPoints as output and input nodes, because it requires installation of
many individual devices. However, initial development work on the
demonstrator board identified a number of ways in which the LonWorks
system could be adapted for use in domestic retrofit, or refurbishment
schemes. Echelon’s licensing agreements with other manufacturers
enabled design and production of customised multi-function components,
reducing the number of visible parts and providing cost-effective
solutions. Multi-function ceiling roses are an example of this, developed
for the York project. This level of flexibility could also prove beneficial in
new-build installations.

•Siemens system: the use of Bus systems – such as the Siemens EIBus in the
Edinburgh project – requires considerable design and planning to ensure
that it is routed around the building in the right place. However it
provides a robust communications and control system with fail-safe
modes providing back up in case of systems failure. Future
developments of this system are planned to include EIB compatible
powerline products, which could facilitate easier planning of cable
layouts for both initial installation and subsequent adaptation.
Echelon and EIBus protocols were both originally designed to operate on
cabled infrastructure, or bus systems. However, there have been
considerable efforts on the part of manufacturers of both systems to develop
installations that will also accommodate powerline signalling to devices.
This could reduce the amount of work required to install and adapt systems
in future.
•Siemens and EIB equipment: in general, the control equipment
manufactured by Siemens and other EIB manufacturers is of excellent
quality in terms of its engineering. However, it has been designed for use
in commercial or industrial buildings and therefore appears to be over-
engineered for normal use in the domestic environment. This has major
cost implications, being too expensive to meet the ‘affordability’ criteria
for normal use in housing. The equipment also has an industrial
appearance, for example binary output fittings are very similar in
appearance to fluorescent ballasts, which may well be ideal for fitting in
strip luminaires but are awkward to conceal in a domestic setting –
Figure 5.6.
•Control and battery housings: many of the items were delivered with large
casings and cumbersome connections, which took up space and made
installation time-consuming and expensive. Design of individual
components, actuators, sensors and switches could be improved to
enable discrete and rapid installation.
■Terminal and subsidiary equipment
•Door and window openers: it was not possible to refine equipment or many
of the systems demonstrated. One example is the large, cumbersome and
noisy door and window opening devices. In future it will be technically
feasible to develop doors and windows with these concealed in the
Digital futures
84

Implementation: lessons from York and Edinburgh
85
Figure 5.6: Siemens equipment – designed for use in commercial or industrial buildings
frames, in a similar way to electrically operated windows in car doors.
However, it was not possible to develop these actuators on this project.
•Non-EIB compatible components: with the exception of Possum Controls,
used to provide an interface for people with disabilities, it had not been
possible to find other ancillary equipment with the facility to link to EIB
networks for the Edinburgh project. This meant that additional control
equipment had to be fitted, sometimes requiring internal modification of
the equipment itself.
•Other subsidiary equipment: many items of terminal equipment lacked
appropriate input and output modules to facilitate digital signalling and
control. These had to be added to equipment or the network.
•Equipment for special purposes: many of the components and interfaces used
to facilitate operation for people with disabilities has been designed for
use in medical or ‘institutional’ environments. As such, it tends to be of an
industrial appearance and over-engineered for use in domestic
environments.
Various control boxes Binary output fitting

Digital futures
86
■Rapid rate of change, adaptation in use and future
development work
Many technologies were being improved and new systems developed during
the period between 1996 and 1998, when the demonstration projects were
built. The pace of technical change remains rapid, particularly in areas such
as interoperability between discrete systems and component parts, and in the
provision of new services in the home. Smart Home systems can therefore be
described as ‘immature’ and unstable. It is likely that new vintages of
technology will be introduced within a relatively short period – say 3 to 5
years. Current installations will need to be designed with change in mind so
that they can be upgraded at little extra cost.
Users are unlikely to be willing to invest in technologies that may rapidly
become obsolete and will want assurance that they will be compatible with
new generations of terminal equipment and devices, as well as upgradeable
when new generations of infrastructural systems are introduced. Such
requirements will put extra burdens on manufacturers and systems
integrators adding to existing pressures to improve their performance. For
example, there is room for major improvements on the part of equipment and
component manufacturers in the design and supply of parts, components
and systems, as well as in providing appropriate product support services.
Design for integration and installation appears to have been overlooked, in
the belief that technologies proven in the commercial office environment can
be easily down-sized and adapted for use in the home. This proved not to be
the case.
Moreover, there is generally poor understanding of the design of technologies
for use in the home. Manufacturers and suppliers lack appropriate services in
terms of systems capabilities to assist in integration, installation and
commissioning. Given the current level of development of these technologies
it is doubtful whether manufacturers and the supply industries have the
capability to deliver without expert procurement knowledge on the part of
the client. It is therefore essential that the integration process is properly
organised with single point responsibility and appropriate skills for design
and installation.

87
Once you break the bounds of your bag of skin … you will also begin to blend into
the architecture. In other words, some of your electronic organs may be built into
the surroundings. … ‘inhabitation’ will take on a new meaning – one that has less
to do with parking your bones in architecturally defined space and more with
connecting your nervous system to nearby electronic organs. Your room and your
home will become part of you and you will become part of them.
(Mitchell 1995: 30)
This somewhat disturbing vision of the future may not be as far fetched as it
first appears. The image conjured in Mitchell’s quote may seem terrifying to
some, yet scientifically and technically, society is on the verge of developing
interfaces which will allow people to manipulate new digital systems from
within and outside their homes. The development of bio-informatic
technologies will potentially facilitate far greater control without the need to
use cumbersome physical interfaces such as the QWERTY keyboard.
The two demonstration sites illustrate the possibilities for automation and
communication in the home. At present, most of the British housing stock is
not equipped with the cabling, switching or two-way transmission devices
needed for interactivity – they are limited in use to one-way broadcasting
applications. As many more homes in Britain connect to the Internet and with
the potential of digital TV, more people are likely to demand a new
infrastructure to allow them to connect to interactive digital services.
Panasonic, a major consumer electronics manufacturer, has a particular vision
of the future for consumer information appliances, including a number of
systems to provide ‘information for living’ – Table 6.1. Other Japanese
consumer-electronics manufacturers continue to add new functions to
existing products. For example, NEC has designed a micro-wave cooker with
CHAPTER 6
DIGITAL FUTURES

Digital futures
88
a flat screen display located in the door. Matsushita Electric is experimenting
with prototype robot pets for elderly people. The aim is to develop cuddly
toys for adults which can transmit data about their owners’ well-being to
support services.
Is there a precedent for such changes in the home? Examples of electrification
and provision of central heating in homes illustrate new levels of comfort,
safety, cleanliness and a generally higher quality of life. There are also
analogies with people’s fears of unknown aspects of these technologies: for
example, concern that electricity would leak from sockets is perhaps similar
to current concerns about information ‘leaking’ from computer networks.
Today’s drivers for change are also similar to those of the past – to improve
the domestic living environment – but they also include the need to support
many new functions, including the use of interactive services and ability for
older people to maintain independent lifestyles in their own homes. Once
potential benefits of integrated Smart Home systems have been proven it is
likely that more people will be prepared to purchase them – in a similar way
to investment in electricity or central heating in the home earlier this century.
Systems will only then begin to diffuse throughout the housing stock, costs
will fall and a new supply industry will emerge.
Yet this research project has shown that in Britain, Smart Home markets,
technologies and supply industries are immature. Consumers are ignorant or
sceptical about potential benefits; technologies are difficult to integrate for
interoperability; the industry is fragmented and there are no one-stop-shop
suppliers providing a full range of bundled products and services.
In spite of the problems encountered in integrating systems in the
demonstration projects, technical issues of this nature are probably the easiest
to resolve. Within a few years, technical questions about whether to use
separately cabled bus systems or power line carriers to form basic
infrastructures are likely to have been answered. The main requirements will
be to provide housing with simple, robust, basic infrastructures to support
many types of increasingly portable equipment. Robustness, reliability and
ease of installation are likely to be the key determinants for success in generic
infrastructure systems. People are unlikely to be willing to invest in such
technologies if there is a legacy of systems failures and software bugs.
Technologies which simplify, routinise and automate functions in commercial
buildings may not be so desirable in the home where people generally wish

Digital futures
89
Technology Service
Large flat-screen displays Serving as multi-media interactive windows on the digital
world, located in the living room for use with digital
broadcasting and the Internet.
Home server A computer storing digital pictures recorded on home video,
or directly from TV programmes.
On-line information services Systems to arrange for home-delivery of food and other
provisions, including automatic data transfer of cooking
instructions to the networked microwave and cooker.
Networked fridge A fridge with ‘stock control’ functions providing information
about the food in stock at home, including use-by dates.
Information can be accessed remotely to assess what is in
stock, if out shopping.
Remote control Remote display of information relating to consumption in
the home, including use of gas, water and electricity.
On-line health check system Sensors and a camera which measures and checks body
temperature, blood pressure, electro-cardiogram and blood
sugar. Data is stored in the home computer and can be sent
on a daily basis to the hospital or health clinic, facilitating
medical consultation and services while at home.
Health toilet system A toilet which measures and checks weight, body fat and
urine samples. Data is stored in the home computer and can
be sent to medical professionals.
Computer for work A home-working computer, linked to the Internet.
On-line machine Services which provide advice following self-diagnostics
maintenance services about the status and operating functions of digital
appliances in the home. Defects and failures are
automatically reported immediately to the maintenance
company.
Energy control system An internal environmental control system linked to
ventilation, lighting, air-conditioning and heating systems, to
provide optimised environmental comfort whilst minimising
energy use.
Source: Panasonic brochure, translated by Ritsuko Ozaki, SPRU.
Table 6.1: Panasonic’s vision of the future for consumer information appliances

Digital futures
90
to remain free from technical constraints. Understanding and organising
social issues related to the new digital future in the home are likely to present
a far more difficult problem than resolving technical matters. This research
project was unable to do more than indicate the need for studies of the effects
on privacy, ownership and control, finance, exclusion and inclusion and the
ethics of use. Far larger trials will be needed to understand these.
It seems certain, however, that the design and spatial layout of houses will
need to change to accommodate life in the digital future. For example, the TV
was instrumental in introducing a new pattern of domestic life, with people
typically spending a number of hours each day in front of the set (Jonscher
1999: 215). This did not create a new ‘fixed’ pattern of life at home, because
the advent of video recorders meant that people could choose the timing of
their viewing habits, introducing new forms and more flexibility to living
patterns.
Technological change and new activities in the home have therefore
transformed its layout and provision of equipment over the past century.
Analogies can be made between the provision of a single socket outlet in
many homes in the early days of electrification, and the single telephone
point in many of today’s new houses. As Mitchell (1995: 172) argues, building
the new programmable places will not just be a matter of pulling wires
through gaps in walls and connecting electronic boxes in different rooms.
New displays and interfaces will be invented and these may replace parts of
the traditional fabric and facades of buildings. Architects and designers will
have to confront new choices between providing for physical activities and
the new virtual spaces. It may soon be necessary for houses to be designed
with special deposit boxes to receive home deliveries of shopping ordered
over the Internet when occupiers are away.
❑6.1 Creating markets for Smart Homes
Who should do what in order to promote user-centred development and
implementation of Smart Home systems? Many people are involved in
building new homes and refurbishing the existing stock, including: owners,
occupiers, designers and engineers, developers and social landlords,
contractors and technology suppliers, installers, planners and regulators,
financiers and insurers. In housing for frail older people or those with
disabilities, social services and healthcare professionals are also likely to be

Digital futures
91
involved. It is therefore likely to take time before all the necessary
organisations have understood the implications for their own methods of
working and become familiar with the potential benefits and constraints to
implementing Smart Home systems.
User inputs are of critical importance in creating the market for Smart Homes.
Expert advice will be needed to help users understand what is possible. But
specifications must be derived from functional needs identified by users, not
only from technological possibilities, if consumer confidence is to grow.
What financial arrangements can be developed to help pay for the costs of
Smart Home systems? Can they be built into service charges for buildings or
estates? Will equipment be provided and installed free by providers charging
for the use of new interactive services? How will the installation of systems
affect the value of housing? These are important issues, particularly in the
affordable housing marketplace, but they are only likely to be resolved over
time through the development of more extensive trials and demonstration
projects.
What role do standards play in helping to create a market? In spite of the
slow pace in agreeing common standards, technical development has been
rapid with convergence occurring between systems as manufacturers
struggle to understand their potential roles in emerging markets. Most
European manufacturers have tended to focus on:
• simple on-off switching systems for selected applications, requiring no
additional network installation (e.g. remote control switching);
• discrete systems for selected applications but with wider functional
scope, requiring specific network installation (e.g. security and heating
control systems).
There are no suppliers providing fully integrated systems and services. To
motivate consumers to buy their products, suppliers will therefore need to fill
this gap, providing products and services that operate as:
•generic technologies, the basic, standard compatible building blocks,
supporting;
•context-specific systems, adaptable to a wide variety of dwelling types,
facilitating;
•personalised systems, tailored to specific individual and household
requirements.

Digital futures
92
Table 6.2 illustrates the types of activity required to establish a market. At
present the primary customer state for integrated Smart Home systems could
be described as one of ‘unconscious inactivity’. However, many of the
discrete sub-systems have already progressed to stage 4. Experience in the
York and Edinburgh demonstration projects would suggest that the key issue
in developing consumer confidence for more widespread market growth will
be the ability to provide services to support the use of new products and
systems.
Networking different devices within the home often involves the installation
of considerable amounts of cabling to carry signals for data, voice and video.
While this is relatively straightforward when the dwelling is being built,
retrofitting existing dwellings is far more expensive and disruptive, as was
experienced in the demonstration projects. Nevertheless, Britain builds
comparatively few new homes each year and this may prompt more
manufacturers to seek ways of retrofitting existing housing: for example
using existing power lines, radio frequency or infrared media for
communicating signals – Figure 6.1.
Table 6.2: Market development model
Primary customer state Market state Typical activity required
Stage 1 Unconscious inactivity No market Product development,
market research, education,
standards
Stage 2 Conscious inactivity Emerging market Demonstrations,
measurement of benefits,
dissemination, supply chain
development, education,
training
Stage 3 Conscious activity Growth market Quality control, market
support, training
Stage 4 Unconscious activity Established market Consolidation, refinement,
monitoring, challenge
conventional wisdom
Source: from a chart drawn by Alan Kell, European Intelligent Building Group.

Digital futures
93
Not only have suppliers failed to convey the benefits of Smart Home systems to
individual consumers, housing providers and landlords have a restricted
perception of what the concept can offer. The main housing developers and
contractors are largely unaware of the potential benefits of Smart Home
technologies and therefore do not take a lead in introducing the concept to
purchasers. A common view amongst housing associations specialising in
housing for older people – an area where there have been some efforts to
develop Smart Home applications – saw the technology providing only marginal
benefits (Gann et al 1995). There are a few notable exceptions to these views,
including developers such as Wilcon – involved in producing the INTEGER
house – and smaller builders of luxury schemes, such as Rice Homes. An
increasing number of housing associations are also beginning to express an
interest in these technologies particularly with around 4,000 dwellings for older
people built annually. This could form the basis of a new market.
❑6.2 Technology suppliers and integrators
Manufacturers and suppliers face three challenges if they are to develop a
market for their products:
• improve their understanding of user needs;
• improve the organisation of supply distribution channels;
• develop generic products and service suitable for a wide range of
housing types.
Figure 6.1: Market potential and technical solutions
Powerline
Market
Market potential
New build Refurbishment Retrofit
High
Low
Radio frequency
and infra-red
Specific installation
Source: developed from Jeck (1997).

Digital futures
94
A significant problem for suppliers is the need to convey to potential users a
set of perceived benefits, and deliver bundled products and services so that
these benefits can be realised. For customers, only a comprehensive package
of benefits is likely to make-up for large-scale initial investment – customer
value-added is the benefit of the system, not its ‘smartness’ or ‘intelligence’.
Developing more consumer oriented distribution channels via retailers (as
has happened with the X-10 products in the USA) may stimulate greater
interest in the medium term. However, while some basic equipment could be
sold via existing channels such as kitchen planners or consumer electronics
retailers, more complex applications require specialist integration and
installation within wider networks. Systems integrators are needed who can
bridge the gaps between each of the traditional players in housing markets,
offering advice on applications, the individual configuration of systems,
installation and after-sales service.
Installers, retailers and manufacturers are likely to face growing competition
from multiple service providers. These are companies which aspire to deliver
shopping, entertainment, banking and other interactive services direct to
consumers – Figure 6.2. Energy suppliers, for example, are becoming multi-
utility providers. Driven partly by a search for new business because of
competition in their traditional activities, these companies are diversifying
into value-added services such as energy consulting, automated invoicing,
telecoms and facilities management. During the next decade, new
‘information utilities’ companies may emerge, selling services to residents in
their homes (Birnbaum 1999).
Source: derived from Jeck (1997).
Figure 6.2: Competition in the emergent Smart Home market
Installation trade
HVAC installers
Housing developers
Electrical/CE trade
Components/systems
manufacturers
Utility companies
Invoicing service
providers
Home security
providers
FM service providers
Telecomms companies
System integration
services
•
•
•
•
•
Application
services
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consulting
Planning/
systems design
Installation
After sales
service
Energy management
Telemetering
Automated service billing
Emergency/security
services
Service call centres
Information and
entertainment

Digital futures
95
❑6.3 Training issues
The first lesson from the demonstration projects was the need to obtain new
in-house technical expertise to design, procure and integrate systems, in
order to proceed. In the current phase of technical development and market
penetration, it is difficult to conceive how an organisation wishing to develop
Smart Homes could do so, without investing heavily in training and internal
technical capabilities.
Physical installation work is likely to be within the current capabilities of
qualified electricians: the fitting of components by electricians was monitored
on one of the demonstration projects. Programming and commissioning are
more complex activities but with training in computer skills, they should also
be within the scope of a qualified electrician. Training for use of specific
software is likely to be necessary. Once the system is installed updating
programmes is a relatively simple job for someone trained on the software.
In addition to these skills it would useful for training to include an
understanding of:
• devices which operate using new forms of communication and user
interfaces;
• interconnectivity between different sub-systems and equipment;
• management and co-ordination of different suppliers in provision of
new systems;
• the need to be aware of future technical developments.
However, it appears that housebuilders and installation contractors are
training too few people to meet demand in their current markets let alone
meet the needs of installing Smart Home systems should the market grow
rapidly in future (see: Construction Industry Board 1998).
❑6.4 Future research and development activities
The breadth and diversity of the potential user community, the variable
context in which products and services are used, and the need for
manufacturers to balance usability and other design goals make the reality of
user-centred design complex. Moreover, it would have proven virtually
impossible to investigate people’s potential requirements for products and
services without the development of demonstration projects.

Digital futures
96
Yet it appears that many of the emerging products and systems are being
developed with only limited understanding of user needs and little user
participation. Future research based on trials with real users in real situations
will be essential. This could include time and motion studies with different
user groups to explore where benefits are gained and obstacles are
experienced. Little things matter. For example, the speed at which interfaces
respond, or the positioning of control points. It is unlikely that usability
issues, defects, quality and fail-safe capabilities will be resolved without an
iterative approach involving feed back from successive generations of
prototypes.
Many questions about use of Smart Home systems remain unanswered. For
example, people may have reservations about increased automation, but they
may also want the benefits, yet they need to be sure that they have overriding
control. Control and access to control through appropriate interfaces may well
form the basis of new disputes in the home. One resident commented that it is
bad enough arguing over whether to watch Coronation Street or the Football
on TV, let alone competing for access to the Web or Home Management
system. In another example, questions were raised about potential changes to
the dynamics of relationships between people in the home. For instance, who
has access to, and knowledge about, the technology when carers and visitors
enter the home? Understanding complex issues associated with ethics,
privacy, inclusion and exclusion will require detailed observational work.
Further research is also required on attitudes towards managing energy and
the internal environment. The use of Smart Home technologies is beginning to
be linked to issues of sustainable development (for example, the Intelligent
and Green – INTEGER project), yet there was no real sense of importance
attributed to environmental concerns in the York and Edinburgh
demonstration projects. Better information about methods of monitoring
energy usage and advising users on consequences of their decisions should be
welcomed, particularly in the social housing sector. It should, however, be
noted that carers from the demonstration projects expressed some concern
that less well-off people might be dissuaded from using central heating if, for
example, ‘real-time’ monitoring of expenditure on energy were available. The
implication being that they would try to conserve even more of their scarce
resources and may suffer from the cold.
Development work is continuing at both the York and Edinburgh sites. At
York, Smart Home systems are to be installed in the home of a young man,

Digital futures
97
paralysed from the waist down. The resident uses a wheelchair in his home,
which he shares with his able-bodied partner, with only minor adaptations. It
is hoped that the addition of a number of Smart Home systems will provide
considerable benefits. The systems will be monitored to evaluate ease of use
and training implications. Servicing and maintenance will also be assessed.
Lessons from this site will be incorporated into three installations planned for
the Park Lodge development at New Earswick.
In addition to long-term testing, Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust intend to
continue with their collaborative work with equipment suppliers in refining
Smart Home products. Particular attention will be paid to aesthetic design to
enable products to fit unobtrusively within most domestic environments.
Work will also continue to ensure that products have appropriate levels of
intelligence for their applications.
In Edinburgh, further technical development work is planned. This will
involve health and activity monitoring with residents, in collaboration with
Tunstall Telecom, including remote monitoring and signalling. This work will
connect the on-site Resource Centre with the demonstration flat either via
land-line (cable) or telephone link (modem). It will involve building further
interfaces between Siemens control equipment, video entryphone systems
and Tunstall’s equipment. Touchscreen technology will also be tested in use
as a simple pictorial interface for the control of domestic equipment (e.g.
telephone dialling, window, door and curtain operation). It may also be
tested as a memory aid for people with mild forms of dementia.

99
■York
• The house consists of 63 nodes (Devices) that operate on 2 channels (The
Network).
– Channel 1 is the Link power (Combined 48V & Data) and FTT (Free
Topology Transceiver which is Data). On this channel there are 41
nodes including: window openers, door openers, cupboard lifters, tap
controls, smoke detectors, passive infra-red detectors, infra-red
receivers, video switches, door entry and Lonpoints.
– Channel 2 is Power line, on this channel there are 21 nodes, including:
ceiling roses, plug controllers, fan controllers and fluorescent lights.
• The 2 channels are bound together with the Power supply.
• The Power supply node is a battery-backed supply for the Link power &
FTT.
• It also has a Power line router which allows Data to pass between the two
channels.
• The programming is done with a package called Lonmaker™ for
Windows™.
• Most nodes work on a clock rate of between 5 and 10Mhz, or at powers of
2 x 625Khz.
Basic functions
Control Equipment – All non 240V equipment has been pre-wired with ‘bus’
wiring to accept data signalling. Sensors and actuators associated with
heating control and security have been fitted.
Window Motors – Installed and fully operational. Units can be operated via an
infra-red (IR) remote control.
Curtain Motors – Installed and fully operational. A light sensor is fitted to the
site to allow automatic control at dusk/dawn.
APPENDIX 1
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Digital futures
100
Door Motors – Installed and fully operational. Control is via IR with a manual
switch adjacent to the door. Doors can still be opened by hand with pressure
equivalent to a hydraulic door closer.
Video Entry System – Installed and fully operational.
Keyless Door System – Installed and operational, the ‘Dallas token’ used to
operate this system also activates or disables the security alarm.
Bathroom Controls – IR pads have been fitted to control wash hand-basin taps,
bath taps and toilet flush. Flow of water is time-limited.
Kitchen Equipment – Cupboard and sink lifting equipment is fitted and taps
have had electronic valves fitted. All of these are controlled by switches
mounted at worktop height.
See Figure A1.1.
■Edinburgh
• The home network consists of approximately 55 nodes (Bus-Coupling
Units, Binary Inputs/Outputs etc) that are connected to a 2-wire bus
system (The Network), and provide interconnection to all of the devices
controlled within the dwelling, either directly (for those that are EIB
compatible), or via the devices’ own interfaces (usually relay-based). The
2-wire cable carries both data and power. Power (28 Volts DC) can be used
by any actuators or controls connected to the bus, if they do not use
external power supplies (e.g. lighting relays, motorised radiator valves).
Binary data is carried in the form of an AC signal carrier. To prevent this
AC signal affecting the DC power supply, a Choke is fitted to the PSU.
• All of the data transmission between nodes and devices occurs on the bus,
other than those signals that originate from infra-red devices (remote
controls, disabled persons interfaces). Even then, infra-red data is
translated into bus-compatible signals via an IR interface.
• Programming and commissioning the system is achieved by the use of
ETS (EIB Tools Software), which is a Windows-based environment.
• The Touch screen Interface is connected to the bus system and its
associated devices using bridging/visualisation software – CnC ‘Unihub’.
Unihub is broadly based on the ‘Visual Basic’ software package.

Appendix 1
101
A1.1: Schematic design for the York Smart Home

Digital futures
102
Basic functions
Control Equipment (Siemens) – The system is dispersed throughout the house,
but some devices are located in a cupboard in the kitchen. These include:
power supply for communication (bus) system; lighting relays, shutter
(window) switches; timers; logic modules; video entryphone control box;
alarm ‘radio’ triggers; power failure backup (when fitted).
All rooms have been pre-wired with ‘bus’ wiring to accept Siemens devices.
Sensors and actuators associated with heating control and security have been
fitted but are awaiting commissioning.
Window Motors – All windows with the exception of the bathroom are fitted
with motors to open and close them. They can be operated using IR remote
controls including the disabled persons interface, and by using a set of wall
switches. Interaction with other equipment is possible including the heating
and security systems. Window sensors allow the dwelling to know at any
time whether windows are open or closed.
Curtain Motors – Curtains have motor driven tracks fitted and can be
operated using the same range of devices as described with the window
controls. There is also an external light sensor that allows the curtains to be
opened and closed automatically. The curtains can also be linked with
operations of other equipment (e.g. lighting).
Door Motors – Fitted to front and back doors. These can work in either fully
automatic mode, or in ‘Power Assist’ mode, where the user is aided in
opening the door. The doors can also be opened in the conventional manner,
offering no more weight to the door than a conventional hydraulic door
closer. The system is currently set up so that doors can be unlocked and
opened in conjunction with a remote control (including a disabled person’s
interface or touchscreen), an externally mounted sensor and ‘swipe’ key, a
wall mounted push-pad, or via the entryphone system. The system can also
be configured so that doors can be unlocked in an emergency (e.g. in the
event of a fire). Contacts fitted to the doors allow the dwelling to know if the
property is unsecured or if a user has fallen in an open doorway.
Video Entry System – A video-telephone is fitted in the hall, and the video
images are also relayed to the TV in the living-room. The user can switch to
the video image on the TV and then speak to the caller via an audio link
through the Scart socket on the TV. The image could be relayed to another
room (e.g. bedroom) or off-site to a warden or carer.

Appendix 1
103
A1.2: Schematic design for the Edinburgh Smart Home

Digital futures
104
Keyless Door System – Sensors are fitted to the door posts of the front and the
back doors, and these are used to unlock and open the doors without the use
of a traditional key. The sensor is activated using a ‘swipe’ unit about the size
of a keyring fob. Extra swipes can be programmed as necessary and lost or
stolen swipes can be deleted from the system.
Lighting Controls – Lighting can controlled from standard wall switches or
from IR remote controls, or automatically (e.g. by software timer or light
sensor). Lighting circuits are wired independently rather than in the more
traditional ‘ring’ format. No dimming actuators have been fitted, but the
current installation would make modification a simple option.
Bathroom Controls – The bathroom has been fitted with a ‘level entry’ shower
cubicle. This allows wheelchair or walking-frame users to take a shower with
little or no assistance. A half-height shower screen means that carers can
assist in bathing without getting wet.
The wash hand-basin and the shower both have infra-red (‘no touch’)
controls fitted, which allow those with poor manual dexterity to operate taps
and shower. The timing of the water flow can be altered, and the hot water
supply can be thermostatically regulated.
The toilet is a combined bidet (‘Shower Toilet’) and WC. The toilet can wash
and blow dry users, with little or no help from the carer. The toilet is awaiting
the fitting of an interface to allow the flush to be activated using an infra-red
sensor.
Heating Controls – Radiators have motorised valves, and every room (except
the bathroom) has a wall-mounted thermostat. Heating can be ‘zoned’ so that
individual control of temperature is available in every room, or one control
can be used to regulate the whole house. For those people unable to operate
wall-mounted thermostats, an IR remote control or the disabled person’s
interface can be programmed to perform that function. Integration of the
system components means that the heating can link into other devices
including ensuring that windows are closed when the heating comes on. The
room thermostats are also capable of monitoring temperature levels and
detecting potential risk situations such as temperatures dropping to unsafe
levels. This information can be relayed to the warden via the ‘Community’
Alarm telephone.

Appendix 1
105
‘Community’ Alarm Telephone and other Safety Devices – The telephone base unit
allows calls to be made to a Call-Centre in the event of an accident or other
emergency. The Call Centre is operated by Hanover Housing Association. A
pendant unit, if activated by the user, will make an emergency call, but the
system is also linked to three alarm ‘triggers’ that require no direct action by
the user. One trigger is linked to a low temperature alarm, another to smoke,
gas and heat alarms, and the third to movement detectors, pressure pads, and
devices that would indicate inactivity. The heat/smoke/gas alarms when
activated would make emergency calls to the carer. The cooker alarm is also
linked to a safety device that will automatically cut off the supply (gas or
electricity) to the stove. Even after the alarms have stopped, the supply can
only be reinstated by using a reset key (usually kept by the carer). The
activity alarm is linked to movement detectors (PIRs) fitted in every room,
pressure pads fitted at the sides of the bed, and also located in other areas of
the dwelling. Any uncharacteristic lulls in activity or if the user has not been
registered as having got out of bed means that a call can be made to care staff
automatically. Other equipment functions can also be used to raise an
inactivity alarm, and these include: operation of lights; opening
doors/windows, opening curtains; toilet flush or operation of shower/wash
hand-basin.
Loop Induction Amplifier – Fitted in the living-room. This allows hearing aid
users to hear the TV, radio, or the doorbell, without these devices being
uncomfortably loud for people with good hearing. There is also a strobe
‘repeater’ lamp fitted that flashes when the telephone rings – again, for the
hard of hearing.
Audible Reminders – Voice modules that record and store speech digitally have
been tried to assess their value. Potential use is with memory facilities for
example to remind users to close windows and lock doors, or to remind
people to take medication.
‘Touchscreen’ Interface – A touchscreen provides users with a pictorial remote
control. It has been considered as useful for those with learning difficulties
and/or cognitive impairment. The touchscreen interfaces with the dwelling’s
control system and allows the user to operate devices by touching an image
on the screen (e.g. opening the door). The touchscreen requires a computer
enabling other functions to be harnessed with the touchscreen including
spoken prompts and recorded video images.

Digital futures
106
Burglar Alarm and Other Miscellaneous Devices – The burglar alarm has the
potential to be linked to the control system in the house. At the present time,
the burglar alarm can utilise the sensors that the dwelling is already using for
other functions (e.g. pressure pads, window/door contacts, movement
detectors).
An Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) will be fitted to ensure continuity of
operation of equipment in the event of a mains failure. Devices connected
will include door mechanisms and door locks, and where appropriate, the
PC/touchscreen interface.
There are two IR receivers fitted in the dwelling. These are situated in the
living-room and the main bedroom. This allows the designated IR remote
controls interface to be used in the bedroom.
See Figure A1.2.
■Installation experiences
Rowntree
In order to have a more cost effective installation and to have devices more
suited to a domestic environment some bespoke equipment had to be
commissioned. Cabling has not proved to be a major issue with only around
100 metres of additional cabling required in the bungalow.
Edinvar
Delays – The late arrival of Siemens equipment and delays with the Siemens
training course have caused difficulties. Undoubtedly there has been a
serious underestimation of the amount of work involved in the cabling and
installation work. As an indicator of this, by the time all installation is
finished, there is likely to be an additional 350-400 metres of extra cable
installed in the flat.
Wiring – To allow room by room control of lighting circuits via the Siemens
equipment, all lighting circuits in the flat – 9 in total – had to be rewired. This
was both time-consuming and messy, and has led to a need for complete
redecoration of the demonstrator site. With the addition of circuits for other
equipment, the electrical distribution board is approaching its maximum
capacity.

Appendix 1
107
Modifications to Building Structure/Fixtures – To accommodate some equipment
or to make it operate correctly, major and minor changes have been made.
These include the relocation of the doors within their frames to allow door
motors to operate smoothly, modification of window locks to fit motor
controls, stripping out the bathroom, removal of skirting boards and refixing
them using cup washers and screws etc. Whilst the existing ‘homebus’ voids
behind skirting boards have been used, siting of radiators and other fixtures
has made the fitting of cable trunking necessary. If some or all of the
technologies used are to be replicated elsewhere, changes to existing building
specifications will need to be considered.

108
By Ken Bromley, BRE
❑1 Introduction
This report reviews communications protocols with the potential for
application in Smart Homes and residential buildings, including in links to
remote control centres. Applications include management and control of
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting control, fire
detection and prevention, security and access control (including the use of
video), metering of fuel and power, telemedicine, etc.
All the protocols described below have to a greater or lesser extent become
accepted standards, having gained the support either of an association of
manufacturers or of European and international standardisation committees.
■1.1 Communications levels
Communications networks can be conveniently grouped into four types or
‘levels’ according to their performance and cost1:
• the field network – a low level, low cost network for linking small
devices such as intelligent sensors, actuators and unitary controllers
• the controller or automation network – a more powerful network that
interconnects devices such as HVAC controllers and user interfaces
forming part of a building management system
• the system interconnection or management network – a local area
network (LAN) for interconnecting different systems within a building,
for example HVAC control systems, security systems and fire alarm
systems
• the building interconnection network – a wide area network (WAN) for
linking buildings together over large distances.
APPENDIX 2
TECHNICAL STANDARDS

Appendix 2
109
■1.2 Protocol layers
The Open System Interconnection (OSI) reference model (ISO standard 7498)
defines a design template for data communications standards. The model
comprises seven functional ‘layers’: Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport,
Session, Presentation and Application. Each layer corresponds to a specific
function or service in data communications. The aim of the standard is to
enable everyone participating in an information network to share resources
freely, over any distance and in any form. Standards are needed to define the
protocols for implementing the functions of all the layers. Products that
comply with the same set of OSI standards will be able to communicate
without the need for special ‘gateways’.
Protocols like Ethernet and Token Ring implement the lower layers of the
model and are concerned, for example, with how information is converted
into electrical signals, encoded into bits of data, and passed from one device
to another. Protocols like BACnet implement the highest layers and are
concerned with management functions such as security, privacy and
authority. The LonTalk protocol implements all seven layers.
For a particular application, a number of protocols may be needed to cover
all layers of the OSI model and all communications levels. For example,
LonTalk, Ethernet and BACnet are among protocols that have been chosen by
CEN/TC247 for the field, automation and management levels in building
management system applications2.
For devices to be able to communicate (for example to share temperature
readings), they must speak a common language as well as comply with the
same protocols. Standards like BACnet and LonTalk, therefore, not only cover
the application layer of the OSI model, but they also specify the
communications language. The language is specified in terms of ‘objects’, an
example of an object being an input channel for measuring temperature (see
Section 2.9).
❑2 Review of protocols
■2.1 Relevant features
The following features of protocol standards are of interest with respect to
Smart Homes, and where possible are addressed in the individual descriptions
of the various buses beginning in Section 2.2 below:

Digital futures
110
•Typical applications: whether intended for use in homes, commercial
buildings or factories.
•Physical layer: possibilities for using mains signalling (power-lines),
copper wiring (including unscreened twisted pair, screened twisted
pair, coaxial), optical fibre, cordless infra-red and radio technologies.
•Main characteristics: transmission speed (kbit/s), suitability for audio,
data and video, topology, maximum number of devices on bus,
maximum length, expandability, need for repeaters, and power
requirements.
•Compatibility: with other protocols, with structured cabling systems3,4,
availability of gateways for interlinking systems, schemes for product
certification.
•Acceptance: incorporation in European/international standards,
adoption by manufacturers and users.
•Ease of installation: requirements for cabling and power, opportunities
for using structured wiring, need for installation precautions (against
electrical interference and for safety).
•Ease of commissioning: method of setting device addresses (hardware
or software), availability of plug and play, need for user programming.
•Ease of use: quality of user interface.
•Adaptability/expandability: constraints imposed by power, cabling
and network design, existence of third party suppliers of hardware and
software, cost.
•Reliability/robustness: immunity to electrical interference, use of error
correction, complexity of hardware and software, effect of heavy
network traffic.
•Security: security of data transmission, suitability for use in safety-
related applications (for example fire detection), data privacy.
•Safety: use of extra low voltage (SELV, PELV or FELV), any restrictions
on use in bathrooms and outdoors.
•Power requirements: voltage, current, availability of power from bus.
•Costs: hardware costs per communications node, and of cabling; costs
of system and applications software; costs of maintenance and
upgrading.
•Future developments: in standardisation, adoption by market.

Appendix 2
111
■2.2 BatiBUS
The BatiBUS standard was developed by the French company Merlin Gerin,
and is supported by a club (BatiBUS Club International, or BCI) comprising
many European companies5. It is a simple, low cost bus for field network
level communications in homes, offices, schools, hospitals and industrial
premises. It has been developed for control of lighting, heating, security, fire
detection, hot water and other building services.
The bus is based on twisted pair cable (but with options for infra-red and
radio). The bus topology is bus, ring, tree or star. The maximum cable length
is 2500 m, with a maximum distance of 600 m between the supply and the
farthest point. The transmission rate is 4.8 kbit/s.
Central control of the system bus is from a PC or a special central control
unit. The special control unit provides the bus with power (at 15 Vdc) so that
devices can be powered directly from the bus. Up to 1000 points can be
connected to the bus, with up to 75 powered directly from the bus. There is a
maximum of 240 addresses and 24 channels per system. However, a number
of systems can be linked together through a so-called J-bus.
The address of each device on the bus can be set in hardware or software.
Groupe Schneider has chosen to use thumb-wheels on its products, which are
accessible without the use of a tool.
Disconnection or omission of a device does not affect the system’s integrity.
The system also has collision detection.
■2.3 EIB
The European Installation Bus is, like BatiBUS, a standard for field network
level communications5. It was originally developed by a number of German
companies, but is now supported by an association (the EIBA) of European
companies. It is designed to operate in both homes and large commercial
buildings, with or without a central bus manager. Applications include
control of HVAC, lighting, shutters, and monitoring and supervision.
EIB is based on twisted pair cable, with a tree structure consisting of a
backbone and 12 branch lines, each up to 1 km long. Up to 64 devices can be
connected to a branch line. The transmission rate is 9.6 kbit/s. Further
expansion and links to other systems are possible. The system has collision
detection. Busch-Jaeger have now released a power-line solution for EIB.

Digital futures
112
System programming is carried out through a PC or hand-held controller.
Device addresses are set in software. A 24 Vdc supply is available on the bus
to power devices. Inductors are used to condition the transmission line and
prevent the power supply providing a low impedance path at signalling
frequencies.
Unscreened twisted pair cable may be run in power trunking without
electrical interference. This is due to the pulsing method of bus signalling
which gives a high level of immunity to common mode noise. Shielded
double twisted pair cable should be used for long cable runs.
A product certification scheme exists to ensure compatibility between
products from different manufacturers.
■2.4 EHS
The European Home Systems bus (EHS) was developed by Philips, Thomson
and AEG as part of a European funded Esprit II project6. The Esprit bus is the
most comprehensive of the European home buses7in that it provides for the
control and monitoring of energy management systems, lighting, fire and
security systems, voice and data communication, entertainment equipment
and domestic appliances. EHS is the only bus that includes video at present,
but in analogue form.
Data transmission can be along power-lines, twisted pair cable, screened
twisted pair cable, coaxial cable, or plastic optical fibre, or transmission can be
cordless by infra-red or radio. Power for devices is available from the copper
media. The transmission rate depends on the medium, varying from 0.6
kbit/s for radio to 9.6 kbit/s for unscreened twisted pair. Using unscreened
twisted pair cable, the maximum length of cable is 500 m, and the maximum
number of devices is 128. These figures are reduced for screened cables.
Further development of the bus is under the control of the European Home
Standards Association (EHSA)8. In particular, work is underway to merge
EHS with BatiBus and EIB (see section 3 below).
■2.5 European Process Fieldbus
A number of protocols have been developed for use in industrial process
control applications at the field and automation network levels9. The protocols
are also suitable for building automation applications, although they are likely

Appendix 2
113
to be more expensive solutions than the buses described so far, which are
aimed mainly at commercial buildings and homes.
The most highly developed of the process field bus protocols is Profibus,
which was developed in Germany10. It uses screened or unscreened twisted
pair cable at transmission rates of 9.6 to 1.5 Mbit/s. An enhanced version of
Profibus has also been developed that offers a transmission rate of 12 Mbit/s.
Three versions of Profibus now exist: Profibus-FMS for universal application
at the field and automation level, and Profibus-DP and Profibus-PA which
are optimised for the field level. Options are available for powering devices
from the bus and for intrinsically safe operation.
In March 1996, Profibus-FMS and Profibus-DP were ratified as part of
European Standard EN 50170, which covers factory, process and building
automation. EN 50170 also includes two other national field buses, the
Danish P-NET and the French WorldFIP. In Europe all public procurements
for process control applications will now be based on EN 50170 field buses.
IEC standardisation work on field buses has been underway for more than 10
years, but only the Physical layer has so far been ratified. The recently set up
Fieldbus Foundation is now working towards producing a single, integrated
standard for industrial process applications11.
A certification scheme exists for Profibus products to give users the security
that devices from different manufacturers will communicate together on the
same bus. To receive a Profibus certificate, a device must pass conformance
and interoperability tests at an accredited test laboratory. Currently, more
than 100 Profibus products from various manufacturers have been certified.
■2.6 LonWorks
Developed by the Echelon Corporation, the LonWorks network is designed to
provide communications over a variety of physical media for a wide range of
products and systems in building automation and other networked,
distributed control applications5,9,12. Over 2000 companies now have or are
developing LonWorks products. Echelon supply all the hardware and
software tools needed to develop applications.
The network protocol, LonTalk, is implemented in a dedicated integrated
circuit, the Neuron chip, manufactured for Echelon by Motorola and Toshiba.
LonTalk implements all seven layers of the OSI model, using a mixture of

Digital futures
114
hardware and firmware on the Neuron chip. Included are services such as
sender authentication, priority transmissions, duplicate message detection,
collision avoidance, automatic retries, mixed data rates, and error detection
and recovery.
LonTalk supports twisted pair wiring, power-line wiring, radio frequency
and infra-red communication, as well as coaxial and fibre optics media. The
maximum transmission rate is 1.25 Mbit/s.
A LonWorks network can have up to 32,000 nodes, where each node may be,
for example, a proximity sensor, switch, motion detector, relay, motor drive,
instrument or building controller. Communication may be peer-to-peer or
master-slave.
A variety of techniques are used to achieve reliable operation. The protocol
allows successful receipt of a message to be acknowledged, and all packet
transmissions include a full 16 bit error polynomial. Transceivers for
electrically noisy media incorporate forward error correction that can detect
and correct single bit errors without the need for retransmission. The Neuron
chip also contains self-test circuitry, three watchdog timers and a variety of
diagnostic features such as EEPROM memory corruption check.
The protocol is an enhancement of the CSMA technique used by Ethernet,
which provides a linear response with traffic load, predictable response times
for heavily loaded networks, and performance independent of network size.
The LonTalk protocol incorporates a full set of network management
functions, including node address assignment, network diagnostics, etc.
Every packet transmission can also invoke a sender authenticity function.
Product interoperability (see Section 0) is ensured by:
• encapsulating as many features as possible into the chip
• incorporating standard types and objects into the technology so that
products agree on the meaning of shared data
• the existence of an independent body to manage the evolution of the
interoperability model.
A product certification scheme has been established based on a LonMark
logo to indicate that a product has passed conformance tests and complies
with LonMark interoperability guidelines.

Appendix 2
115
The Electronics Industry Association has published LonWorks as an EIA
standard for home automation – EIA 709. Additionally, the protocol is
referenced in the ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and
Air Conditioning Engineers) BACnet control standard for buildings.
Echelon hardware is now becoming available from other sources, and
LonTalk may be implemented on non-Neuron chips, although a fee is
required for a unique chip ID.
■2.7 X10
X10 is a simple, low cost protocol developed in the USA for home
automation over power-lines13. It dates from 1977, and products have been
developed since then for a wide range of simple home automation
applications, including switching devices on and off and dimming lights. Up
to 256 devices can be addressed. However, most communications are one
way only from the controller to the device, so that receipt and recognition of
a command cannot be verified. To improve reliability, data bits are sent
twice.
■2.8 CEBus
The Consumer Electronics Bus, CEBus, was developed by the US Electronic
Industries Association for residential applications, and is specified in the
standard EIA-60013. CEBus provides a special language for home automation
functions, and uses a proprietary signalling method devised by the CEBus
committee14 that operates at 6.7 kbit/s. Data transmission can be over
power-lines, coaxial cable, twisted pair, infra-red or radio.
Data transmission over power-lines using CEBus is based on ‘spread
spectrum’ signalling for improved reliability. However, the bandwidth
extends to 400 kHz, which rules this out as an option in Europe where the
maximum allowed band for consumer power-line applications is 95 to 148.5
kHz (with most companies operating in the ‘access-control’ band of 125 to
140 kHz).
The protocol uses 4 layers of the OSI model, namely the Physical, Link,
Network and Application layers. The communications hardware and
protocol are available as an Intellon integrated circuit, and other components
are available for interfacing to power-lines and radio.

Digital futures
116
■2.9 BACnet
Developed by ASHRAE, BACnet specifies a suite of communications
protocols and a comprehensive set of messages for connecting together
building automation components from different manufacturers15. It can be
used at the field, controller and management levels, by smart sensors and
actuators, unitary controllers, programmable controllers, and central
computers.
The protocols specified by BACnet are the LANs Ethernet, Arcnet, MS/TP
and LonTalk, and the serial interface EIA-23216. The content of the messages,
the BACnet language, is the major part of the standard. The language is
specified in terms of ‘objects’, ‘properties’ and ‘services’ based on a
sophisticated model for describing all types of building automation systems.
Altogether there are 18 objects, each of which has a standard set of properties.
For example, one standard object is the ‘analogue input’ object (traditionally
referred to as a ‘point’ in the building controls industry). Its properties include
‘description’ (for example ‘outside temperature’), ‘device type’ (for example
‘themistor’), ‘present value’ (for example ‘21’), and ‘units’ (for example
‘degrees C’). Altogether, there are 123 properties of objects.
Services are the means by which one BACnet device acquires information
from another device, commands another device to perform certain actions, or
announces to one or more devices that some event has taken place. For
example, a display device could request the ‘outside temperature’ object to
return its ‘present value’. BACnet defines 32 services.
BACnet was adopted by ANSI in December 1995 (ANSI/ASHRAE 135-1995),
and it is now under review by the International Standards Organisation (ISO).
Standard Microsystems Corporation (SMC) recently announced a single chip
implementation of Arcnet (ANSI 878.1), one of the LAN protocols specified in
BACnet, which is designed specifically for embedded control in BACnet-
based building control applications at speeds from 156 kbit/s to 5 Mbit/s.
■2.10 FND
Developed by the German public authorities, FND (Firm Neutral Data
transmission) is a standard for building to building communications. It
implements the Application layer of the OSI Model, and requires the use of
gateways (based on the CCITT standards X.21 and X.25) onto a local or wide
area network.

Appendix 2
117
■2.11 ISO LAN standards
Four common LAN standards are dealt with by ISO 8802: Ethernet (ISO
8802/3), Token Ring (ISO 8802/5), Token Bus (ISO 8802/4) and Slotted Ring
(ISO 8802/7).
Ethernet is the most popular for building management and control
applications, and can be used at the automation and management levels of
building control. It was originally developed jointly by DEC, Intel and Rank
Xerox for general office, retail, banking and factory use. The transmission
speed is up to 10 Mbit/s over coaxial or twisted pair cable, although 4 Mbit/s
is the limit for long packets, and performance with short packets is very poor
due to the inter-packet gaps. Systems that operate at speeds of up to 100
Mbit/s over Category 5 twisted pair cable are also available.
■2.12 ATM
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) was originally developed for use by the
telecommunications industry as a long-distance ‘backbone’ protocol, but is
being adopted increasingly by businesses as a high performance local area
network17. It may have applications in linking Smart Homes to control centres
where security of transmission is vital (for example to report the outbreak of
a fire or serious illness).
ATM offers significant benefits when compared with alternative networking
technologies. It is supported by the ATM Forum, an industry-wide group
comprising suppliers and users, which has become the de facto standards
making body of the ATM industry. Compatible equipment is readily available
from a range of suppliers.
ATM transmits data in fixed length blocks comprising 48 bytes of data and a
5 byte header, a form of packet structure used by other protocols such as
Ethernet. However, whereas with Ethernet no communication takes place
between the sending and receiving terminals before data are transmitted,
with ATM there is first a call set up phase to define the connection path. With
this technique, data transmission speeds greater than 1 Gbit/s can be
achieved. Unlike Ethernet, ATM also copes well with large numbers of users.
The feature that makes ATM unique is that existing standards specify five
service levels. These range from low speed, constant bit rate applications
such as voice, to high speed, bursty applications such as file transfer between

Digital futures
118
a server and a client. The quality of service across an ATM network can
therefore be controlled. Ethernet, Token Ring and FDDI networks do not
distinguish between critical data and non-critical data. For example, the
transmission of a CAD image or a multi-million pound banking transaction
can be delayed by someone playing games or browsing the Internet. ATM
can guarantee that voice and video are delivered simultaneously with
minimal jitter, and are not interrupted by, say, e-mail. ATM is thus ideally
suited to multimedia applications.
The final attraction of ATM is its scalability. Using ATM, data packets can be
transmitted at whatever speed is appropriate. With existing networks, the
technology has to change as the transmission speed increases – for example
serial line to Ethernet, Ethernet to FDDI, FDDI to HPPI. In contrast, existing
ATM equipment can support data rates ranging from 2 Mbit/s for low speed
wide area networks, through to 25 Mbit/s and 155 Mbit/s for desktop
workstation connections, and up to 2.5 Gbit/s for backbones.
❑3 Progress on European standardisation of
protocols for homes and buildings
■3.1 Merger of European buses
An important recent development has been the agreement to merge BatiBUS,
EIB and EHS into a new HBES standard, known for the moment as the
‘Convergence’ protocol. Work on harmonising the standards is being led by
the European Homes Systems Association (EHSA) with the support of the
companies Schneider and Seimens.
There are technical difficulties in merging the standards due to fundamental
differences in the basic structure of the protocols. For example, whereas EIB is
‘data driven’, EHS is ‘command-based’. Also, they use fundamentally
different addressing mechanisms, and EHS is not currently very suitable for
large installations. Nevertheless, the plan is that BatiBUS and EIB will both be
compatible with the new Convergence protocol and will continue to be
supported by Schneider and Seimens.
A detailed draft specification was submitted to the members of BCI, EIBA
and EHSA in March 1998, and the final version of the specification is now
nearing completion. The first products incorporating the Convergence

Appendix 2
119
protocol are scheduled to be released in 1999, and Landis & Staefa and
Honeywell Centra have confirmed that they will shortly release certified
products.
■3.2 Activity within CEN/CENELEC
Two European standardisation committees are working on protocol
standards for building automation. CEN committee TC247 is developing
standards for controls for mechanical building services, including building
management systems, for use principally in commercial buildings, while
CENELEC (CLC) TC205 is developing standards for home and building
electronic systems.
Both committees are in the process of choosing communications protocols for
inclusion in their standards. CEN/TC247 has made more progress than
CLC/TC205, although it has not been able to settle on just one protocol for
each of the field, automation and management levels. Instead the
CEN/TC247 standard will contain a list of protocols from which
manufacturers and users will choose the ones most suited to their
application. Table A2.1 (from reference 2) summarises the present state of
CEN/TC247’s standard.
CEN/TC247 is now working on the definition of common objects for the
selected protocols. The management and controller level protocols FND and
Profibus already have a subset of the BACnet objects. Field level objects are
much more basic, since they cover communications between simple devices
like sensors and actuators rather than with a user interface or central station.
CEN/TC247 and CLC/TC205 are working together to write a common set of
object definitions for field level protocols. These will be related to the objects
used at other levels, particularly by BACnet.
It will be some time before it will be possible to ‘mix and match’ components
from different manufacturers of building services systems2. At the moment,
building a system with components from different manufacturers is likely to
compromise system performance and increase engineering time. Once object
definitions have been agreed, the problems of linking different protocols will
become easier. In the meantime, Table A2.2 indicates how good compatibility
can be achieved for systems constructed using the levels concept, and so that
networks can ‘co-exist’ sharing a common cabling system.

Digital futures
120
Table A2.1 CEN/TC247 selected protocols for HVAC control systems
Level Objects Transmission Source Standard
Management FND X25 to FND network access unit Germany ENV 1805-2: 1996
BACnet PSTN/dial up modem ASHRAE, ENV 1805-1: 1998
Ethernet – 10 Mbit/s USA
Automation Profibus Profibus FMS – twisted pair – Germany ENV 13321-1: 1999
9.6 kbit/s to 1.5 Mbit/s
WorldFIP WorldFIP – twisted pair – 31.25 France ENV 13321-1: 1999
kbit/s to 2.5 Mbit/s
BACnet PSTN/dial up modem ASHRAE, ENV 13321-1: 1999
Ethernet – 10 Mbit/s USA
LonTalk – 1.25 Mbit/s or 78 kbit/s
EIB EIB – twisted pair – 9.6 kbit/s EIBA, Draft ENV 13321-2
Germany
Field EIB EIB – twisted pair – 9.6 kbit/s EIBA, ENV 13154-2: 1998
Germany
BatiBUS BatiBUS – twisted pair – 4.8 kbit/s BCI, ENV 13154-2: 1998
France
LonWorks LonTalk – twisted pair – 78 kbit/s Echelon, ENV 13154-2: 1998
USA
EHS Various media Europe ENV 13154-2: 1998
Table A2.2 Examples of protocols for compatibility in building management systems
applications
Poor compatibility Good compatibility
Management FND BACnet over Ethernet
Automation BACnet BACnet over LONtalk
Field BatiBUS LONworks over LONtalk

Appendix 2
121
‘Coexistence’ is just the first step to full ‘interoperability’. With coexistence,
different systems can send private messages over the same network cabling.
In this way, infrastructure costs are shared, and, moreover, system
development is not constrained by standardisation. ‘Interworking’ is the
second step, in which there is transmission of selected values between
different systems in an open way. ‘Interoperability’ is the final step, in which
products communicate completely openly in accordance with a standard
protocol. The main benefit is the ability to choose system components from
different manufacturers, although the disadvantages are that system
engineering becomes more difficult and innovation may be inhibited.
❑4 Structured wiring
A ‘structured wiring system’ is an integrated cabling system for all the
electronic and computer systems in a building4. The structured wiring may
comprise a selection of different types of cable including unscreened twisted
pair and co-axial cable installed along common trunking, conduit or cable
trays. The cables may carry signals for voice, data, building control, fire,
security, home entertainment and video. Special wall outlets provide a
convenient means of making connections in any part of a building to the
desired technical system. All incoming signals are routed through a central
wiring closet. Power cabling is kept separate from the structured wiring.
It is suggested that a structured wiring system will reduce the initial
construction costs for a commercial building by up to 30%. It also gives the
building the ability to adapt and respond quickly and easily to the changing
requirements of building users, cutting the cabling related costs of ‘churn’ by
up to 60%. For homes, although initial wiring costs may be higher, structured
wiring provides a convenient way of accommodating future smart systems.
The international standard for structured wiring is IEC 11801. Two
commercially available US products are AMP’s OnQ and Lucent’s Homestar.
❑5 Residential gateways
The transmission within, and to and from, homes of digital data, video and
other signals is being addressed by both CENELEC committee CLC/TC205
and the IEEE in the US (standardisation projects P1355 and P1394).

Digital futures
122
Consideration is being given to the need for an ‘electronic consumer unit’ – or
‘residential gateway’ – for the different types of digital data, to decode,
encode, and route the signals to their destination.
Current thinking is that high-speed, broadband data (for example video and
ATM) should be kept separate from low-speed control and information data
(for example power-line and BatiBUS). The residential gateway provides a
point of contact for the broadband and narrow band signals so that, for
example, commands can be sent from a video screen to a washing machine,
or devices can send information to the screen.
The chosen communications protocols will determine the type of residential
gateway needed. Whether the gateway can be a simple router or must be a
more complex ‘application gateway’ will depend on the underlying structure
of the protocols, as well as on requirements for maintaining safety and
security. The complexity of the gateway needed can be used as a criterion for
selecting communications protocols.
ATM could in principle be used as a common network for high speed and
low speed data to and from Smart Homes, but it is too expensive for use
within homes.
❑6 Analysis and discussion
The X-10, CEBus and FND protocols will be excluded from further
consideration in this paper. The X-10 bus is very low cost, but communication
is in only one direction and reliability and security are inherently very poor.
CEBus is a technology that has been developed for the US market, it is not
being considered by CLC/TC205 or CEN/TC247, and the standard power-
line option does not comply with European regulations. FND is unique to
Germany.
■6.1 Comparison of features of main protocols
Table A2.3 presents a comparison of the main protocols with potential for
application within and between Smart Homes. The table is intended to be used
as a basis for further discussion with system manufacturers and suppliers,
and may change in the light of feedback.

Appendix 2
123
An explanation of the terms used in the ‘features’ column is given in Section
2.1. The application areas (homes, commercial buildings, factories) are given
in order of potential market size. All other features are given a rating between
1 and 5, where 5 is ‘best’ (for example highest performance, lowest cost).
The protocols most suitable for use within Smart Homes are the field level
(and possibly controller level) protocols. These are the lowest cost (and
lowest performance) network protocols, but apart from EHS make no
provision for video.
Table A2.3 Comparison of features of main protocols
Feature Protocol
BatiBUS EIB EHS Profibus LonTalk/ Ethernet/ PSTN/ ATM/
LonWorks BACnet BACnet BACnet
BACnet
Application C, H, F C, H, F C, H, F F, C C, H, F C C, F, H C
Performance 1 2 2 3, 4 3 4 4 5
Range of media 3 2 5 2 5 2 2 2
Compatibility 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5
Acceptance 2 2 1 3 3 5 5 3
Ease of installation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ease of commissioning 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ease of use 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Adaptability 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Reliability 2 3 2 4 3 5 1 5
Security 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5
Safety 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3
Power requirements 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1
Costs 5 4 4 3 4 2 3 1
■6.2 The views of the market
Within Europe, the main battle in commercial buildings at the field and
controller level is between the BatiBUS/EIB/EHS group of protocols,
LonWorks, and the European process control bus Fieldbus.
The future of BatiBUS and EIB is uncertain following the agreement between
Schneider and Siemens to merge the buses in a new version of EHS, known
as the ‘convergence’ protocol. It is not yet clear that all the technical problems
can be overcome. However, there is significant support among manufacturers

Digital futures
124
for the buses, especially in France and Germany where BatiBUS and EIB have
large markets. Electrolux is apparently committed to using the new EHSA
protocol in future domestic products. Landis & Staefa and Honeywell Centra
have announced that they will launch certified products shortly.
In the UK and Scandinavia, LonWorks appears to be the favourite among
consultants and manufacturers of building control systems for commercial
buildings. It is believed that most of the major European controls companies
are gearing up to provide LonWorks as an option to users, and new
companies such as SeaChange have adopted LonWorks exclusively.
The European Fieldbus is supported by a large number of process control
companies throughout Europe. However, process control products have
traditionally been significantly more expensive than building control
products.
The view of many – but by no means all – in the building controls industry is
that LonWorks is becoming the de facto standard for commercial buildings in
the UK. The technical performance of the buses is not the main issue as they
all work, although they all have advantages, disadvantages and problems.
The main concern is that everyone should agree to use the same protocol.
❑7 Conclusions
Developments in standardisation of communications protocols suitable for
Smart Homes and buildings are still taking place.
Of the field and controller level buses, the European Fieldbus (Profibus) is the
first to become part of a European standard, but it is primarily intended for
industrial process control applications, and may be too expensive and over-
engineered for home applications.
The field level buses BatiBUS, EIB, EHS and LonWorks are all close to
becoming recognised as European standards for environmental control
applications (heating, ventilation and air conditioning). The future of the first
three is a little uncertain following the decision of BCI, EIBA and EHSA in
February 1997 to begin a ‘process of convergence’ leading to a new version of
EHS. The first products incorporating the ‘Convergence’ protocol are
scheduled to become available in 1999. Landis & Staefa and Honeywell

Appendix 2
125
Centra have already confirmed that they will launch certified products
shortly. It looks likely that, if the convergence work is successful, the
Convergence protocol will share the homes and commercial buildings
markets in Europe with LonWorks.
In the UK commercial buildings sector, the view of many in the UK controls
industry is that LonWorks is now becoming the de facto standard.
If the different systems in buildings are to be able to communicate, they must
not only comply with the same protocols, but they must also speak the same
language. Languages are specified in terms of ‘objects’, and the most
comprehensive set of objects is contained in BACnet, which is now a
European ENV standard. Profibus and FND already contain a subset of the
BACnet objects. Work by CEN/TC247 and CLC/TC205 on defining a
common set of BACnet-compatible objects for their field level protocols is
nearing completion. It will not be possible to ‘mix and match’ components
from different manufacturers of building services systems – that is to achieve
full ‘interoperability’ – until these object definitions have been agreed.
Transmission of digital video requires a high bandwidth network like
Ethernet or ATM working over Category 5 twisted pair cable or coaxial cable.
Of the home and building buses, only EHS has been designed to carry video,
but in an analogue rather than digital form. It is likely that, for the foreseeable
future, video will be kept separate from low speed control and information
data. Structured wiring systems can provide separate cables for video and
other types of data. However, there is then a requirement for a ‘residential
gateway’ or ‘electronic consumer unit’ to route signals between, say, video
screens and other devices like washing machines on the field bus.
An application of ATM may be to link Smart Homes to control centres where
security of transmission is vital (for example to report the outbreak of a fire or
serious illness).
❑8 References
1 K Bromley. Building IT 2000, pp 152-156. The Building Centre Trust. May
1991.
2 C Chapman. Communications standards – are they finished? Building
Services and Environmental Engineer, pp 23-26, January 1997.

Digital futures
126
3 The EOSYS cabling guide for building professionals. Architects’ Journal,
June/July 1988.
4 B Sewell. Structured wiring systems for intelligent buildings. Proceedings
of IB/IC Intelligent Buildings Congress, Tel-Aviv, Israel, March 1997.
5 Members guide to home and building electronic systems. Electrical
Contractors’ Association, July 1992.
6 A technical guide to European Home Systems. Home Systems
Components Consortium, December 1994.
7 Waiting for the right bus. Electrical Contractor, January 1991.
8 http://www.ehsa.com
9 Protocol roundup. HPAC, Connectivity, February 1997.
10 http://www.profibus.com
11 G Wool. Regulation updates for the thinking, feeling building. IEEIE,
January 1997.
12 http://www.echelon.com
13 M Yomura. Analysis of building automation systems. Proceedings of
IB/IC Intelligent Buildings Congress, Tel-Aviv, Israel, March 1997.
14 http://www.cebus.com
15 W Swan. The language of BACnet. Engineered Systems Magazine, 1996.
16 W Swan. Internetworking with BACnet. Engineered Systems Magazine,
1997.
17 N Squibb. Networking à la mode. IEE Review, January 1997.

127
A number of projects across Europe are exploring the possibilities of
emerging Smart Home technologies. Several are investigating the provision of
services to the elderly and people with disabilities. The social groups targeted
by this research and development activity vary considerably (see Table A3.1).
The following listings are by no means comprehensive, but provide an
indication of other demonstration work in the field.
■Portsmouth
The Portsmouth Smart Home project is a joint research project with the
following partners: Portsmouth City Council; The University of Portsmouth;
and John Grooms Housing Association. With funding from the Housing
Corporation, the project aims to produce design solutions to assist people
with disabilities to live independently. A total of six units are to be built in
Portsmouth using these designs. The project will examine the use of Smart
Homes technologies in conjunction with architectural solutions. As new build
properties the design will incorporate ways to include the additional cabling
and motor equipment required by Smart Home systems. Of the six dwellings
only three will actually have the additional electronics installed at
construction stage. The project is currently in the design stage with designs
being evaluated by potential user groups in the Portsmouth area prior to
construction.
■Integer
The INTEGER (Intelligent and Green) project has its roots in a conceptual
design prepared by Cole Thompson Associates for the DTI UK Now
exhibition in November 1997. INTEGER now comprises over 150 partner
organisations and is promoting ‘intelligent technology for managing the
systems within the home and for communications to and from the home’.
APPENDIX 3
EUROPEAN SMART HOME RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Digital futures
128
INTEGER were asked, based on the conceptual design, to build a
demonstration house by the BBC which was filmed during construction and
broadcast in early 1999.
The house utilised a variety of smart devices and protocols (EIB for lighting,
Echelon for heating and access control, and EHS for whitegoods control) to
improve control, comfort, safety and security for the occupants as well as
assist in energy conservation. The choice of protocols was based on those
suppliers prepared to donate products to the project.
INTEGER are trying to apply these ideas to affordable housing. They are
currently working on plans for around 100 social housing units on sites in
West Bromwich, Harlow, Maidenhead and North Wiltshire with construction
expected next year. Refurbishment of existing properties is being examined as
a research area for INTEGER in the future.
■Rice Homes
Rice Homes, a speculative house builder based in Hertfordshire is examining
the market potential of installing small home networks in new built homes.
Based on a system developed by ITT Cannon, the network consists of CAT 5
cabling to multiple sockets in each room linked at a patch panel. This
network can be used to carry computer data, video images, sound from the
stereo, and telephony, with each socket able to carry out any function and be
altered by the user as required.
■Anchor
The Anchor Trust has been carrying out research in collaboration with British
Telecom to examine the use of ICTs as a monitoring and emergency alert
system for elderly people. The system uses movement, heat, and contact
sensors to monitor the level of activity in the dwelling. This information is
recorded in a control box attached to the telephone. On a regular basis this
information is remotely downloaded and analysed. Over time, a pattern of
activity is developed which can then be checked and in the case of an
abnormal activity period (e.g. lack of movement at a time expected) alert
carers. Carer alert is again handled by the remote system and can page
through a number of carers by telephone until one of them confirms that they
are able to respond to the alert. The system is currently on trial on a number
of sites across the UK.

Appendix 3
129
■RESO
This brings together organisations from across Europe, including social
housing providers, industry, research establishments, advocacy groups and
technical consultants.
The individual demonstration sites are platforms for the introduction of
integrated services in health care, household assistance, security, meal
delivery, and minor repairs, as well as the information and communications
services. The Vällingby demonstrator (Hunhammar 1996), for example, is
testing videophone services between flats and the district housing office, and
between flats and the communal entrance, and electronic bulletin board
controlled by the janitor and tenants, and an automatic booking system for
the communal laundry facility, with remote monitoring of the progress of the
washing cycle. A building access system connected to the lift and the doorkey
is also being tested.
Specific groups targeted by the RESO projects have been derived from
interviews with user groups, individual users, and professionals. The
Vällingby scheme, for example, is exploring technologies which are able to
cope with the changing needs of six groups of older and disabled people with
contrasting daily living requirements (see Hjælpemiddelinstituttet, no date):
1. Older people living at home
2. Older people in sheltered accommodation
3. Older people in nursing homes
4. Physically disabled people living at home
5. Physically disabled people in shared accommodation
6. People with brain damage in care institutions.
■Majala, Finland
A major scheme at Majala in Joensuu (Routio 1996) involves the construction
of new homes which are adaptable to the changing needs of all residents. No
specific homes for people with disabilities will be built, as each dwelling is
planned and constructed to promote flexibility and accessibility. As well as
the inclusion of lifetime homes concepts, the scheme involves the
implementation of teleworking systems to benefit people who have
difficulties in reaching their offices. Public information and teleshopping
services have been designed for maximum accessibility.

Digital futures
130
Table A3.1 Examples of other European Smart Home research and development projects
Project
RESO Programme:
Vällingby (Sweden),
Chateauroux (France),
Almere (Netherlands)
HS-ADEPT project (TIDE
Programme, Project
1102)
RACE project (Germany,
Netherlands, Italy,
Sweden, Finland and
Portugal)
Örebro (Sweden)
ESPACE XXI (France)
Ler-bo (Denmark)
‘Sophie’s House’
(Denmark)
Majala (Joensuu,
Finland)
Target groups/needs
Elderly and disabled people
resident in social housing.
Aims to improve quality of
life via user-friendly home
services based on
telecommunication media.
Disabled and older people.
Integrated home systems to
offer improved access and
control of the domestic
environment.
Elderly and disabled people.
Community care applications
of videotelephony.
Young people with physical
disabilities. Shared
accommodation with
technical aids.
People with multiple
physical disabilities.
Older people with injuries
caused by falling.
Exhibition house designed to
test technical aids for older
and disabled persons.
All population groups.
Construction of new homes
which are adaptable to
changing household needs.
Smart Home applications
Integrated services in health care,
household assistance, security,
meal delivery, minor repairs, and
information and communications
services.
Includes alarm services and
physiotherapy.
Integrated technical solutions
with full functional control.
Solutions are limited to controll-
ing lights, curtains, and venetian
blinds, and simple switch control.
Lifetime homes concepts,
teleworking systems to benefit
people who have difficulties in
reaching their offices, public
information and teleshopping
services designed for maximum
accessibility.

131
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. (1986) Sovereign Individuals of
Capitalism, London, Allen & Unwin.
Abramson, P. and Ingelhart, R. (1995) Value Change in Global Perspective, Ann
Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Bannert, M. and Kunkel, K. (1991) ‘What can be learned from research in
human-computer interaction?’, European Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 41,
No. 4, pp. 271-278.
Barlow, J. (1999) ‘From craft production to mass customisation. Innovation
requirements for the UK housebuilding industry’, Housing Studies, Vol. 14,
No. 1.
Barlow, J. and Gann, D.M. (1998) ‘A Changing Sense of Place: are integrated
IT systems reshaping the home?’, presented at Technological Futures, Urban
Futures Conference, Durham, 23-24 April 1998.
Barrow, M. and Bachan, R. (1997) The Real Cost of Poor Homes: Footing the Bill:
How Poor Quality Housing Affects the Lives of Residents and Service Providers, A
Report prepared for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London.
Bedrosian, M. and Bedrosian, A. (1994) ‘Technology in the home: a
benefit/cost analysis’, in Bjerk, K. and Borreby, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the
International Working Conference on Home-Oriented Informatics, Telematics and
Automation. University of Copenhagen, 27 June – 1 July.
Birnbaum, J. (1999) After the Internet, London, The Royal Academy of
Engineering.
Bjørneby, S. (Ed.) (1994) Technology for Independent Living in Life Cycle Housing,
Proceedings from the BESTA International Conference, 8-9 June 1994, Oslo,
Norway.
BMA (1995) Taking care of the carers, February, p. 3.
Brech, J and Potter, P (eds.) (1994) Growing Older In The Community: European
Projects In Housing And Planning, London, Anchor Housing Trust.
APPENDIX 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Digital futures
132
Bright, J. (1996) Lifetime Homes: Built today, designed for tomorrow, York, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Buckby, S. (1998) ‘Care homes regulator planned’, Financial Times, September
25, p. 9.
Burley, R. (1994) ‘Towards a house building technology for the adaptable
smarter home’, presented at the BESTA International Conference, Technology
for Independent Living in Life Cycle Homes, Lillehammer, Norway, 8-9 June.
Burley, R. (1998) ‘Ideal homes?’, Managing Care, December, p. 18.
Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City. Information Technology, Economic
Restructuring and the Urban-Regional Process, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1998) The Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I-III,
Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Cawson, A. and Lewis, J. (1999) A report summarising academic research and
public domain market research on attitudes to and use of Information Technologies in
the Home, prepared for the DTI by SIMI, Brighton.
Construction Industry Board (1998) Strategic Review of Construction Skills
Training, London, Thomas Telford Publishing.
Cullen, K. and Moran, R. (1991) Technology and the Elderly, Dublin, EKOS.
Dard, P. (1996) ‘Dilemmas of telesurveillance in housing’, Paper presented at
the ENHR Housing Conference, Helsingør, August.
Devries, G., Vangelderen, T. and Brigham, F. (1994) ‘Usability laboratories at
Philips – supporting research, development, and design for consumer and
professional products’, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1-2,
pp. 119-127.
Dicken, P. (1992) Global Shift. The Internationalisation of Economic Activity,
London, Paul Chapman.
DOE (1995) Projections of Households in England to 2016, London, HMSO.
Doughty, K. Cameron, K. and Garner, P. (1996) ‘Three generations of telecare
of the elderly’, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, Vol. 2, pp. 71-80.
Doughty, K. and Williams, A. (1999) ‘Smart Sensors for Application in
Integrated Telecare Systems’, paper presented at Hospitals Without Walls
Conference, City University, London, March 24-26.
Drage, G. (1997) ‘What should we as an industry be doing at this stage of
market development?’ Paper presented at the Intelligent Living Conference,
Hanover, 10-11 November 1997.

Appendix 4
133
ESPRIT-HS Consortium (1991) Home System Specification, ESPRIT Home
Systems project 2431.
European Commission (1994) Technology initiative for disabled and elderly people,
TIDE, Directorate General XIII.
Forester, T. (1989) ‘The myth of the electronic cottage’, in T. Forester (ed.)
Computers in the Human Context: Information Technology, Productivity and People,
Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 213-227.
Forty, A. (1986) Objects of Desire: Design and Society 1750-1980, London,
Thames and Hudson.
Gann, D.M. (1992a) Intelligent Building Technologies: Japan and Singapore,
Department of Trade and Industry Expert Mission Visit Report, SPRU,
University of Sussex.
Gann, D.M. (1992b) Intelligent Buildings – Producers and Users, Brighton, SPRU,
University of Sussex.
Gann, D.M., Iwashita, S., Tidd, J. and Barlow, J. (1994) Housing and Home
Automation for the Elderly and Disabled: scoping study, SPRU and the Electrical
Contractors’ Association.
Gann, D.M., Iwashita, I., Barlow, J. and Mandeville, L. (1995) Housing and
Home Automation for People with Disabilities and the Elderly, for Electrical
Contractors’ Association. and Atias Corp (Japan), SPRU, University of Sussex.
Gann, D.M., Tang, P. and Curry, R. (1998) Feasibility Study: Technologies for
Telecare in the Home, working paper, SPRU, University of Sussex, December.
Gann, D.M. (1999) Flexibility and Choice in Housing, Bristol, Policy Press.
Gann, D.M., Tang, P. and Curry, R. (1999 forthcoming) Technologies for Telecare
in the home, Brighton, SPRU, University of Sussex.
Gates, B. (1999) Business @ the speed of thought: using a digital nervous system,
London, Penguin Books.
George, H. (1995) The Good Usability Handbook. London, McGraw Hill.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (1996) Telecommunications and the City. Electronic
Spaces, Urban Places, London, Routledge.
Grinyer, M. (1999) Teleworking: A Good Practice Guide, Coventry, CIH.
Haddon, L. (1996), ‘Home Automation: Research Issues’, in The Smart Home:
Research Perspectives, European Media, Technology and Everyday Life
Network (EMTEL), Working Paper No. 1, University of Sussex, Brighton, May
1996.

Digital futures
134
Haddon, L. (no date) ‘Developments in the US home automation market’,
mimeo.
Haddon, L., Karl, I. and Mandeville, E. (no date) ‘INTEGER: summary of
consumer issues’, (mimeo).
Hardyment, C. (1988) From Mangle to Microwave, Oxford, Polity Press.
Hawkins, R. Mansell, R. and Skea, J. (eds) (1995) Standards, Innovation, and
Competitiveness: the politics and economics of standards in natural and technical
environments, Aldershot, Edward Elgar Publishers.
Heimer, T. (1995) ‘The technological genesis of intelligent homes’, in Esser, J. et
al. (Eds.) Soziale und ökonomische Konflikte in Standardisierungsprozessen,
Frankfurt am Main.
Hepworth, M. (1989) The Geography of the Information Economy, London,
Belhaven.
Hillman, J. (1993) Telelifestyles and the Flexicity: A European Study, Dublin,
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions.
Hirschman, A. (1982) Shifting Involvements: Public Interest and Private Action,
Oxford, Blackwell.
Hix, D. (1993) Developing User Interfaces. Ensuring Usability Through Product and
Process, New York, John Wiley.
Hjælpemiddelinstituttet (no date)‘Smart Home’ for aeldre og handicappede.
(English summary). Hjælpemiddelinstituttet, Denmark.
Holtzman, S. (1997) Digital Mosaics –the aesthetics of cyberspace, New York,
Simon & Schuster.
Hooper, A., Dunmore, K. and Hughes, M. (1998) Home Alone, Amersham, The
Housing Research Foundation, National House Building Council.
Hunhammar, M. (1996) ‘IT-supported residential services – test bed
Vällingby’, Paper presented at the ENHR Housing Conference, Helsingør,
August.
Ingelhart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies, Princeton,
University of Princeton Press.
Jeck, M. (1997) ‘How to make the market for the intelligent home’, Paper
presented at the Intelligent Living Conference, Hanover, 10-11 November 1997.
Johnson, N. (1967) ‘Communications’, Science Journal, October.

Appendix 4
135
Jonscher, C. (1999) Wiredlife: who are we in the digital age? Bantom Press.
Kaku, M. (1998) Visions – how science will revolutionise the twenty-first century,
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Keinonen, T. (1994) ‘Home systems for elderly residents. A usability study’,
Themes 1/1994. STAKES, Nat. Research & Development Centre for Welfare
and Health, Helsinki.
Kerr, P. (1996) Gridiron, London, Vintage.
Knight, R. and Gappert, G. (Eds.) (1989) Cities in a Global Society, London,
Sage.
Lorente, S. (1996) ‘The global house: new user opportunities in automation
and information’, Mimeo, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid.
March, A. (1994) ‘Usability – the new dimension of product design’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 72, No. 5, pp. 144-149.
Martin, F. (1993) Every House You’ll Ever Need: a design guide for barrier free
housing, Edinburgh, Edinvar Housing Association.
Mason, R. (1983) Xanadu, New York, Acropolis Books.
Mason, R. and Jennings, L. (1983) ‘The computer home: will tomorrow’s
housing come alive?’ The Futurist, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 35.
McCafferty, P. (1994) Living Independently. A Study of the Housing Needs of
Elderly and Disabled People, London, HMSO.
Meyer, S. and Schulze, E. (1996) ‘The Smart Home in the 1990s. Acceptance
and Future Usage in Private Households in Europe’, in The Smart Home:
Research Perspectives, The European Media Technology and Everyday Life
Network (EMTEL), Working Paper No. 1, University of Sussex, Brighton.
Miles, I. (1988) Home Informatics: information technology and the transformation of
everyday life, London, Pinter Publishers.
Miles, I., Rush, H., Turner, K., and Bessant, J. (1988) Information Horizons,
Aldershot, Edward Elgar.
Mitchell, W. (1995) City of Bits. Space, Place and the Infobahn, Boston, MIT Press.
Mollenkopf, H. (1993) Technical aids in old age. Between acceptance and rejection,
Arbeitsgruppe Sozialberichterstattung, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für
Sozialforschung.
Moran, R. (1993) The Electronic Home. Social and Spatial Aspects, Dublin,
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions.

Digital futures
136
Mulgan, G. (1991) Communication and Control: Networks and the New Economies
of Communication, Oxford, Polity Press.
Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital, New York, Alfred A. Knopf.
Ody, P. (1999) ‘On the verge of a retail revolution’, Financial Times Survey –
Electronic Business, March 24.
Palmer, S., Gann, D.M., Adams, C., McCosh, A. and MacFarlane, B. (1998)
House from the rising sun: lessons from the Japanese housing delivery experience,
TRADA Technology Research Report.
Parker, G. (1992) ‘Counting care: numbers and types of informal carers’, in
Twigg, J. (ed.) Carers Research & Practice, London, HMSO.
Pentland, A. (1996) ‘Smart rooms’, Scientific American, April, pp. 54-62.
Preece, J. (Ed.) (1993) A Guide to Usability. Human Factors in Computing,
Wokingham, Addison Wesley.
Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996) The Media Equation – how people treat computers,
television, and new media like real people and places, Cambridge University
Press/CSLI.
Robins, K. and Hepworth, M. (1988) ‘Electronic spaces: new technologies and
the future of cities’, Futures, April, pp. 155-176.
Routio, R. (1996) ‘Adaptable smart homes’, Paper presented at the ENHR
Housing Conference, Helsingør, August.
Rowlands, O., et al. (1998) Informal Carers, Results of an independent study
carried out on behalf of the Department of Health as part of the 1995 General
Household Survey, Social Survey Division, Office for National Statistics,
London, The Stationery Office.
The Royal Commission on Long Term Care (1999) With Respect to Old Age:
Long Term Care – Rights and Responsibilities, CM 4192-I, London, The
Stationery Office.
Senker, P. (1998) A note on carer’s needs, Prepared for SPRU, Brighton,
December 1998.
Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: the personal consequences of work in
the new capitalism, New York, Norton.
Shackel, B. (1984) ‘The concept of usability’, in Bennet, J. et al. (eds.) Visual
Display Terminals. Usability Issues and Health Concerns, Engelwood.

Appendix 4
137
Silverstone, R. (1994) ‘Domesticating the revolution – information and
communications technologies and everyday life’, in R. Mansell (Ed.)
Management of Information and Communication Technologies, London, ASLIB,
pp. 221-233.
Smith, S., Alexander, A., Hill, S., McGuckin, A. and Walker, C. (1993)
‘Housing provision for people with health problems and mobility
difficulties’, Housing Research Findings, No. 86, York, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Spackman, A. (1998) ‘The market spins towards deadlock’, Financial Times,
Weekend April 18/19.
Tang, P. and Venables, T. (1999) ‘The application of smart technologies as part
of telecare and telemedicine systems’, Paper prepared for International
Conference on Smart Homes and Telematics, Eindhoven, 22-23 February 1999.
Taylor, R. and Ford, G. (1981) ‘Lifestyle and ageing: three traditions in
lifestyle research’, Ageing and Society, Vol. 1, pp. 329-345.
Toffler, A. (1981) The Third Wave, New York, Morrow.
Twigg, J. and Atkin, K. (1994) Carers Perceived: policy and practice in informal
care, Open University Press.
Westra, J. (1994) ‘H.O.U.S.I.N.G. – housing older users: selecting ingredients,
negotiating gerontechnology’, Paper presented at BESTA International
Conference, Lillehammer.
Wilkinson, H. and Mulgan, G. (1995) Freedom’s Children. Work, Relationships
and Politics for 18-34 Year Olds in Britain Today, London, Demos.
Wilson, B., Evans, J., Emslie, H. and Malnick, V. (199?) ‘Evaluation of
NeuroPage: A New Memory Aid’, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and
Psychiatry, Vol. 63, pp. 113-115.
Wooton, R., Loane, M., Mair, F., Allen, A., Doolittle, G., Begley, M., Mclernan,
A., Moutray, M. and Harrison, S. (1997) ‘A Joint US-UK study of home
telenursing’, paper presented at TeleMed 97, November 27-26, London.
United States General Accounting Office (1997) Telemedicine Federal Strategy is
Needed to Guide Investment.
United States Office of Technology Assessment (1995) Health Care Online: The
Role of Information Technologies.
Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: the future of work and power,
Heinemann.

138
Project participants
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
http://www.jrf.org.uk/jrf.html
Scottish Homes
http://www.scot-homes.gov.uk/
SPRU
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru.imichair
Echelon and Lon Works suppliers
Echelon
http://www.echelon.com/
Zytron
http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/zytron
EIBus
Siemens
http://www.siemens-industry.co.uk/instabus.casestud.edinvar.htm
EIBA
http://www.eiba.be/
Busch-Jaeger
http://www.suedwestfalen.de/homepage/35006/35006_e.html
Other protocols and Smart Homes organisations
COST219
http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/
X-10
http://www.x10.com/homepage.htm
HBS (Japanese)
http://www.hbs.co.jp/
APPENDIX 4
WEB RESOURCES

Appendix 5
139
BATIBUS
http://www.invirtuo.com/batibus.index1.htm
CEBUS
http://www.cebus.org/
CEDIA
http://www.cedia.org/cedia
Home Automation Association
http://www.homeautomation.org/
Foundation Smart Homes
http://www.smart-homes.nl/
Proplan
http://www.proplan.co.uk/
Honeywell Controls
http://europe.hbc.honeywell.com/home/homeautomation.htm
INTEGER
http://www.integerproject.co.uk
CDC Central Data Control
http://www.cdc.uk.com/
Control Network Solutions
http://www.control-network-solutions.co.uk/
Intelligent Systems
http://www.intellsys.com/isha.htm
Smart Systems
http://www.smartsystems-inc.com/default.html
Home Automation Times
http://www.homeautomationtimes.com/
Home Systems Magazine
http://www.gohomesystems.com/
Popular Home Automation
http://www.pophome.com/
Bluetooth
http://www.bluetooth.com
FireWire
http://developer.apple.com/hardware/firewire/

140
This glossary is intended as a guide for people who genuinely do not understand
some of the terms we have used in our report. More thorough and detailed
definitions exist but these should be adequate to explain what we are trying to
convey.
Bandwidth
The amount of electronic information that can be passed down a cable. In
many ways this is the ‘size’ of the cable, although the amount of information
does not depend necessarily of the physical cross section of the wires but also
on the number of wires, how they are arranged and the quality of the wire.
Bandwidth does not only apply to metal cables but also to Fibre Optic cables.
Bus System
A dedicated set of wiring specifically installed for the purpose of transmitting
data to and from electronic devices within a building.
Co-Axial
A kind of cabling (most commonly found as the aerial wire in the home)
where a single core wire is surrounded by a second ring of wire.
Communication Protocols
The agreed ‘language’ that electronic systems use to pass information to each
other. As well as setting out the actual electronic ‘words’ the systems will use,
the protocol will also define how ‘loud’ and at what ‘pitch’ the messages will
be sent as well as what responses are required to confirm that the information
has been received.
Computer Peripherals
A generic term for the devices used by a computer that fall outside of the
basic requirements of processor, monitor, keyboard and mouse. These will
include printers, scanners, external storage devices, etc.
APPENDIX 6
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Appendix 6
141
Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
The bundle of mechanical services used to control environmental conditions
in the home.
Information and Communication Technologies
The bundle of technologies relating to the electronic storage and retrieval of
information and the transmission of such information. Storage and retrieval
is typically the function of a computer system, while communication can
range from telephony (both land line and mobile) to the internet and more
specific computer networks (such as those found in offices).
Infra-red
A wavelength of light beyond the visible spectrum, infra-red can be used as a
method of transmitting signals. The most common application in the home
would normally be in remote control units.
Iris Recognition
In a similar manner to fingerprints our eyes have a unique and identifiable
pattern. Iris recognition systems use cameras to view and analyse the
patterns of the iris with a much higher level of certainty than can be applied
to say a fingerprint.
Kbits
A unit of data volume; in the cases used in this report it relates to the volume
of data that can be transmitted by a specific medium each second.
Microprocessor
A series of complex electronic circuits on a silicon chip. These carry out the
calculations for any electronic product, from timers and calculators to large
computer systems.
Minitel
A French version of Teletext.
Optical Fibre
The use of glass fibres as a medium for the transmission of information. In a
similar way to electrical wiring optical fibres can be used to transmit data,
but instead of using electrical current optical fibres use light. This allows
huge amounts of data to be transmitted through a relatively narrow cable.
Telephone and cable television systems use optical fibres for transmission but

Digital futures
142
convert this signal to more conventional electrical signals in the home or
workplace.
Personal Data Assistants
A small computer with limited functionality, PDAs were developed as a sort
of electronic filofax, combining diary, address book, notebook and alarm
clock together. More recent PDAs have featured links to personal computers
handwriting recognition and e-mail and fax facilities.
Plug and Play
Equipment that is designed to be fully compatible and recognisable by the
network and software it will be connected to. Plug and play equipment
should be able to be connected to and configured by the system with little to
no input from the user.
Powerline
The use of existing electrical cabling for the purpose of transmitting data to
and from electronic devices within a building. Powerline transmission sends
a data signal at a different frequency to that used for normal electrical current
transmission which can then be detected by devices connected to the circuit.
Prestel
A text based service similar to Teletext but containing specific commercially
orientated information. Prestel can only be accessed by people or
organisations who have subscribed for specific sets of information (such as
share prices or travel information).
RDS
Radio Data Signalling, in addition to the music or conversations normally
transmitted over the radio there is also some additional data. In its earlier
forms RDS was, and still is, used to send signals to electricity meters to let
them know when peak and off peak usage should be measured. Currently far
more information is sent including the name of the station (which may then
be displayed on the radio) and the current time. RDS is also used by radios in
cars to identify the best reception for a particular station and to adjust its
tuning as appropriate.
Seismic Sensors
Developed from sensors used by geologists, seismic sensors measure
vibration. Now used in security alarms they can detect the vibration made by
the glass in a window being broken as well as the window being moved.

Appendix 6
143
Smart Cards
Cards similar in size and shape to a credit card but with a microprocessor
embedded in them. Smart cards can contain data about the person they
belong to that can be read either by inserting them in a machine or remotely
over short distances.
Telemedicine
The remote delivery of medical services, primarily in the home, by the use of
telecommunication links. Telemedicine can range from remote diagnosis by a
doctor from symptoms verbally described to the transmission of detailed x-
ray or photographic images by a nurse to a doctor back at the surgery or
hospital.
Teletext
Generic term used to describe text-based information services broadcast
alongside television signals and readable via suitably equipped televisions.
Teletext services generally contain news and entertainment information and
are provided by the television broadcaster as a part of their service.
Teleworking
The practice of conducting work activities remotely from the workplace
utilising computer and communications systems. Teleworking can range
from having the work telephone diverted to, for example, your home to being
able to access and alter data stored on mainframes and servers in the main
office from a remote location over a conventional telephone line.
Twisted Pair
A kind of cabling where two relatively thin wires are twisted together. The
term twisted pair can also be applied to wires with bundles of pairs of wires
where the wires will only be used in twos. Telephone cabling in the home
typically uses a twisted pair for transmission of sound and data.
User Interface
The method or methods by which the user of an electronic device conveys
their intentions to the device and receives feedback. On a computer for
example the user types on a keyboard and points and clicks with a mouse
and receives feedback from this on the screen of the monitor.
Warden Call Systems
Emergency communication systems fitted in accommodation that is
supported by a warden (such as dwellings for the elderly or people with

Digital futures
144
disabilities). Warden call systems can be used to either send an emergency
alarm or to allow a two way communication system direct between warden
and the person occupying the dwelling.