Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions

Abstract

Smart home technology has the potential of bringing benefits to modern households and their inhabitants. Yet, ever since its early development, it has been struggling to reach mass consumer adoption. Privacy and security, trust issues, reliability, and price are just some of the challenges smart home technology is facing. In addition, literature suggests that there is an evident gap between the functionalities offered by smart devices and users' needs. Investigating these potential adoption challenges in some more detail, we conducted an interview study with existing smart home technology users. Results show that privacy and security are still the most prominent hindering factors, and that the often insufficient interoperability of devices becomes an ever-growing concern. Also, smart home devices are consistently perceived as complex and expensive, and lack perceived value and trustworthiness.

Full text

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 64
Smart Home Technology:
An Exploration of End User Perceptions
Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
1
Abstract
Smart home technology has the potential of bringing benefits to modern households
and their inhabitants. Yet, ever since its early development, it has been struggling to
reach mass consumer adoption. Privacy and security, trust issues, reliability, and price
are just some of the challenges smart home technology is facing. In addition, literature
suggests that there is an evident gap between the functionalities offered by smart de-
vices and users’ needs. Investigating these potential adoption challenges in some more
detail, we conducted an interview study with existing smart home technology users.
Results show that privacy and security are still the most prominent hindering factors,
and that the often insufficient interoperability of devices becomes an ever-growing con-
cern. Also, smart home devices are consistently perceived as complex and expensive,
and lack perceived value and trustworthiness.
Introduction
Interest in smart home technology has risen rapidly throughout the last decade. While
in the past, developments in Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication were exclusive
to high-value industries, such as the military or collaborative space programs, they are
now on the verge of becoming deeply embedded in everyday life settings [1]. This trend
is most apparent in the mobile industry, where consumers’ demands and technological
capabilities have pushed the market to the introduction of highly innovative, seemingly
“smart” features [2]. Recently this push towards constant enhancement gradually trans-
ferred from mobile devices to home appliances, changing our demands upon the tradi-
tional home. That is, people’s expectations of home environments have increasingly
shifted from actively pushing buttons and flipping switches to the home being driven by
highly automated and ubiquitous computing technology [3]. Appliances should no long-
er perform simple, isolated tasks but may rather be part of a distributed technological
system. Yet, it seems that the market has still a long way to go in order to understand
and consequently adapt this type of automation to what consumers perceive as actually
valuable.
1
MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Interaction Lab, Department Management, Communication & IT, Universi-
tätsstraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, interaction@mci.edu

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
65 |
While smart homes are expected to play a significant role in the future, they are cur-
rently still in their early, so called “chasm” phase, struggling to reach mass consumer
adoption [4]. Demand is still limited as existing functionalities are mostly restricted to
stand-alone devices, adding complexity rather than user-friendliness [5]. That is, manu-
facturers keep building their own technological eco-systems, excluding other hard- and
software providers, instead of focusing on more holistic user demands [6]. The discrep-
ancy between device protocols is only one example which greatly stifles users’ potential
experiences with smart technology [7]. Consequently, interactions with smart home
devices still feel clumsy and non-natural, and are usually limited to a set of features
defined by the manufacturers [8]. The goal of our analysis was thus to highlight and
further explore this gap between users’ perceptions of smart home technology and
what the market currently offers.
Based on the literature and an interview study with current end users we tried to tackle
the following question: How do existing users perceive smart home technologies and
what are the challenges they believe the market still needs to overcome in order to
reach a greater customer adoption? Interviews were analyzed Mayring’s approach to
qualitative data analysis [35]
Terms, Definitions and Related Work
A “smart home” may be described as a residence which is equipped with modern tech-
nology sensors, appliances, and devices that can be remotely controlled, accessed,
and monitored in order to provide services to its inhabitants [9, 10, 11]. A residence, in
this particular notion, is any form of domestic environment, regardless of its size and
location. Sensors describe the technology which is able to detect movements and loca-
tions of objects and people, collecting and displaying data. Finally, appliances and de-
vices define those household technologies which access and control data and services
[5]. The “smartness” of the system is achieved through connecting devices through
what is commonly referred to as the Internet of Things (IoT) [6]. Consequently, the
elements of a smart home can be broken down into three groups; i.e. networking tech-
nology, intelligent control technology, and home automation technology [10]. The inter-
nal network can be wired or wireless and is essentially what connects the devices to
each other. The intelligent control is the gateway hub that sends and receives infor-
mation and acts as the link between the user and the devices. Home automation refers
to the actual devices performing intelligent tasks and linking the appliances to services
and systems outside the home [12]. With this, a smart home aims to provide services
that correspond to the particular needs of its inhabitants [9, 13]. Central to this task are
two key features; i.e. integration and evolvement of features and services [5].

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 66
Known Barriers to Smart Home Adoption
Numerous researchers have tried to explain the reasons for the slow adoption of smart
home technology [5, 9, 8]. One challenge was found in the fact that smart home ser-
vices need to fit into the design and technological architecture of an existing home and
continuously evolve over time in accordance with their usage. To this end Chikhaoui &
Pigot [14] highlight that, a smart home user should not be required to develop the tech-
nological expertise to operate the smart device. Rather, the device should adapt to the
user’s daily routines. Also, new devices should integrate into an existing network with-
out any difficulties. Yet, researchers found that this type of interoperability remains a
strong inhibitor, as producers keep increasing the number of non-compatible communi-
cation protocols for their products [15]. Consequently the literature emphasizes the
need for the adoption of a universal standard or at least the use of gateway hubs, which
can act as mediators between the different devices and their protocols [5].
Another known challenge regards the dependability of products [16]. Here the main
problems lie in the accurate interpretation of collected data and the consequent predic-
tion of human behavior [5]. This is particularly true for services related to home security,
where sensors may not always be able to identify the right activities. Chan and col-
leagues [9], for example, studied a fully functional smart house in Japan and found that
throughout one year, the smart house detected 73 unusual states, yet only 19 of those
should have been categorized unusual. A further challenge, connected to the neces-
sary collection and analysis of data, is seen in users’ growing concerns regarding the
preservation and safe keeping of confidential information [5]. To this end, security
measures reducing the system’s vulnerability against malicious parties are regarded
particularly important.
Connected to security is also the level of trust a user is willing to put into a system. The
goal of smart home technology is to predict and react to the individual preferences of
users without demanding their interaction. This, however, can only be achieved, if the
level of trustworthiness has reached a point, where the user is comfortable relying on
the actions of the smart home system [17].
Another barrier worth mentioning regards the costs for implementing a smart system
[5]. Here the often by producers advertised increase in energy efficiency is only valid, if
it outweighs the costs of the smart home installation.
Finally, the implementation of a smart home may pose a great challenge. While smart
home users should not be expected to have the expertise and know-how to set up the
system themselves [14], the configuration cannot be fully transferred to service provid-
ers either. This is why Edwards & Grinter [18], for example, argue that single-
functioning devices, such as microwaves and TV sets, may require a minimum amount
of knowledge in how to operate, control, and set them up. Yet, users cannot be ex-
pected to fix devices in cases of their malfunctioning.

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
67 |
In addition to various technological and social challenges highlighted by previous re-
search, we may also use theories on technology acceptance to explain the slow adop-
tion of smart home technology.
Technology Acceptance Theories and Models
Technology offers no value, unless it is socially accepted and used by consumers [19].
If a technology is not perceived beneficial by the user, it will not be adopted, which
makes acceptance a key determinant of its success [20].
The “Theory of Reasoned Action” (TRA) is one of the classical theories, used to explain
the connection between Attitude, Intention, and Behavior [21]. The underlying assump-
tion of the theory is that a particular behavior is driven by an individual’s expectations
resulting from a performed action. Thus, a person’s Behavior is determined by the In-
tention to perform an action. The Intention, on the other hand, is dictated by a person’s
Attitude and his/her Subjective Norms regarding the Behavior. Attitude is dictated by
Behavior Believes and the evaluation of results. Behavior Beliefs describe what a per-
son expects as a result from a particular action, while evaluation of results is an as-
sessment of whether this result is positive or negative. Subjective Norms, on the other
hand, are the individual’s perception of what society may think of performing a particu-
lar action. If the Subjective Norm has a greater influence on the individual, it can out-
weigh the Attitude and have a direct impact on the Intention.
While the TRA accounts for factors which are under a person’s control, it does not con-
sider external variables. Thus, the “Theory of Planned Behavior” [22] introduced a third
variable affecting the intention for behavior; i.e. the variable Perceived Behavior Con-
trol. It aims at measuring perceived control over an individual‘s behavior [22]. Perceived
control is formed by Control Beliefs and Perceived Power. Control Beliefs refer to the
perceived likelihood of conditions that might hinder or facilitate the performance of a
particular behavior. This does not necessarily mean that these conditions are present,
but that it matters if an individual believes in their existence. Perceived Power is an
individual’s perceived ease or difficulty in performing an action. Similar to the afore
mentioned Control Beliefs, it is up to the individual’s mind to give an estimate on how
difficult/easy it is to perform an action.
The “Technology Acceptance Model” (TAM) is the first model to implement psychologi-
cal factors and it is one of the most used models in evaluating technology acceptance
[23]. Developed by Davis [24], it is based on the TRA and proposes factors, which in-
fluence the user’s decision on how and when new technology will be used. The focus of
TAM lies within two key constructs i.e. Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of
Use. Perceived Usefulness is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that
using a system would improve his/her performance [24]. Perceived Ease of Use, on the
other hand, relates to the usability a person expects from the system. While the model

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 68
has undergone various improvements (cf. TAM2 and TAM3), the original version re-
mained the one predominantly used to explain user behavior.
Finally, the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” (UTAUT) [25] aimed
at unifying existing acceptance models. The theory integrates four independent varia-
bles: Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating
Conditions, so as to offer a more holistic approach to describing technology ac-
ceptance. The first three variables influence Behavioral Intention, which then further
influences Usage Behavior. Facilitating Conditions, on the other hand, affect Usage
Behavior directly. In addition, UTAUT lists the variables Gender, Age, Experience, and
Voluntariness of Use as having moderating effects on the above-mentioned relations
between core variables.
Acceptance Research on Smart Home Technology
The majority of acceptance studies focusing on smart homes and home automation,
were exploring the viability of smart devices for a specific target group. Cesta and col-
leagues [26], for example, described the results from a three-year research project,
called ROBOCARE, aimed at implementing artificial intelligence to assist elderly in their
home environment. Similarly, Demiris et al. [27] studied the perception and expectation
of home automation by seniors, using focus groups. Results show that home automa-
tion is perceived beneficial for elderly people; i.e. emergency help, prevention and de-
tection of accidents, as well as monitoring senior’s health. Demongeot et al. [28], on the
other hand, focused on system requirements and the level of automation required for a
successful implementation, while Miskelly [29] discussed the components of a smart
system and how each of them may assist users. A smaller set of studies investigated
the perception of home automation in different countries or focused on the comparison
between different regions. Balta-Ozkan and colleagues [30], for example explored the
barriers of smart home adoption in the UK. Using workshops and expert interviews,
they built a framework classifying drivers and barriers of smart homes adoption into
being technical, economic, commercial, or policy related. Next, they compared the use
of smart meters in homes in the UK, Germany, and Italy and found a number of dis-
crepancies in the preferences of household inhabitants, based on factors such as life-
style and access to services [31]. Also, Buchanan et al. [32] examined acceptance of
smart metering in UK household. Using focus groups, they identified a number of
threats and opportunities with respect to the implementation of devices.
Despite these studies there is a lack of research on whether home automation satisfies
the needs of users. That is, there still seems to be a clear gap between what smart
devices provide and what household inhabitants actually demand. While generally the
technology seems to be positively perceived, both literature and users see room for
improvement [33]. Investigating existing perceptions may help shed some light on these
discrepancies.

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
69 |
Methodology
Except for some of the examples presented above technology acceptance has predom-
inantly been researched using quantitative, survey-based analysis methods, particularly
using TAM and its successors as an underlying theory construct [23]. Yet, these types
of questionnaire studies may be limited in their explanatory nature [34]. They usually
neglect a given contextual setting and thus restrict explorations by focusing only on
several key aspects without leaving any room for further, potentially deviating paths of
elaboration. Similarly to most of the acceptance studies described above, and show-
cased by [34], we thus chose an interview study as an instrument to investigate chal-
lenges of smart home technology acceptance.
A total of ten interviews were conducted, recorded and consequently transcribed. Par-
ticipant selection was based on a convenience sample, where current users of smart
home technology voluntarily, and without additional compensation, agreed to provide
us with input. Their technology savviness ranged from very high (i.e. being a self-
perceived IT expert) to very low (i.e. feeling insecure with any type of technology). The
smart home technology which they had experience with included heating devices, se-
curity cameras, smoke detection and different types of connected media and enter-
tainment devices.
An interview guideline integrating questions with respect to both the perception of home
automation as well as the acceptance of technology was used to lead through the con-
versation (cf. Figure 1). Initially all interviewees were further asked to share their
knowledge and experience with smart homes. Such was required to categorize them
according to their background. Transcriptions were then analyzed using Mayring’s ap-
proach to qualitative data analysis [35]. That is, statements were first merged to core
concepts and subsequently assigned to pre-defined code categories. Some of those
categories were taken from the literature [17, 25].
Results and Discussion
The interviews produced over 200 unique statements, which were classified into ten
different categories. Six of which tackle users’ perception of smart homes (i.e. Catego-
ries 01-06), and four which could be linked to constructs apparent in the technology
acceptance literature (i.e. Categories 07-10) [17, 25].
Category 01: Smart Home Understanding
The initial interview question was designed to let participants elaborate on their image
of a smart home. Being in line with existing definitions, they generally described the
smart home as an interconnected system of devices, whose purpose is to control, mon-
itor, and generally make its inhabitant’s life easier [9]. In other words, they associated

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 70
smart home technology with the positive outcome of its usage. Similar to what was
found by Wilson et al. [8] they had implemented smart devices to improve their quality
of life, hence showing a rather functional attitude towards the technology. On the other
hand, some participants’ understanding of smart homes focused around a rather in-
strumental belief, i.e. they viewed the smart home as a collection of devices which may
help prevent the waste of energy and thus have a positive effect on the environment.
Finally, we also observed a rather holistic understanding of smart home technology,
expressed by participants who view smart home technology as a continuation of the
relationship between people and technology [8].
Figure 1: Interview questions asked to 10 current smart home technology users.
Category 02: Privacy, Security and Source Code
Statements regarding privacy and security were present in most of our interviews, con-
firming results of previous research which regard security as a major challenge for

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
71 |
smart homes and smart home technology [5, 3, 36]. Statements such as “it [the home]
is the most private place for society and it is something that everybody locks” demon-
strate interviewees’ concerns. Consequently, they believe that the evolution of the
home into a “smart environment” needs to be accompanied by regulations regarding
privacy and data protection. Today we experience a grey area in which accountability
with respect to information protection is not sufficiently defined. Thus, also the level of
security perceived by customers varies significantly. Some may have complete confi-
dence in the security measures provided by technology providers others, however,
express serious doubts. While our interviews clearly showed that security and privacy
issues are inevitable when it comes to smart homes, they also highlighted that such is
to some extent expected or even tolerated by users. That is, to some extent interview-
ees agreed that comprehensive data security is difficult to achieve in the digital world
we currently live in. Thus, instead of trying to fight security and privacy issues, they
seem to accept them as they are. One aspect which did, however, lead to some dis-
crepancies among more tech-savvy interviewees, concerns the openness of applica-
tions’ source code. While some of the interviewees highlighted an open source ap-
proach as being beneficial for the security of software, as such would create transpar-
ency and lead to faster security updates, others see the public availability of code as a
great vulnerability.
Category 03: Interoperability
As already highlighted, the lack of interoperability of devices poses a critical challenge
in the adoption of smart home technology. This aspect was also pointed out by seven
of our ten interviewees. P02 for example stated that, interconnecting smart devices
from different vendors is not possible without the presence of a centralized hub. And
even if smart devices use the same protocol, they may not be compatible if they come
from different suppliers (P03). Similarly, P01 and P05 noted that they were unable to
add new components to their smart system, as they previously committed to technology
which now prohibits expansion. Consequently, when asked about the factors most
influential for purchase and consequent adoption of smart home technology, interoper-
ability ranked among the highest with our interviewees.
Category 04: Costs
From a cost point of view, the majority of interviewees perceive smart home technology
to be a luxurious commodity, affordable only to the upper class. Such shows that price
is seen to be a hindering factor. Being a novel technology, smart home devices are in
their early stages of development for which the industry faces high costs in research
and development [37]. However, Khalid and colleagues [38] argue that the market for
smart appliances is not controlled, and since there are only few powerful players the
lack of competition leads to disproportionally high prices.

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 72
Category 05: Installation, Administration and Maintenance
All our interviewees had gone through the experience of installing and adjusting their
smart home devices so that they fit their personal preferences. For P01 and P05 this
process seemed easy and doable without any external help. Even P04, who possesses
rather little ICT knowledge, was able to implement two different smart services (i.e. a
heating sensor and a smoke detector) by himself. Consequently, one may argue that at
least with respect to off-the-shelf single-purpose smart devices, users do not necessari-
ly require any additional expertise in home automation [14]. However, there seems to
be a connection between the purpose smart devices serve and their installation com-
plexity. That is, in cases where devices have little responsibility, installation may be
achieved by the users themselves. Yet, in cases where the smart device takes on more
responsibility, the installation and setup process is likely to require an expert. This also
concerns maintenance aspects, for which P07 highlighted that, it is “really important
that appliances and software are up-to-date, otherwise the technology may quickly
become obsolete”. This argument points to one of the challenges discussed by Wilson
et al. [8], who argue that smart home providers lack the supporting after-purchase func-
tions. Consequently, producers not only need to convince potential users to buy their
products and associated services, but they also need to offer support and maintenance
in order to retain their existing customer base.
Category 06: Energy Efficiency
The increase of a home’s energy efficiency was explicitly stated by two of the inter-
viewees as a reason for implementing smart devices. Yet, similar to previous research,
one of them immediately mentioned that the expected savings were rather minimal.
Reinisch et al. [11] identified three factors hindering this so often stated promise of
energy efficiency. First, smart home systems are complex and users thus often unable
to unleash their full potential. Second, homes are unique and built according to inhabit-
ants’ preferences. Consequently, aspects such as building structure, nature and usage
of appliances, as well as the floor plan play a significant role. Third, only a fine-tuned
balance between the two above mentioned factors may lead to substantial energy sav-
ings. Yet, most inhabitants lack the relevant knowledge to devise an appropriate strate-
gy which connects the physical circumstances with their very personal lifestyle, and
thus fall short on optimizing their energy sustainability.
Category 07: Trust
Trust, which has already been recognized as a powerful factor in shaping buyer-seller
transactions [39], was discussed by six of our interview participants. In particular, they
iterated between trust given to devices and trust given to smart home technology pro-
viders. Generally, interviewees were satisfied with the smart devices they use, although
it has to be noted that they were all using flagship products of already established

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
73 |
smart home companies. As P10 stated, “people trust the brand or the company behind
the device”. This being said, we have also seen a sense of trust among users in the
smart home devices themselves. P03 for example expressed full support for the device
he is using. However, trust into both providers and technology is to some degree also
perceived a double-edged sword. As one of the interviewees stated, “companies know
more about you than yourself” (P06). While it seems that users have accepted the inev-
itability that sensitive information about their private life has to be gathered and stored
in order for smart devices to function the way they are intended to, interviewees are
reserved about their private life being exposed to developers. Consequently, some
expressed a need for reassurance that gathered information is not used without any
malicious intent (note: trust seems to be strongly connected to the privacy and security
concerns highlighted by statements in Category 02).
Category 08: Perceived Usefulness
Smart home technology is generally perceived as dealing with the automation of home-
related processes so as to make the life of inhabitants more convenient [40]. A total of
61 statements, (i.e. more than 25% of all statements) can be associated with this type
of utilitarian understanding. Often mentioned key words include “automation”, “control”,
or “connectivity”. Interviewees for example emphasized the importance of automating
those processes which are related to tasks inhabitants usually perform in the morning
(P01, P02, P03, P06). The goal of which is not only rooted in utility but also in gained
time efficiency. Just as P09 stated “… time is one of the biggest commodities, because
time is money”. Interviewees also focused on the ability to control energy consumption
and lighting, expressed by statements such as “I would like a system that controls the
heating” (P04) or “I would remotely control the heating and cooling inside my home”
(P09). Also, they believe that smart home technology has to adapt and perform accord-
ing to users’ daily routines. P01 for instance highlighted that he wants the system “to be
smart, which means, to control itself from a certain point”. Such statements support the
assumption that for a certain amount of perceived usefulness users are willing to “give
up” some control over the technology installed in their homes. Although it has to be
noted that such requires connectivity between home appliances, which again relates to
the already mentioned challenge of interoperability.
Category 09: Effort Expectancy
The amount of effort required by the user to implement the system is defined by Ven-
katesh and colleagues as Effort Expectancy [25]. It is a variable derived from the “Uni-
fied Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” and, among other factors, influ-
ences Behavioral Intention. It is considered a finite resource, which an individual allo-
cates to certain activities [41]. Effort, in this particular sense, might not be necessarily
physical, but also mental and/or financial. Unsurprisingly, our interviewees highlighted
that in their opinion an effortless implementation process is needed for smart homes to

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 74
be adopted. Despite the potential complexity of the installed technology, they expect a
smooth transition when introducing such a “smartness” element into their home envi-
ronment; although most of them understand that the implementation of systems may
remain to some extend demanding - at least for the foreseeable future. P08 for exam-
ple believes that, to set up a smart home, the user needs substantial financial re-
sources and expertise, and P09 argues, that “definitely it will take a lot of effort, mainly
because currently you cannot buy something like a software package that controls
everything”. This view is also shared by P01, who perceives the implementation of a
fully functional and intelligent home as rather cumbersome. Increased effort associated
with smart home implementations has also been discussed by the literature [5, 31, 42],
where the prevailing complexity of smart devices and their implementation processes
was named as one of the biggest challenges in the adoption of the technology [18].
Category 10: Performance Expectancy
The interviews contained only six statements which may be related to the technology’s
Performance Expectancy. According to Venkatesh et al. [25], Performance Expectancy
is an independent variable influencing Behavioral Intention and consequently a critical
predictor for technology use. Our interviewees relate Performance Expectancy to pos-
sible system failures arising in one or more components, which may eventually inhibit
the functionality of an entire smart home setup. P09 for example noted, that “when you
have more technologies this means that you have more possibilities or points of fail-
ure”, and P01 raised concerns about possible failures occurring in the central control
unit. Consequently, these participants believe that, with the expansion of smart sys-
tems, the issue potential may also rise significantly.
Summary and Implications
Home automation, at its current stage, is facing numerous challenges until it may finally
be embedded in our daily living. Literature suggests that crucial issues of home auto-
mation still have not been resolved and that there is a gap between what users want
from smart home technology and what currently is available. Our interviews aimed at
exploring some of these potential barriers of adoption.
Results particularly highlight concerns about one’s private life being exposed and sub-
sequently abused by technology providers. Also, given the perceived complexity of the
smart home system, users feel threatened by possible malicious attacks. Additionally,
challenges concerning the connectivity between devices from different vendors are
perceived problematic. The lack of a unified protocol connecting different devices is
here seen as a particular drawback, prohibiting the expansion of systems. Furthermore,
the rather high price of devices has proven to be an influential factor. While interview-
ees found benefits in the remote management and monitoring of energy consumption,
the often advertised promise of energy savings does rarely happen. Consequently,

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
75 |
users may lose trust both in the technology as well as the providers of this type of sus-
tainability gains. The required effort to implement a smart home system (Effort Expec-
tancy) and consequently use it (Perceived Ease of Use) was also perceived as being
disproportional. On the other hand, interviewees highlighted that they would accept
possible issues regarding the performance of single smart devices (Performance Ex-
pectancy).
In summary, our results suggest that the smart home industry should further strive for
more encompassing services, which would save time and bring comfort to the user.
The expected benefit from using smart home devices must be explicit. That is, the per-
ception of smart home technology needs to shift from devices that “help” the user to
devices that users need in their lives. In that sense, smart homes have to go beyond
automation. As P06 stated in the interview, “we need to show people what the added
value is”. There needs to be a clear strategy put in place by the industry which empha-
sizes the benefits from using smart home technology. Second, while the effect of using
some smart home technology for purposes such as media and entertainment is difficult
to measure, the expected benefit from energy management seems crucial for users.
The industry has to live up to this promise and treat it as a viable entry gate, potentially
attracting new customers. Third, trust has been identified to be a powerful factor in the
eyes of consumers, especially if it involves such an inherently private place as the
home. Consequently, only if users trust their smart home devices, the industry will be
able to move from a “technology push” to a “market pull” model [5]. Finally, there is this
notion of vulnerability with respect to data security and privacy among users. Thus, the
smart home industry needs to deal with these issues, and ensure that the privacy of
personal data is preserved and security guaranteed.
References
1. Toschi, G. M., Campos, L. B., & Cugnasca, C. E. (2017) : Home automation
networks: A survey. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 50, 42–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.008
2. Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., & Battaglia, R. D. (2015): Innovation and competition in
the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design? Telecommunications Policy,
39(3–4), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.07.002
3. Heetae, Y., Hwansoo, L., & Hangjung, Z. (2017): User acceptance of smart home
services: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 117(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-
2016-0017
4. Greenough, J. (2013): The US smart home market has been struggling — here’s
how and why the market will take off. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.de/the-us-smart-home-market-report-adoption-
forecasts-top-products-and-the-cost-and-fragmentation-problems-that-could-
hinder-growth-2015-9?r=US&IR=T

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 76
5. Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M., & Whitmarsh, L. (2013): Social barriers
to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy, 63, 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043
6. Moorhead, P. (2013): The Problem With Home Automation’s Internet Of Things
(IoT). Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2013/09/26/the-problem-with-home-
automations-iot/#22ea19d470ec
7. Withanage, C., Ashok, R., Yuen, C., & Otto, K. (2014): A comparison of the popular
home automation technologies. 2014 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies -
Asia, ISGT ASIA 2014, 600–605. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2014.6873860
8. Wilson, C., Hargreaves, T., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2015): Smart homes and their
users: a systematic analysis and key challenges. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 19(2), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0813-0
9. Chan, M., Campo, E., Estève, D., & Fourniols, J. Y. (2009): Smart homes - Current
features and future perspectives. Maturitas, 64(2), 90–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.014
10. King, N. (2003): Smart Home – A Definition. Housing Learning & Improvement
Network, 1–6. Retrieved from
http://www.housinglin.org.uk/_library/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Smart_H
ome_-_A_definition%5C_September_2003.pdf
11. Reinisch, C., Kofler, M. J., Iglesias, F., & Kastner, W. (2011): Thinkhome energy
efficiency in future smart homes. Eurasip Journal on Embedded Systems, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/104617
12. Wu, C., Liao, C., & Fu, L. (2007): Service-Oriented Smart Home Architecture based
on OSGi and Mobile Agent Technology. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 37(2), 193–205.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2006.886997
13. Taylor, A. S., Harper, R., Swan, L., Izadi, S., Sellen, A., & Perry, M. (2007): Homes
that make us smart. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(5), 383–393.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-006-0076-5
14. Chikhaoui, B., & Pigot, H. (2010): Towards analytical evaluation of human machine
interfaces developed in the context of smart homes. Interacting with Computers,
22(6), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.08.003
15. Shankland, S. (2016): Your smart-home network will be a mess. Retrieved from
https://www.cnet.com/news/your-smart-home-network-will-be-a-mess-to-start-with/
16. Friedewald, M., Da Costa, O., Punie, Y., Alahuhta, P., & Heinonen, S. (2005):
Perspectives of ambient intelligence in the home environment. Telematics and
Informatics, 22(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2004.11.001
17. Verberne, F. M. F., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. H. (2012): Trust in Smart Systems.
Human Factors, 54(5), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812443825
18. Edwards, W. K., & Grinter, R. E. (2001): At Home with Ubiquitous Computing:
Seven Challenges. International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 256–272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45427-6
19. Oye, N. D., A.Iahad, N., & Ab.Rahim, N. (2014): The history of UTAUT model and
its impact on ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Education and

Smart Home Technology: An Exploration of End User Perceptions
77 |
Information Technologies, 19(1), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-
9189-9
20. Dillon, A. (2006): User Acceptance of Information Technology. International
Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, 1105–1108. Retrieved from
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/105880
21. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975): An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co.
22. Ajzen, I. (1991): The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
23. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003): Gerneralizing Generalizability in Information
Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560
24. Davis, F. (1989): Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00028-0
25. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003): User Acceptance
of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. Source: MIS Quarterly, 27(3),
425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
26. Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Rasconi, R., Pecora, F., Scopelliti, M., & Tiberio, L.
(2011) : Monitoring elderly people with the ROBOCARE domestic environment:
Interaction synthesis and user evaluation. Computational Intelligence, 27(1), 60–
82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.2010.00372.x
27. Demiris, G., Rantz, M. J., Aud, M. A., Marek, K. D., Tyrer, H. W., Skubic, M., &
Hussam, A. A. (2004): Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of “smart
home” technologies: a pilot study. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine,
29(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230410001684387
28. Demongeot, J., Virone, G., Duchêne, F., Benchetrit, G., Hervé, T., Noury, N., &
Rialle, V. (2002). Multi-sensors acquisition, data fusion, knowledge mining and
alarm triggering in health smart homes for elderly people. Comptes Rendus -
Biologies, 325(6), 673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1631-0691(02)01480-4
29. Miskelly, F. G. (2001): Assistive technology in elderly care. Age and Ageing, 30(6),
455–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/30.6.455
30. Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M., & Whitmarsh, L. (2013): The
development of smart homes market in the UK. Energy, 60, 361–372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.08.004
31. Balta-Ozkan, N., Amerighi, O., & Boteler, B. (2014): A comparison of consumer
perceptions towards smart homes in the UK, Germany and Italy: reflections for
policy and future research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(10),
1176–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.975788
32. Buchanan, K., Banks, N., Preston, I., & Russo, R. (2016): The British public’s
perception of the UK smart metering initiative: Threats and opportunities. Energy
Policy, 91, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.003

Aleksandar Georgiev, Stephan Schlögl
| 78
33. Pantano, E., & Di Pietro, L. (2012) : Understanding consumer’s acceptance of
technology-based innovations in retailing. Journal of Technology Management and
Innovation, 7(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242012000400001
34. Vogelsang, K., Steinhüser, M., & Hoppe, U. (2013): A qualitative approach to
examine technology acceptance. International Conference on Information Systems
(ICIS 2013): Reshaping Society Through Information Systems Design, 1, 234–245.
Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
84897707944&partnerID=40&md5=c37e519794965d7469eace9695eb6531
35. Mayring, P. (2014): Qualitative Content Analysis. The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Data Analysis, 170–183.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12
36. Sripan, M., Lin, X., Petchlorlean, P., & Ketcham, M. (2012): Research and Thinking
of Smart Home Technology. International Conference on Systems and Electronic
Engineering (ICSEE), 61–64.
37. Peine, A. (2009): Technological Forecasting & Social Change Understanding the
dynamics of technological con fi gurations : A conceptual framework and the case
of Smart Homes. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(3), 396–409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.002
38. Khalid, A. W., Sciences, C., Lumpur, K., Sciences, C., & Lumpur, K. (2015):
Evaluation of Smart Home Technology and Impediments barricading its
Implementation : A connection to Internet of Things. International Journal of
Information Systems and Engineering, 1(1), 1–19.
39. Doney, M., Cannon, J. P., & Hobbs, J. (2013): An Examination of the Nature of
Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.
40. Davidoff, S., Lee, M. K., Yiu, C., Zimmerman, J., & Dey, A. K. (2006): Principles of
Smart Home Control, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/11853565_2
41. Radner, R., & Rothschield, M. (1975): On the Allocation of Effort. Journal of
Economics Theory, 10(March), 358–376.
42. Jeong, K.-A., Salvendy, G., & Proctor, R. W. (2010): Smart home design and
operation preferences of Americans and Koreans. Ergonomics, 53(5), 636–660.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903581623