SC78DI07171 D4 Final study report - Internet of Things & Li-Fi Event › wp-content › uploads ›...

SC78DI07171

D4 Final study report

IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report


Page ii

Document control information

Document Title: Final study report

Project Title: Benchmark study for Large Scale Pilots in the area of the

Internet of Things

Document

Authors:

Steven Ackx – PwC EU Services

Kristina Dervojeda – PwC EU Services

Jens Devloo – PwC EU Services

Stijn Goedertier – PwC EU Services

Laurent-David Hostyn – PwC EU Services

Elco Rouwmaat – PwC EU Services

Gérard Vanhaver – PwC EU Services

Olivier Verack – PwC EU Services

Ada Ziemyte – PwC EU Services

Project Owner: Peter Friess – European Commission

Eric Gaudillat – European Commission

Thibaut Kleiner – European Commission

Project

Manager:

Stijn Goedertier – PwC EU Services

Status: Accepted

Doc version: v1.02

Date: 03/04/2015

Document approver(s) and reviewer(s):

Name Role Action Date

Pieter Breyne Quality Assurance

Manager

Review 15/12/2014

Peter Friess Project Owner Approve / Review 11/03/2014

Configuration management: document location

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/CITnet/confluence/x/zQeCFQ

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/CITnet/confluence/x/zQeCFQ


Page iii

This report was prepared for DG CONNECT by

PwC EU Services

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this report are purely those of the authors and may not, in

any circumstances, be interpreted as stating an official position of the European

Commission.

The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the information

included in this study, nor does it accept any responsibility for any use thereof.

Reference herein to any specific products, specifications, process, or service by trade

name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or

imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by the European Commission.

All care has been taken by the author to ensure that s/he has obtained, where

necessary, permission to use any parts of manuscripts including illustrations, maps,

and graphs, on which intellectual property rights already exist from the titular

holder(s) of such rights or from her/his or their legal representative.


Page iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report identifies and benchmarks possible use cases for future Large-Scale Pilots

(LSPs) in the domain of the Internet of Things (IoT) to be included in the next Horizon

2020 work programme. The study reports on valuable use cases for potential LSPs,

identifies the key players in the value chain that could team up for deployment and

makes recommendations for an LSP deployment strategy to ensure maximum impact.

Study methodology

In the first phase, the study team identified 500 organisations that are developing or

have already commercialised solutions in the area of the IoT and defined a long list of

19 use cases based on the analysis of use cases in research projects and commercial

solutions. Additionally, an analysis framework was designed consisting of 18

benchmark criteria grouped by 3 dimensions: European value, attractiveness to users

and potential for an LSP.

In the second phase, the identified use cases were shortlisted according to a number

of selection criteria. Subsequently, 28 interviews were conducted with relevant IoT

experts from the industry and consumer organisations. Interviews together with

additional desk research allowed benchmarking and ranking the identified use cases.

In a last phase, the results were presented and discussed with external experts in a

validation workshop, in which 14 experts across different vertical and horizontal

domains – including also standardisation, industry and consumer organisations – were

invited to validate the findings of this study.

Selection and benchmark criteria

The benchmark framework includes 18 criteria, grouped according to 3 dimensions:

European value:

o Link with European societal challenges;

o Industry coverage (suppliers);

o Market coverage (consumers);

Attractiveness:

o Technical maturity;

o Usability;

o Benefits for the users;

o Barriers to entry;

o Investment risks;

o Information security risks;

o Openness;

o Legal and/or ethical barriers;

LSP Potential:

o Value chain coverage;

o Interoperability;

o Replication;

o Scale;

o User engagement;


Page v

o New business models; and

o Cross-border potential.

Proposed use cases

Based on the benchmarking results, the following top-5 use cases are proposed for

the Large-Scale Pilots:

1. Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure;

2. Smart agriculture and food traceability;

3. Energy savings at home and in buildings;

4. Smart assisted living and wellbeing; and

5. Worker safety.

Expected benefits

It is expected that the deployment of Large-Scale Pilots in the area of the Internet of

Things will bring among others the following benefits:

The LSPs will build a critical mass for standards and specifications stemming

from standards bodies and industry consortia such as oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS,

IETF, the Open Group, etc. via the implementation of open IoT hardware and

platforms;

The LSPs will allow organisations to work together to validate new ecosystems

and business models and create new market opportunities via direct interaction

with consumers; and

The LSPs will broaden the perspective of organisations to a European context

and market situation.

Accompanying measures

The following accompanying measures are proposed for the Large-Scale Pilots:

Set up an architecture office to ensure a minimum level of cross-LSP

coordination and alignment;

Set up a stakeholder management office to ensure effective dissemination and

engagement activities across LSPs;

Perform continuous monitoring and evaluation at programme level;

Require LSPs to analyse information security risks and build-in sufficient

guarantees for personal data protection;

Require LSPs to foster replicability via training and dissemination activities;

Require LSPs to elaborate on guarantees for sustainability;

Set up a cross-pilot Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy; and

Require LSPs to assess the environmental impact of IoT.


Page vi

SYNTHESE DE L’ETUDE

Ce rapport identifie, compare et évalue des projets de Pilotes à Grande Echelle (PGEs)

dans le domaine de l’Internet des Objets (IdO) qui pourraient être développés dans le

cadre du programme européen Horizon 2020. La présente étude met non seulement

en avant des projets à fort potentiel mais elle identifie également les acteurs clés de

la chaîne de valeur qui pourraient porter le déploiement de ces pilotes. Enfin, afin de

maximiser l’impact, ce rapport fournit également des recommandations sur la

stratégie à adopter pour ledit déploiement des pilotes.

Méthodologie de l’étude

La première phase a permis d’identifier 500 organisations européennes actives dans le

domaine de l’IdO, que ce soit au stade de développement ou de la commercialisation

de solutions tout en permettant la construction d’une première liste de 19 cas

d’utilisation. En parallèle, afin d’évaluer ces cas, une méthode de comparaison a été

développée sous la forme de 18 critères couvrant 3 dimensions : le respect des

valeurs européennes, l’appétence du marché et le potentiel pour un déploiement à

grande échelle.

Durant la deuxième phase, la liste préliminaire a pu être réduite à 10 cas d’utilisation

après l’application d’un premier ensemble de critères de sélection. 28 entretiens ont

dès lors été effectués auprès d’experts et d’acteurs des différentes industries

concernées tandis que le travail d’analyse du marché était approfondi. La combinaison

de ces entretiens et du travail de recherche a permis l’obtention d’un classement de

ces 10 cas d’utilisation sur base des critères de comparaison définis.

La dernière phase consistait à partager et à faire valider le travail par un comité

d’experts provenant d’industries variées (au positionnement tant vertical qu’horizontal

dans le domaine de l’IdO) et représentant aussi bien les organisations de

standardisation que les organisations d’entreprises et de consommateurs.

Critères de sélection et de comparaison

La méthode de sélection et de comparaison se base sur 18 critères répartis comme

suit selon les 3 dimensions précitées :

Les valeurs européennes :

o Les liens avec les défis sociétaux européens ;

o La couverture des industries (point de vue fournisseurs) ;

o La couverture du marché (point de vue consommateurs) ;

L’appétence du marché :

o La maturité technologique ;

o La facilité d’utilisation ;

o Les bénéfices pour les utilisateurs ;

o Les barrières à l’entrée ;

o Les risques d’investissement ;

o Les risques sur la sécurité de l’information ;

o Les technologies ouvertes ;

o Les barrières légales et éthiques ;


Page vii

Le potentiel pour un développement à grande échelle :

o La couverture de la chaine de valeur ;

o L’interopérabilité des technologies ;

o La reproductibilité du pilote ;

o La taille du pilote ;

o L’engagement des utilisateurs ;

o Les nouveaux business modèles ;

o L’aspect international.

Projets de Pilotes à Grande Echelle proposés

Sur base du travail de comparaison, les 5 cas d’utilisation suivants de l’IdO ont pu

être mis en avant pour le développement de Pilotes à Grande Echelle :

1. La mobilité multimodale et les infrastructures routières intelligentes ;

2. L’agriculture intelligente et la traçabilité dans la chaine alimentaire ;

3. Les économies d’énergie dans les habitations et dans les bâtiments ;

4. L’assistance intelligente à domicile et le bien-être ; et

5. La sûreté des travailleurs.

Bénéfices attendus

A terme, le déploiement de Pilotes à Grande Echelle dans le domaine de l’IdO devrait

apporter les bénéfices suivants :

Les PGEs constitueront une masse critique favorable aux standards et

spécifications qui résulteront d’organisations de standardisation et de

consortiums tels que oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS, IETF, the Open Group, etc. ;

Les PGEs permettront aux différents acteurs de travailler ensemble de manière

efficace et valider des nouveaux écosystèmes et business modèles. De

nouvelles opportunités pourront également être créées de par l’interaction

directe avec les consommateurs ; et

Les PGEs permettront aux entreprises et organisations d’élargir leurs

perspectives au niveau européen et d’avoir une plus large couverture du

marché.

Mesures d’accompagnement

Les mesures d’accompagnement suivantes sont préconisées pour les Pilotes à Grande

Echelle :

Mettre en place un bureau de coordination qui assurerait une cohérence entre

les PGEs ;

Mettre en place un bureau de gestion des parties prenantes afin d’assurer une

dissémination effective et un engagement des activités à travers les différents

PGEs ;

Continuellement assurer le suivi et l’évaluation du programme dans son

ensemble ;

Exiger des PGEs qu’ils analysent les risques liés à la sécurité de l’information et

construire des garanties suffisantes pour la protection des données

personnelles ;


Page viii

Exiger des PGEs d’assurer la reproductibilité au travers de formations et par

Exiger des PGEs d’assurer une viabilité et une pérennité ;

Mettre en place une politique de partage de la propriété intellectuelle ; et

Exiger des PGEs d’évaluer l’impact environnemental de leur développement.


Page ix

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT) ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 LARGE-SCALE PILOTS (LSPS) ............................................................................................................... 2

1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 4

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 HORIZONTAL SECTOR ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 VERTICAL SECTOR .............................................................................................................................. 8

3 BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................ 10

3.1 DIMENSION 1: EUROPEAN VALUE ................................................................................................... 11

3.2 DIMENSION 2: ATTRACTIVENESS TO USERS AND PROVIDERS ........................................................ 12

3.3 DIMENSION 3: LSP POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................ 15

4 SELECTION OF USE CASES ............................................................................................................... 18

5 SCORING USE CASES ...................................................................................................................... 19

6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 20

6.1 PROPOSED USE CASES ..................................................................................................................... 20

6.2 EXPECTED BENEFITS ........................................................................................................................ 20

6.3 ACCOMPANYING MEASURES ........................................................................................................... 21

6.4 FUTURE WORK ................................................................................................................................. 23

ANNEX I. SELECTING AND SCORING USE CASES .................................................................................. 24

I.1. MULTI-MODAL MOBILITY AND SMART ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................... 24

I.2. SMART AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TRACEABILITY ............................................................................ 30

I.3. ENERGY SAVINGS AT HOME AND IN BUILDINGS ............................................................................. 36

I.4. SMART ASSISTED LIVING AND WELLBEING ..................................................................................... 42

I.5. WORKER SAFETY .............................................................................................................................. 49

I.6. SMART LIVING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 54

I.7. SMART MANUFACTURING: CUSTOMISATION ................................................................................. 58

I.8. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 62

I.9. BALANCING THE ELECTRICITY GRID ................................................................................................. 67

I.10. SMART PUBLIC SAFETY .................................................................................................................... 72

I.11. ENERGY SAVINGS IN PRODUCTION PROCESSES .............................................................................. 76


Page x

I.12. SMART WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS ..................................................................................... 76

I.13. AUTOMATED MANUFACTURING ..................................................................................................... 76

I.14. SMART DESIGN (MAKER MOVEMENT) ............................................................................................ 77

I.15. SMART FACTORY ............................................................................................................................. 77

I.16. SMART MANUFACTURING: SUPPLY CHAIN ..................................................................................... 78

I.17. COMFORT AND SECURITY AT HOME ............................................................................................... 78

I.18. OPEN PLATFORMS FOR THE AUDIO-VISUAL INDUSTRY .................................................................. 79

I.19. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................. 79

ANNEX II. INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................... 81

II.1. SELECTION OF INTERVIEW CANDIDATES ......................................................................................... 81

II.2. INTERVIEW STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 81

II.3. INTERVIEWED ORGANISATIONS ...................................................................................................... 82

ANNEX III. VALIDATION WOKSHOP .................................................................................................. 84

III.1. VALIDATION WORKSHOP PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS ........................................................... 84

III.2. VALIDATION WORKSHOP FEEDBACK ............................................................................................... 85

List of Tables

TABLE 1: HORIZONTAL SECTORS ................................................................................................................................ 6

TABLE 2: TYPES OF SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS .............................................................................................................. 7

TABLE 3: OVERVIEW OF VERTICALLY ORIENTED ORGANISATIONS ....................................................................................... 9

TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF BENCHMARK CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 10

TABLE 5: SELECTION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................. 11

TABLE 6: ATTRACTIVENESS ..................................................................................................................................... 12

TABLE 7: LSP POTENTIAL ....................................................................................................................................... 15

TABLE 8: LONG LIST OF USE CASES ........................................................................................................................... 18

TABLE 9: SCORING THE SELECTED USE CASES .............................................................................................................. 19

TABLE 10: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................... 81

TABLE 11: INTERVIEWED EXPERTS ............................................................................................................................ 82

TABLE 12: VALIDATION WORKSHOP EXPERTS ............................................................................................................. 84

TABLE 13: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK .......................... 85

TABLE 14: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE CASES ................................. 86

TABLE 15: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE SHORTLISTED USE CASES .............................. 87

TABLE 16: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACCOMPANYING MEASURES .......... 90

TABLE 17: GENERAL ISSUES ON THE REPORT .............................................................................................................. 90


Page xi

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: ELEMENTS THAT COMPRISE THE INTERNET OF THINGS ..................................................................................... 1

FIGURE 2: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 5

FIGURE 3: HORIZONTAL SECTORS .............................................................................................................................. 6

FIGURE 4: SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 5: VERTICAL SECTORS ................................................................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 6: PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE LARGE-SCALE PILOTS .......................................................................................... 23

of 94

1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces the context of the study, and provides an overview of the

study methodology.

1.1 Internet of Things (IoT)

The Internet of Things (IoT) is defined by ITU (International Telecommunication

Union) and IERC (Internet of Things European Research Cluster) as a dynamic global

network infrastructure with self-configuring capabilities based on standard and

interoperable communication protocols, where physical and virtual "things" have

identities, physical attributes and virtual personalities and use intelligent interfaces

and are seamlessly integrated into the information network. Figure 1 lists the

elements that comprise the Internet of Things in relationship to the definition:

Network infrastructure: “A dynamic global network infrastructure with self-

configuring capabilities based on standard and interoperable communication

protocols […]”;

Things, sensors, and actuators: “[…] where physical and virtual ‘things’

[…]”;

Data: “[…] have identities and physical attributes (sensors and actuators) and

virtual personalities […]”;

Service platform: “[…] and use intelligent interfaces and are seamlessly

integrated into the information network.”

Figure 1: Elements that comprise the Internet of Things

Over the last years, IoT has moved from being a futuristic vision - sometimes a hype -

to an increasing market reality. Nonetheless, aspects such as a large number of

competing technology standards, lack of understanding of new business models, and

social questions are inhibitors to the “cognitive wave” of the IoT, expected to

“facilitate object and data reuse across application domains, leveraging on hyper-

connectivity, interoperability solutions and semantic enriched information distribution,

incorporating intelligence at different levels, in the objects, devices, network(s),

systems and in the applications for evidence-based decision making and priority

setting1.”

1 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/internet-things

of 94

The Digital Agenda for Europe2 sets out several goals which are related to Internet

of Things and in particular addresses the potential benefits through dedicated

research, as referred in Pillar V: Research and innovation.

The European Commission has been supporting research and innovation in the

field of IoT through several European Union (EU) research and innovation framework

programmes in the last decades:

Several Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)3 projects have contributed in

Europe to the spread of IoT and its advantages. There is a coordination by the

IERC4 which brings together experiences of EU financed IoT projects and

national initiatives towards visions and implementation.

HORIZON 20205, the most recent Research and Innovation Programme

offers opportunities for Europe to facilitate the creation and success of

“European champions” which can support the eco-system and respond to real

needs using innovative technological solutions for public interest. In these eco-

systems both the industry and user perspective need to be brought together.

The Work Programme 2014-2015 covers Internet of Things in several sections

and in particular addresses the matter Leadership in enabling and industrial

technologies and more specifically Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT), in the call ICT 30 – 2015: Internet of Things and

Platforms for Connected Smart Objects6.

A series of results are now available, which could usefully be exploited and enhanced

by the market.

1.2 Large-Scale Pilots (LSPs)

While interest in the topic is growing in the business world and users are getting more

familiar with IoT applications, the European Commission needs to make sure that

innovation and research in Europe is focusing on the right objectives and generates

real value for the European market and its citizens. The main focus is now on how IoT

can enable ecosystems of smart solutions, application and services in the area

of, for instance, Smart Homes, Smart Grid and Smart Mobility.

The scope of the study is on how the EU can best support the deployment of IoT

solutions, in order to enhance their acceptability and adoption by users, citizens and

foster new market opportunities for EU suppliers. In particular, emphasis should be

given to areas that need intervention due to among others:

Lack of market interest, while scoring high on social, environmental or

economic benefits;

Fragmentation of vertically oriented closed systems where the

incumbents do not see a strategic interest to cooperate and to

bundle/integrate solutions; or

2 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/our-goals 3 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/enet/projects_en.html 4 http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/ 5 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ 6 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-

wp1415-leit-ict_en.pdf

of 94

Lack of trust, security, privacy or user-friendliness.

Large-scale pilots could play an important role in tackling specific challenges for IoT,

relating to deployment, technological and business model validation and acceptability.

The concept of large-scale pilots is not new; however, many of the pilots have been

typically designed with a reduced scope or been used to showcase solutions with less

strong emphasis on replication. Large-scale pilots should provide the opportunity to

demonstrate actual IoT solutions in real-life settings and should make it possible for

providers to test business models and integration modalities through direct

experimentation with users. This could also help clarify the need for complementary

actions around notably standardisation, interoperability and other policies concerning

trust and security, as well as provide an environment where to test data analytics

tools at scale.

In terms of design, the following non-exhaustive list indicates elements to be covered

by IoT Large Scale Pilots:

Need to cover the full value chain and to demonstrate integration capabilities;

Requirement to deliver open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) /

interoperability;

Requirement to duplicate the pilot (several locations, re-use of components);

Requirement to deliver a certain scale for the pilot to be considered large

enough;

Involvement of European Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) capable

of working together to deploy the LSPs;

Physical display of the solution proposed;

Capability in changing the perception of the actors involved (lighthouse

effect);

Clear and auditable rules for privacy management and handling of personal

data; and

Involvement of social scientists and multiple user groups, in order to design

systems that are useful and acceptable for people.

1.3 Study objectives

The study is designed to gather relevant data concerning IoT Large Scale Pilots and to

further prospect EU wide interest.

Main objectives of the study are:

Identification of the use cases, for which LPSs in the IoT domain in the time

frame 2016-18 would be most valuable, on the basis of a number of empirical

criteria (for example, the most advanced sectors in terms of IoT deployment,

highest economic / innovation impact, highest EU value-added);

Identification of key players of the IoT value chain (with emphasis on SMEs in

Europe) that could team up for the delivery of such LSPs; and

Definition of an LSP deployment strategy and of the required accompanying

measures to ensure maximum impact.

The benchmark study should answer the following questions regarding the feasibility

of IoT use cases for LSPs:

of 94

How is success defined for the LSP?

Which Benchmark Framework that will be used to score use cases (from an

industry and user perspective)?

Which industries and vertical sectors are the most relevant for IoT? Which use

cases are most relevant for these vertical sectors?

What are the results when the use cases are scored against the Benchmark

Framework criteria?

Which are the best ranked use cases for IoT LSP in the time frame of 2016-

2018, contributing most to the EU’s interest?

The criteria of the benchmark framework need to be consistent with the objectives of

the LSPs:

1) Create value across the IoT value chain, with a focus on European SMEs;

2) Deliver open APIs to promote interoperability and creation of standards;

3) Enable the involvement of multiple user groups across different geographical

locations, thus enabling:

a) Multiplication and re-use of the pilot’s components

b) Identify legal and cultural barriers;

4) Allow the service providers to test business models and integration modalities

through direct experimentation with users;

5) Focus on the areas that lack market interest, but otherwise score high in

potential social and economic benefits;

6) Address the areas of trust, security, privacy and user-friendliness to increase

user adoption rate;

7) Deliver capability in changing the perception of the actors involved, by

involving actors across multiple vertical and horizontal sectors and multiple

user groups; and

8) Foster innovation across multiple IoT technological components, such as

devices, networks and applications.

1.4 Methodology

This study was conducted following a methodology consisting of three phases, as

depicted in Figure 2. The first phase focused on the development of selection and

benchmark criteria. Via desk research a long list of use cases was identified. In

addition, more than 500 organisations were identified across the IoT value chain in

various horizontal and vertical sectors. In the second phase, the selection criteria

were applied to obtain a shortlist of valuable use cases. This shortlist was analysed in

detail according to the benchmark criteria, in order to obtain a ranking of potential use

cases for large scale pilots. This shortlist was, in the third phase of the study,

validated during a validation workshop with experts, covering various organisations

active in the IoT domain in horizontal and vertical sectors.

of 94

Figure 2: Overview of the study methodology

of 94

2 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a summary of the European organisations and sectors active in

the IoT domain that have been identified in the context of this study. During desk

research, nearly 500 organisations active in the IoT domain have been included in the

data set that has been made available together with this study.

2.1 Horizontal sector

Horizontally oriented organisations provide specific IoT components, such as enablement hardware and software, platforms and services or networking solutions.

They are usually not targeting a specific industry, but aim at providing solutions for as many industry types as possible with limited adaptations to the product/service that they offer. In the context of our analysis, they are structured according to the

categories listed in

Table 1. A more refined segmentation could be obtained by considering the building

blocks in the IoT-A Architecture Reference Model (ARM).

Table 1: Horizontal sectors

Category Description Examples

Enablement

hardware

These organizations create the embedded processing

solutions (micro-processors, sensors, actuators) that are attached to a device or a gateway.

ARM

Intel Siemens

Libelium

Bosch ST

Enablement software

These companies design and develop operating systems, protocols and software used in IoT solutions.

Sensolus Evrythng

Enablement networks

Telecom or connectivity companies that provide connectivity to IoT-enabled objects (UMTS, GSM, GSM-R, satellite, etc.) and Machine-to-Machine

(M2M) solutions.

O2 Vodaphone Telenor Group

SigFox

Platform

provider

These companies provide (cloud) platforms and

software frameworks.

Beebotte

Lhings waylay.io

Service provider

These companies provide services such as (real-time) (spatial) data services, APIs, data analytics tools, etc.

Thethings.io Intellisense.io

of 94

Figure 3: Horizontal Sectors

Hundreds of European companies active in different IoT domains experience a

changing environment with an exponential growth of the number of connected devices

and IoT applications, in which they can do “more Moore and more than Moore”:

Hardware devices are key enabling technologies for the IoT, and many IoT

applications require it to be smaller, lighter, more power-efficient, and cheaper.

Sensors and actuators are becoming more intelligent and provide IoT service

platforms with unprecedented situational awareness.

Wireless connectivity ubiquity offers a communications fabric to link “things”;

Cloud computing provides centralized processing of massive amounts of

intelligence and enables the deployment of “simple” IoT devices (end points);

and

Data analytics tools enable the processing of huge quantities of data (often big

data) captured by IoT end points to be consumed.

Despite these technological revolutions, the necessary collaboration and creation of

open specifications lags behind, which limits the creation of ecosystems in which all

kinds of devices could work together. In particular, it appears that:

The IoT market is still very fragmented in the EU: looking beyond big

existing players (that are mostly global players and not only European ones),

the start-ups and SMEs develop and compete locally. However, the inherent

character of their horizontal positioning would foster a cross-border

development. It reveals the existence of geographical barriers even for cloud

platforms.

Coexistence of open and proprietary solutions: the lack of standardisation

is favourable for leading companies that protect and impose their own

technology. This lack of standardisation also complicates the collaboration

between companies of different vertical industries that could work together to

extract benefits of the IoT. Traditional hardware providers are pushing their

own IoT device ecosystem into the market. In addition, world-wide consortia

are being formed.

Existence of vertical focus: several solution providers leverage their vertical

focus to kick-start activities on platforms, yet the potential to thrive of

platforms developed for one vertical solution is yet to be confirmed.

The European market also consists of multiple organizations that support the

development of IoT applications.

of 94

Table 2: Types of support organisations

Type Description Examples

Federation

These companies are advocacy groups that seek to defend consumers from corporate abuse (e.g. privacy violation, unsafe products, etc.) or try to

group multiple companies to combine their powers, provide financial resources, etc. They are industry alliances, federations and consumer

organisations.

Digital Europe, BEUC, ENTSO-E,

Industrial Internet Consortium, Open Interconnect

Consortium

Research institute

These organisations are establishments endowed

for doing research in the area of the Internet of Things. They are research consortiums and technical associations

Fraunhofer focus

TU Delft iMinds EFFRA

Standardisation

organisation

These organisations are developing, coordinating or producing technical standards that are intended to address the needs of some relatively wide base

of affected adopters.

ETSI oneM2M The Open Group

IEEE IETF

Funding These companies provide or facilitate the collection of financial funds for start-ups and SMEs.

FiWare Indiegogo

Figure 4: Support organisations

2.2 Vertical sector

In the context of our study, we have listed more than 300 European companies that

are active in vertical sectors in the domain of the Internet of Things. We have classified these companies according to the United Nations International Standard

Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC).

of 94

Figure 5: Vertical sectors

For all these sectors, IoT gives organisations the opportunity to change their business

models, providing new products and services, altering their relationship vis-à-vis

suppliers, consumers, and competitors. At the same time, IoT requires them to make

considerable investments in hardware devices, network infrastructure, and service

platforms. The following observations can be made:

Business-to-Consumer (B2C) oriented sectors, such as those related to smart

health and smart home domains, are highly competitive arenas where many

start-ups fight with bigger players.

Business-to-Business (B2B) oriented sectors hold considerable promise in areas

such as manufacturing, transportation, healthcare, retail, and energy. For

example, the industrial smart grid domain has been rapidly developing in

Germany with Virtual Power Plants.

In some sectors collaboration efforts would allow further exploiting the

possibilities of the IoT. For example, the financial and insurance sector is still at

the beginning of exploiting data from the connected car, with a few notable

exceptions. For example, TomTom succeeded in developing an integrated

strategy where they control key components, both hardware and software in a

vertically closed system, and were able to gain a competitive advantage.

Table 3: Overview of vertically oriented organisations

Industry Examples

Accommodation and food service activities Airbnb, housetrip

Agriculture and fishing OpenAquarium, OpenGarden, Track a Cow

Arts, entertainment and recreation Roosegaarde, Stanza

Construction Bosch, MiniTec

Education Distance (iotSchool), Superflux

Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Dalkia, Elia, Alstrom, Ventyx,

Statkfrat

Financial and insurance activities EuropAssitance, Insure the box

Human health and social work activities Lifesum, fifthplay, Kolibree

Manufacturing Holi, bleepbleeps, lupo

of 94

Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers Volvo, BMW, Toyota

Mining and quarrying Schneider Electrics, Cisco

Professional, scientific and technical activities Yeedao

Public administration and defence Cities of Manchester, Bologna, Santander

Real estate activities BNP Paribas Real Estate

Transportation and storage Cyclosafe, Rom Telematic, TomTom, Ubigo

Water supply Libelium, ACCIONA Agua

Wholesale and retail trade Dixons Retail, Carphone Warehouse

of 94

3 BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK

This chapter defines the criteria of the benchmark framework, structured according to

the following three dimensions:

1. European interest and value;

2. Attractiveness to users and service providers; and

3. Potential to be translated to an LSP.

The score given to a use case depends on the ability to satisfy each formulated

criterion. The first set of criteria concerning “European value” were used to shortlist

the long list of use cases that were identified across different IoT domains. The criteria

of the two other dimensions, “Attractiveness” and “LSP potential”, allowed a detailed

evaluation of the potential of the shortlisted use cases. All criteria under the “LSP

potential” dimension have double weight due to its importance in this study.

Table 4 provides an overview of the benchmark criteria, their weights, maximum

scores and their perspective; the criteria are further defined later in this chapter.

Table 4: Overview of benchmark criteria

Importance in the benchmark Perspective

Weight Score max Users Providers

European value

SC1 Societal challenges 1 5 x

SC2 Industry coverage 1 5 x

SC3 Market coverage 1 5 x

Attractiveness

BC1 Technical maturity 1 5 x x

BC2 Usability 1 5 x

BC3 User benefits 1 5 x

BC4 Entry barriers 1 5 x

BC5 Invest. Risks 1 5 x

BC6 Info security risks 1 5 x x

BC7 Openness 1 5 x

BC8 Legal/ethical barriers 1 5 x x

LSP Potential

BC9 Value chain 2 10 x

of 94

BC10 Interoperability 2 10 x

BC11 Replication 2 10 x

BC12 Scale 2 10 x x

BC13 User engagement 2 10 x

BC14 Business models 2 10 x

BC15 Cross-border 2 10 x

In the remainder of this chapter, the benchmark criteria are described with the

following information:

Description: a short definition of the criterion;

Motivation: a reason why the criterion has been included;

Scoring rule: an explanation on how the criterion is measured.

3.1 Dimension 1: European value

The criteria under the dimension “European value” serve to eliminate use cases that

have less European value, see Table 5.

Table 5: Selection criteria

SC1 Link with societal challenges

Description Evaluating whether the use case directly tackles one or more of the societal challenges defined in Horizon 20207:

Health, demographic change and wellbeing; Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime

and inland water research, and the Bio-economy;

Secure, clean and efficient energy; Smart, green and integrated transport; Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials;

Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies; Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its

citizens.

Motivation To focus on the policy priorities of the European Horizon 2020 strategy and address major concerns shared by citizens in Europe and elsewhere. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases tackling one or more

societal challenges.

Scoring

rule 0 points - The use case does not directly tackle any of the societal

challenges defined in Horizon 2020

5 points - The use case directly tackles one or more societal challenges as defined in Horizon 2020

7 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges

of 94

SC2 Industry coverage (supply-side)

Description Evaluating whether the use case has the potential of being taken up in multiple economic sectors.

Motivation To focus on use cases that are relevant to broader European sectors. A higher priority will be given to use cases with a larger industry coverage.

Scoring rule

0 points - One specific industry sector: The use case is relevant for one specific industry sector.

5 points - Diverse sectors: The use case is relevant for diverse industries (broader than one industry sector).

SC3 Market coverage (demand-side)

Description Evaluating whether there is a high market potential for the use case in terms of adoption on a massive scale

Motivation To focus on use cases that are relevant to broader European consumer markets. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases with a higher

market potential.

Scoring

rule 0 points – Narrow group of consumers: The use case is relevant for narrow

groups of consumers (e.g. people with a certain disease).

5 points – Mass consumers: The use case is relevant for mass consumers (e.g. elderly people; home owners).

3.2 Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers

The objective of the benchmark criteria listed under the second dimension is to

examine the shortlisted use cases for their attractiveness to users (be it industry or

consumers).

Table 6: Attractiveness

BC1 Technical maturity (both users and providers)

Description Assessing the level of technical maturity of the use case, i.e. determining its readiness for operations across a spectrum of environments with a final objective of transitioning it to the user8.

Motivation In general, when a new use case is first conceptualised, it is not immediately suitable for market adoption. Instead, use cases are usually subjected to

experimentation, refinement, and increasingly realistic testing. Once the use case is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem.

Scoring rule

Technology readiness levels (TRL)9:

0 points - TRL 1-3 (basic technology to research to prove feasibility) -> still too early for a large-scale pilot

3 points - TRL 7-9 (system/-sub-system development to system test, launch and operations) -> the use case is already at a later stage of development, parallel pilots and even commercial solutions may already exist

5 points - TRL 4-6 (technology development and demonstration) -> ideal

timing for a large-scale pilot

8 http://www.mitre.org/publications/systems-engineering-guide/acquisition-systems-

engineering/acquisition-program-planning/assessing-technical-maturity 9 http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsystem

of 94

BC2 Usability (users)

Description Assessing how well users can learn and use a use case/solution to achieve

their goals and how satisfied they are with that process.

Motivation To identify use cases that are attractive for users to adopt. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases with higher usability levels.

Scoring rule

Usability is defined as the ease of use, learnability, efficiency, and error tolerability of a particular use case/solution10. Based on the System Usability

Scale (SUS)11: [select the category that best matches the situation of the use case]

0 points – In general, the actual or potential users find the solution

unnecessary complex, need support of a technical person to use the solution, need considerable training/self-learning before they can use the solution, and find the solution cumbersome.

3 points – Although there are some usability issues, in general, the actual or potential users would still like to use the solution under condition that the abovementioned usability issues will be solved.

5 points – In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the

solution frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.

BC3 Benefits for the user (users)

Description Assessing the impact of the use case/solution on the user

Motivation To identify use cases with a high impact on the user. Therefore, a higher

priority will be given to use cases with significant benefits for the user.

Scoring rule

0 points – The use case offers only marginal benefits to the user without much improvement in the current situation.

3 points – The benefits offered by the use case are of a nice-to-have nature

for the user (e.g. better performance, flexibility, productivity, usability).

5 points – The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to the user (e.g. safety).

BC4 Barriers to entry (providers)

Description Assessing the factors that restrict the ability of new players to enter and begin operating in a given domain.

Barriers to entry include12:

Economies of scale -> a need for new entrants to either compete on

a large scale or accept a cost disadvantage in order to compete on a small scale

Product differentiation -> a need for new entrants to spend time and

money to differentiate their products in the marketplace and overcome existing customer loyalties

Capital requirements -> a need for new entrants to make large

investments Switching costs -> a switching cost refers to a one-time cost that is

incurred by a buyer as a result of switching from one supplier's product to another's; a need for new entrants to provide potential

customers with incentives to adopt their products. Access to channels of distribution -> In order to persuade distribution

10 https://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/tech/plan/method/use.php 11 http://www.measuringu.com/sus.php 12 http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/A-Bo/Barriers-to-Market-Entry.html

of 94

channels to accept a new product, new entrants often must provide incentives in the form of price discounts, promotions, and cooperative advertising. Such expenditures act as a barrier by reducing the profitability of new entrants.

Government policy -> e.g. licensing requirements, pollution

standards, product testing regulations, etc.

Motivation To identify use cases where it is relatively easy for new entrants to begin operating, thereby making it scalable and attractive to a large number of potential players. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases with

lower barriers to entry.

Scoring rule

0 points – There are high barriers to entry that are difficult to overcome.

3 points – There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general

be overcome.

5 points – The barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to enter for new players.

BC5 Investment risks (providers)

Description Assessing the key risks associated with investing in the use case. Key categories of investment risks:

Political risks (e.g. change in regulatory system); Macroeconomic risks (e.g. economic fluctuations);

Technology and operational risks (e.g. risk of emergence of new (replacing) technologies or operating paradigms; risk of changing customer preferences etc.);

Affordability risks (i.e. a risk that the solution will be too costly for the users);

Capacity risks (e.g. discontinuation of support from key benefactors)

Motivation To identify use cases with lower investment risks in order to avoid investing in use cases that are likely to be of temporary interest for the market.

Therefore, a higher priority will be given to cases with relatively low investment risks.

Scoring

rule 0 points – There are significant investment risks that are difficult to mitigate.

3 points – There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be mitigated.

5 points – The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe

to invest in.

BC6 Information security risks (users and providers)

Description Assessing the ability of the use case to address confidentiality, integrity, and availability risks. Expected the largest concern, confidentiality relates to the ability to control access to sensitive electronic information and the risk of

leakage of data (i.e. to prevent unauthorised access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, perusal, inspection, recording or destruction13).

Motivation To identify use cases that minimise a chance of unauthorised breaching into critical private information or of gaining control of the internal systems. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to cases with low information

security risks.

Scoring

rule 0 points – There are significant information security risks that are difficult to

mitigate.

3 points – There are some information security risks; however, these can in general be mitigated (e.g. with clear and auditable rules for privacy

13 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3542

of 94

management and handling of personal data).

5 points – The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic

information.

BC7 Openness (providers)

Description Assessing whether the use case allows for the use of standards, platforms, hardware, and software that can be used in accordance with fair, reasonable,

and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions.

Motivation To identify use cases with a low risk of technology lock-in. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to cases based on common standards or

openness.

Scoring

rule 0 points – Non-FRAND restrictions on the use.

3 points – FRAND restrictions on the use.

5 points – The use case is based on open standards and specifications that

can be freely reused.

BC8 Legal and ethical barriers (providers)

Description Checking for (potential) ethical and legal barriers.

Motivation To minimise risks associated with ethical and legal barriers. Therefore a lower priority will be given to use cases for which ethical or legal issues could arise.

Scoring rule

0 points – There are significant legal and/or ethical barriers that are difficult to overcome.

3 points – There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can

in general be overcome.

5 points – The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal barriers.

3.3 Dimension 3: LSP potential

The LSP potential dimension allows assessing whether the use case is suitable for

testing in a large-scale pilot setting. The criteria are directly derived from the LSP

definition provided in the Tender Specifications to this study. The criteria include value

chain coverage, interoperability, replication, scale, user engagement, new business

models and cross-border potential.

Since this dimension concerns the originality of the LSPs, the criteria around value

chain coverage, interoperability, replication, scale, business models and cross-border

potential were assigned a larger weight compared to other criteria. This is done by

assigning double scores, thus 0, 6 or 10 instead of 0, 3 or 5.

Table 7: LSP potential

BC9 Value chain coverage

Description Assessing whether the use case covers the full value chain and demonstrates

integration capabilities.

Motivation To identify use cases with a (potential for) full value chain coverage as one of

the key requirements for large-scale pilots. The higher priority will be given to use cases for which the value chain is formed by (predominantly)

of 94

European organisations for both developing and applying the solution.

Scoring rule

0 points – The use case covers only individual elements of the value chain.

6 points – The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of individual elements)/ The use case covers the whole value chain that is

formed by a mix of European and non-European organisations.

10 points – The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by (predominantly) European organisations for both developing and applying the solution.

BC10 Interoperability

Description Assessing the ability of the use case to make systems and organisations work together (inter-operate).

Motivation To identify use cases with a high degree of interoperability as one of the key requirements for large-scale pilots.

Scoring rule

Based on NATO C3 Technical Architecture (NC3TA) Reference Model for

Interoperability14:

0 points – Structured Data Exchange: exchange of interpretable structured data intended for manual and/or automated handling, but requires manual compilation, receipt and/or message dispatch.

6 points – Seamless Sharing of Data: automated sharing of data amongst systems based on a common exchange model.

10 points – Seamless Sharing of Information: universal interpretation of

information through data processing based on cooperating applications/using open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

BC11 Replication

Description Assessing the suitability of the use case for pilot replication (e.g. several

locations, re-use of components etc.).

Motivation To identify use cases with a high potential for replication as one of the key requirements for large-scale pilots.

Scoring rule

0 points – The pilot is difficult to replicate in other settings and locations.

6 points – Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the

pilot in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.

10 points – The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and locations.

BC12 Scale

Description Assessing the ability of the pilot to be of a certain scale to be considered large enough.

Motivation To identify use cases with a large scaling potential as one of the key

requirements for large-scale pilots.

Scoring

rule 0 points – The pilot represents a small laboratory model.

6 points – The pilot is a sub-system, a component for a full-sized system.

10 points – The pilot is close to a full-size system.

BC13 User engagement

14 http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/04tr004.pdf

of 94

Description Assessing the involvement of multiple user groups in the pilot.

Motivation To identify use cases where multiple user groups and social scientists are involved in order to design systems that are useful and acceptable for people.

Scoring

rule 0 points – The pilot does not imply direct user engagement.

6 points – The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a

small number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users.

10 points – The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social scientists.

BC14 New business models

Description Assessing the ability of the use case to generate new business models.

Motivation To identify use cases that provide a basis for introducing new business models, especially for SMEs.

Scoring rule

0 points – The use case hardly provides a basis for new business models and implies working in a traditional way.

6 points – The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional business models, but does not fundamentally change these business models.

10 points – The use case provides a basis for completely new business

models.

BC15 Cross-border potential

Description Assessing whether the use case has a potential to expand beyond the borders of one country.

Motivation To identify use cases with a high cross-border potential. The higher priority will be given to use cases that have likelihood to be taken up by providers and users from various European countries.

Scoring rule

0 points – In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by maximum one particular European country.

6 points – In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by two-three European countries.

10 points – In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more than three European countries.

of 94

4 SELECTION OF USE CASES

Table 8 lists the 19 use cases for the Large-Scale Pilots that were identified based on

desk research and indicates how these 19 use cases score on the selection criteria. Annex I provides a detailed description of each use case and includes evidence for the

given scores. Use cases that have an overall score of 10 or more are shortlisted for further analysis in the next chapter.

Table 8: Long list of use cases

Multi-

modal m

obility a

nd

sm

art

road infr

astr

uctu

re

Sm

art

agri

culture

and

food t

raceability

Energ

y s

avin

gs a

t hom

e

and in b

uildin

gs

Sm

art

assis

ted liv

ing a

nd

wellbein

g

Work

er

safe

ty

Sm

art

liv

ing e

nvir

onm

ent

Sm

art

manufa

ctu

ring:

custo

mis

ation

Environm

enta

l m

onitori

ng

Bala

ncin

g t

he e

lectr

icity

gri

d

Sm

art

public s

afe

ty

European value (/15) 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 10

Societal challenges 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5

Industry coverage 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 5

Market coverage 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0

Selected Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Energ

y s

avin

gs in

pro

duction p

rocesses

Sm

art

wate

r dis

trib

ution

netw

ork

s

Auto

mate

d m

anufa

ctu

ring

Sm

art

desig

n (

maker

movem

ent)

Sm

art

facto

ry

Sm

art

manufa

ctu

ring:

supply

chain

Com

fort

and s

ecurity

at

hom

e

Open p

latf

orm

s for

the

audio

-vis

ual in

dustr

y

Citiz

en e

ngagem

ent

and

bett

er

public s

erv

ices in

citie

s

Selection criteria 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Societal challenges 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Industry coverage 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0

Market coverage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

Selected No No No No No No No No No

of 94

5 SCORING USE CASES

Table 9 contains a summary of the benchmark scores for the 10 use cases selected in

the previous chapter. The total score is calculated based on a maximum score of 125.

Annex I contains a detailed analysis of the benchmark scores and related evidence.

Table 9: Scoring the selected use cases

Multi-

modal m

obility

and s

mart

road

infr

astr

uctu

re

Sm

art

agri

culture

and food t

raceability

Energ

y s

avin

gs a

t

hom

e a

nd in

buildin

gs

Sm

art

assis

ted liv

ing

and w

ellbein

g

Work

er

safe

ty

Sm

art

liv

ing

envir

onm

ent

Sm

art

manufa

ctu

ring:

custo

mis

ation

Environm

enta

l

monitori

ng

Bala

ncin

g t

he

ele

ctr

icity g

rid

Sm

art

public s

afe

ty

European Value (/15) 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 10

Societal challenges (/5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5

Industry coverage (/5) 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 5

Market coverage (/5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0

Attractiveness (/40) 34 38 32 32 34 34 32 36 30 27

Technical maturity (/5) 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5

Usability (/5) 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5

User benefits (/5) 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5

Entry barriers (/5) 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3

Investment risks (/5) 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 3

Info security risks (/5) 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3

Openness (/5) 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 3

Legal/ethical barriers

(/5) 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 0

LSP Potential (/70) 70 62 66 62 58 58 58 54 58 50

Value chain coverage

(/10) 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 6 10 6

Interoperability (/10) 10 6 6 10 6 6 6 6 10 6

Replication (/10) 10 6 10 6 10 6 6 10 6 6

Scale (/10) 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 10 10

User engagement (/10) 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6 6

Business models (/10) 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 6 6 6

Cross-border (/10) 10 10 10 6 10 10 10 10 10 10

Total (/125) 119 115 113 109 107 102 100 100 98 87

of 94

6 CONCLUSION

This section lists the proposed use cases for the LSPs, elicits expected benefits and

makes some recommendations on accompanying measures and future work.

6.1 Proposed use cases

Based on the benchmark scores, the following top-5 use cases are proposed for the

Large-Scale Pilots:

1. Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure;

2. Smart agriculture and food traceability;

3. Energy savings at home and in buildings;

4. Smart assisted living and wellbeing; and

5. Worker safety.

6.2 Expected benefits

It is expected that the deployment of Large-Scale Pilots in the area of the Internet of

Things will bring among others the following benefits:

The LSPs will build a critical mass for specifications and standards via

the implementation of open platforms: IoT technology requires

organisations to set up an entirely new technology infrastructure. The LSPs

should leverage where feasible the use of open-source implementations (for

example, reusing software from FIWARE or OM2M) of open standards and

specifications (for example oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS, IETF, the Open Group,

INSPIRE, Datex2, etc.) that target applicative cross-domain interoperability for

the service layer and API aspects. This will showcase the possibilities to

develop value-added services on top of open, horizontal platforms creating

innovative, competitive, and sustainable ecosystems. The use of standards and

specifications that are at least usable under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-

discriminatory) conditions is key to avoid technology lock-in. The Large-Scale

Pilots can help to test new standards and specifications and build a critical

mass for these standards and specifications to allow market adoption. One

important area of standardisation is the use of semantic standards (data

models and reference data), to enable interoperable information exchange and

data analytics. The use cases for the LSPs have been selected in areas where

standards and specifications are available to a certain extent. Nonetheless,

standardisation should be flexible enough to leave room for innovation.

The LSPs will allow organisations to work together to validate new

ecosystems and business models and create new market opportunities

via direct interaction with consumers: IoT technology enables a new set of

products and more importantly value-added services, which will change the

business models of companies and other organisations in their relation with

their customers, competitors, and suppliers. For example, IoT will allow new

pricing models (e.g. pay-per-use), closer customer relationships (e.g. value-

of 94

added services and data analytics), mass customisation of products, product as

a service (access-over-ownership), new markets (e.g. electricity balancing

market), new relationships with suppliers (e.g. avoiding cloud lock-in), etc. The

use cases for the LSPs have been selected in areas where organisations could

achieve more through collaboration with customers, competitors, and

suppliers.

The LSPs will broaden the perspective of organisations to a European

context and market situation: The European ICT sector is still nationally

oriented and SMEs and research organisations at times lack the contacts and

knowledge needed to unlock to potential of IoT solutions at an EU scale. The

deployment of Large-Scale Pilots in the context of the Horizon2020 Programme

will bring together actors spread around Europe and will provide a physical

display of the capabilities of European organisations (companies, public

administrations, and research institutes) and create network effects between

them. The selected large-scale pilots all allow a cross-border aspect and have a

potential to strengthen the digital single market.

6.3 Accompanying measures

The following accompanying measures are proposed for the Large-Scale Pilots. They

result in a proposed design for the LSPs depicted in Figure 6.

Set up an architecture office to ensure a minimum level of cross-LSP

coordination and alignment: The situation must be avoided where each LSP

reinvents the wheel by developing solution building blocks that are similar but

not interoperable with building blocks used in other LSPs. Where possible, the

LSPs should leverage common, horizontal enablers that are context and sector

neutral. This will ensure that the IoT technology that stems from the Large-

Scale Pilots has a large potential for cross-sector reuse. It is therefore

recommended to set up an architecture office that ensures a minimum of

cross-LSP coordination by identifying a minimum set of common principles,

standards and specifications, terminology, methodology, and common solution

building blocks – e.g. next to the FIWARE platform also certain building blocks

from OM2M (the open source implementation of the world-wide oneM2M

initiative) could be used. The architecture office should be embedded in the

governance structure and decision mechanisms of the LSPs;

Set up a stakeholder management office to ensure effective

dissemination, engagement activities across LSPs: it is important for the

deployed LSPs to have a common function for stakeholder management which

will be responsible for all training activities and will maintain a common contact

log.

Perform continuous monitoring and evaluation at programme level:

Since one of the objectives of the LSPs is to validate and test business models,

user acceptance and integration capabilities, the stakeholder management

office has to provide performance metrics allowing to quantitatively measure

this.

Require LSPs to analyse information security risks and foresee

sufficient guarantees for personal data protection: confidentiality of

personal data is a vital concern for all LSPs. As the LSPs promote the use of

of 94

horizontal, open platforms in a wider ecosystem, there is a real risk that

personal data is being used by a third party for purposes beyond control of

individuals. Current IoT standardisation initiatives have only started looking at

privacy. The identity and access management schemes that are used in other

domains cannot be easily transferred to the IoT domain since they are too

resource consuming for many of the devices compromising the IoT and lack in

scalability. One solution could be to work with Privacy Enhancing Techniques

(PETs) and pseudo-identifiers providing different identifying attributes

depending on the authentication context. It is recommended that each pilot

conducts an analysis of information security risks and adapts its solution

accordingly. The architecture office should also play a coordinating role;

Require LSPs to foster replicability via training and dissemination

activities to ensure the enablement of ecosystems of smart solutions, which

demonstrate integration capabilities and interoperability between actors across

multiple vertical and horizontal sectors. Training and dissemination activities

are expected to lower the threshold and remove fear to start cooperating.

Require LSPs to elaborate on guarantees for sustainability: Each LSP

could be asked to elaborate on various options to guarantee the sustainability

of the solution developed in the LSP. Such guarantees for sustainability could

be to set up an industry federation or consortium that ensures that

collaboration persists when funding via the Horizon2020 programme has

ended. Other guarantees could be to hand-over developed software solutions

to existing organisations and standardisation initiatives.

Set up a cross-pilot IPR policy: the LSPs should include guarantees for

openness (e.g. under FRAND conditions) and access to the pilot’s

(intermediate) results by third-parties. This requires putting in place the

necessary contributor licence agreements and legal support and collaboration

and dissemination platforms. This cumulative approach would enable SMEs to

enter the LSP after successful deployment, use the existing infrastructure to

set-up an accompanying small scale pilot or benefit from useful datasets.

Require LSPs to assess the environmental impact of IoT: IoT devices

have a considerable ecological footprint (e.g. related to production and to

deployment of sensors in natural areas), so the total footprint of the solution

should be taken into account when evaluating the pilot.

of 94

Figure 6: Proposed design of the Large-Scale Pilots

6.4 Future work

The following follow-up research is proposed:

Continue to explore use cases. As pointed out during the validation

workshop, some use cases that were not shortlisted for the benchmarking such

as ‘energy savings in production processes’ and ‘smart water distribution

networks’ would nonetheless merit further investigation.

Continue to update the dataset of organisations that are active in the IoT

area. The current dataset includes more than 500 organisations that are active

in the IoT area. This seems only to be the tip of the iceberg. It is suggested to

continue maintaining this dataset, including also other, less visible

organisations, such as device manufacturers. When available as open data,

such a dataset can become an enabler of market intelligence, expected to be

useful especially for new market entrants.

Continue to fund research and innovation on key enabling

technologies, IoT devices, network infrastructure and service

infrastructure. The proposed use cases for LSPs will impose some further

requirements and constraints for core IoT technology, but mainly target the

market adoption of IoT. In addition, fundamental research and innovation is

needed in core IoT technology (IoT devices, network infrastructure, and service

infrastructure). For example, many IoT use cases will require IoT devices not

only to be smaller, lighter, more energy-efficient, and cheaper, but will also

require sensor readings to provide better quality readings (e.g. in terms of

accuracy, frequency, etc.). This requires research and innovation activities of a

more fundamental nature that could – in part – be coordinated independently

from the LSPs.

of 94

Annex I. Selecting and scoring use cases

This annex contains the evidence supporting the benchmark scores of the 19 use

cases for LSPs that were defined in this study.

I.1. Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure

Dimension 1: European Value

Use case description

A group of IoT use cases that involve putting in place horizontal platforms that will collect data from private and public transport vehicles equipped with on-

board units to allow for increased multi-modal mobility, more efficient traffic management, a dynamic road infrastructure, automated road tolling, usage-based insurance and improved policy making through the analysis of road

usage data. The platform will provide real-time information on road congestions, public transport alternatives, road tolling, and parking spot availability, availability of

charging stations for electrical vehicles and vehicle-pooling or vehicle-sharing possibilities as a data-service via open protocols to different navigation devices (on-board devices, tablet, smartphone, browser, etc.) which will then be able to provide optimised real-time and multi-modal navigation services.

It is anticipated that not all aspects of the aforementioned use case description can be technically realised in the context of one LSP, however, the LSP should provide the platform for European companies to work together on this.

Specific use cases

Collect real-time and up-to-date travel information on current road congestions, road works and taxi or public transport availability to enable

efficient and optimised navigation services, including multi-modal

transportation alternatives (e.g. vehicle-sharing and public transport); Enable easy vehicle pooling and sharing by the use of an open platform on

which users can find drivers in their vicinity willing to share their (taxi) ride with others living or working nearby;

Improve the ease of charging electrical vehicles, by providing information about the availability of charging stations nearby and allow user to pay

automatically for the electricity they have used; Improve the last mile reachability by equipping public bikes with tracking

devices and keyless bike locks to enable easy bike sharing;

Enable locating and automatic paying for the best, available parking spots (related to price, distance, safety, etc.) nearby the destination and allow elderly or disabled individuals to reserve those spots in advance;

Allow individuals to rent their privately-owned parking spots to other drivers when they are not using them and improve the ability of public services to detect illegally parked vehicles.

Create an open data platform with (big data analyses on) usage statistics,

travel information, road congestions, public transport timetables, accidents, road works, etc. to improve decision making, traffic management and allow external developers in creating value-added

services; and Automated electronic and usage based payment of road tolls (using the

European standard for Electronic Tolling Services (EETS)), insurance,

public transport and parking spots with pricing dependent on road congestion, carpooling and driving behaviour.

Societal challenges

5/5

This LSP has a clear link with several European challenges: H2020 societal challenge: "Smart, green and integrated transport" Smart Mobility is on the Digital Agenda for Europe

of 94

Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers

EU 2020 objective of reducing greenhouse gasses

Open data, privacy and road charging: European Electronic Toll Service (EETS) Directive

Industry

coverage 5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors: road infrastructure companies,

public organisations, vehicle manufacturers, navigator system companies, transportation companies, leasing companies, etc.

Market coverage

5/5

This use case is applicable to a mass consumer group, since it relates to all citizens using some kind of transport. This use case would also make car transport more affordable and environmentally friendly (e.g. car-sharing) and

could make multi-modal mobility more attractive and accessible for a broader user group.

Technical maturity

5/5

Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a large-scale pilot.

Several similar, but limited commercial solutions already exist and show the technical maturity, e.g. Mobile Ninja is a web application that implements basic multi-modal

capabilities and tries to achieve a traveller’s community, in which

individuals can share information [MobileNinja]; Carpooling.com provides a platform for ride-sharers to find each other

easily and book a seat;

TomTom has their own vertically closed navigation systems in which they want to partner with insurance companies, fleet management companies, etc.;

Google Maps provides a basic multi-modal mobility solution which

integrates public transport; Automated payment schemes are already used in London (Oyster card)

and Bogota (SITP fare card);

Be-Mobile monitors 24/7 live traffic to improve traffic management; and Transit App in Mexico City shows the power of an open data platform

[WBG].

Although this project aims at creating open, horizontal platforms, which combines these verticals and integrates even more information into navigators

(e.g. parking spot availability, road tolling, car and bike sharing, etc.), which has not yet been demonstrated. “Real-time on-board-navigation is an established technology today and remains

the key mobility management function.” [Strategy&] During interviews we were able to confirm the fact that this is an ideal timing

for a Large-Scale Pilot in this area: “The timing is right to put in place a demonstrator project for multi-modal

mobility in several cities and ideally in a cross-border context, since all

technologies exist but are not always used in concert.” (source: ITS Belgium)

“Technology is mature enough; it's a matter of collaboration to create the interconnected system.” (source: Zen Car)

Usability 5/5

The actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.

This pilot consists of three major aspects: Multi-modal navigation is definitely of big interest, since road

congestions and emissions are becoming a very big problem in large cities (WBG predicts an exponential growth in emissions from urban transport

of 94

[WBG]), people are really willing to look at alternative transportation

methods; Dynamic road infrastructure is wanted by potential users, since it will

increase their efficiency and satisfaction;

Improved charging solutions for electrical vehicles are really needed, since the uptake of electrical vehicles is limited due to the short autonomy and the unavailability of charging stations;

Road tolling and usage-based insurance will lead to improved

efficiency and potential lower insurance cost and will thus be used frequently.

Recent studies have shown that the market potential for safety increasing car technologies and vehicle management is likely to respectively quadruple and triple by 2020. [Strategy&]

Already existing similar project also showed that the usability for ITS is very high: London's Oyster card for multi-modal payment [Oyster]

Ubigo ITS pilot in Sweden [Ubigo] The usability has also been confirmed by experts in the field of Intelligent

Transportation Systems: “The use case has the potential of being easy-to-use and used frequently, provided that information sources are well integrated and that payment options are consistent and give the right incentives.” (source:

ITS)

User benefits 5/5

The benefits address fundamental needs of citizens and businesses.

These benefits from an end-user perspective are [ITS]: Improved efficiency of travelling since roads will be less congested and

multiple alternative ways of reaching the destination will be compared;

Safer roads due to less road congestion, eCall [eCall] and integrated well-being assistance (e.g. fatigue protection, lane assist, automated braking system);

Improved charging of electrical vehicles: this will allow electrical vehicle drivers to charge their car with the same ease of filling up gasoil vehicles, e.g. improved payment systems will enable users to charge their vehicle at other companies and still pay for the electricity themselves.

Less fuel consumption and emissions since the use of public transport alternatives will be encouraged;

Increased social cohesion due to the increased use of public transport;

Cheaper travelling due to pay-per-use models and decreased tolling prices if you are willing to carpool; and

Higher traveller satisfaction since travellers will have access to reliable

travel times, find parking spots more efficient, etc. These benefits have all been confirmed by experts during interviews and actual proof of those benefits can be found in already existing projects [ITS], e.g. ITS

has reduced the travel time in Los Angeles by 25%.

Entry

barriers 3/5

There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be

overcome. These barriers are:

High capital investments in road infrastructure and deploying on-board units are required, which can be difficult for SMEs and smaller municipalities, but can lead to selling value-added services towards

companies (e.g. navigation system developers), other governments, car

insurance companies, etc. to ensure return on investment; Appropriate legal frameworks are needed to stimulate collaboration and

create this ecosystem. Legislation in many regions slows down technical

opportunities. [Strategy&];

of 94

New business models are needed for private organisations to tap into,

which could be incentivised by regulations and standards; Openness: most public organisations have invested a lot and now want to

foster their own transportation system;

Clear benefits are needed to change the habits of people, because most of the users prefer to take their own vehicles; and

Last mile reachability: True multi-modal transport must support transportation facilities from doorstep to doorstep, but the so called last

mile remains a problem [LM]. This can for example be mitigated by allowing public bike users to leave their bike behind on every street corner.

Investment risks

Score

3/5

There are some small investment risks; however, these can in general be mitigated.

Since most of the required information is already available in the systems of the different actors (e.g. availability of parking spots, real-time traffic data, road tolling data, etc.), the use case only requires making this data available to others using common specifications.

An example of a small investment risk is the integration of payment methods, since this will require a large investment and there are little guarantees that

those payment solutions will be sustained.

Information

security risks

Score

3/5

There are some information security risks; however, these can in

general be mitigated. The most important security issue may be personal data protection, however,

for this, privacy-enhancing techniques (PETs) are available [PET]: these techniques will use different identifiers in different contexts, i.e. pseudonyms, which makes it impossible to combine all information from several contexts together and link it to a specific individual.

Openness Score

5/5

The use case can largely be built on common standards and specifications that can be freely reused.

Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot: Wireless and automated payment can be done by the use of

smartphones and smart cards with RFID and/or Near Field Communication (NFC) technology and the Calypso [Calypso] electronic ticketing standard;

Real-time road usage information exchange can be achieved using the DATEX II or CEN SIRI standards [DATEX, CEN] and the initiatives around

the INSPIRE data specifications with TN-ITS/ROSATTE on ITS-related spatial data [TN-ITS, ROSATTE];

Positioning vehicles and public bikes can be done by using GPS/Galileo

devices; Improved electrical vehicle charging can be achieved by the use of the

IEC 62196 standard, which is an international standard for a set of

electrical connectors and charging modes for electric vehicles; Automated road tolling can be achieved with technologies in the

European road tolling standard [EETS], such as Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSCR), Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) or

the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); Automated notification of emergency services can be done with the

eCall standard [eCall];

Parking spot availability can be checked using a wireless sensor network with 802.15.4 technology; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,

such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa. Also during interviews, the need to use open standards and specifications was clearly stated: “To enable the creation of a solid solution with collaboration

between public and private sector (instead of fragmented approaches), a harmonisation is needed at the level of European standards to enable

of 94

Dimension 3: LSP Potential

interoperability and the supporting legal frameworks.” (source: ITS)

Legal/ ethical

barriers

5/5

The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal barriers.

The main barrier is that multi-modal mobility requires the use of a smart device (smartphone, sophisticated navigation system, etc.), which can be discriminating and enforce e-exclusion (e.g. only half of the population has

access to a smartphone [SP]). On the other hand, e-inclusion will also be increased due to the fact that car sharing and car-pooling initiatives will allow people that cannot afford a proprietary car to travel more efficiently.

Value chain coverage 10/10

The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by (predominantly) European organisations for both developing and applying the solution.

Examples of organisations that could team up are: Equipment manufacturers: companies that will manufacture the

necessary on-board units and sensors, e.g. Be-Mobile, RDM Telematics and

Springworks AB; Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary

communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the non-

telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox; Platform service providers: responsible for the collection and analyses of

data (real-time congestion information, vehicle locations, driving behaviour,

public transport time-tables and real-time schedules), e.g. Evrythng, Sensolus and ThingWorx or platforms as FIWARE and OM2M;

Ongoing initiatives: collaboration with ongoing multi-modal transportation initiatives is possible, e.g. Carpooling.com and TomTom;

Leasing companies: those companies can stimulate their clients to participate in car sharing initiatives, e.g. Enterprise Holdings, DPDHL;

Home appliances companies: those companies can provide ‘home

integration’ services which connects vehicles with home/office (e.g. disable alarm when arriving, )

Car sharing and rental: companies that can cooperate to deploy a well-

integrated car-sharing solutions, e.g. Enterprise Holdings, Hertz, Car2Go and BlablaCar;

Bike sharing solutions: companies that can provide keyless bike locks and bike tracking devices, e.g. Bitlock and Skylock;

Electrical vehicle charging stations: companies that offer charging solutions for electrical vehicles;

Public sector: road authorities, traffic control agencies and public

transport companies; Mobile payment: companies who can team up to deploy the automated

payment solution, e.g. AWL, SixDots, Fortumo and MobiWallet;

Insurance companies: those companies could introduce usage-based-insurance (UBI) models, e.g.DriveLikeAGirl and InsureTheBox;

Parking companies: companies that manage public and private parking facilities, e.g. APCOA, InterParking and Q-Park; and

Vehicle manufacturers: Europe has a lot of vehicle manufacturers who could cooperate, e.g. Scania, BMW, Citroen and Volkswagen.

Inter-operability

10/10

This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of information, based on open standards and specifications.

A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the cooperating actors to do the following: Public transport sector will share the location and availability of their

vehicles, real-time and up-to-date timetables and payment information;

of 94

Navigation systems will share the travellers destination and preferred arrival time, the willingness to share a car, real-time information on road congestion;

Private parking companies will share the availability of their parking spots, payment information and usage analyses;

Road tolling companies will be able to share detailed road usage

analyses for policy and decision making, payment information; Public sector will share information on road works, strikes and speed

regulations; and

Road infrastructure will share detailed and real-time road congestion information.

Replication

10/10

The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and

locations. The general idea and objective of the pilot of creating an advanced multi-modal

transport concept is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and locations, as long as the involved member states put effort in agreeing on standards and legal frameworks.

An example of the differences in regulations is the fact that in the Netherlands it is allowed to test driverless vehicles on public roads, which is not the case in several other European countries [Reg]).

Scale 10/10

The scale of the multi-modal LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to a full-size system.

Since this pilot really wants to involve all the actors in the value chain of a city’s transportation system, the scale can be considered large enough.

A demonstrator acting as validator for the finalised European standards and accompanying legal framework could showcase the harmonisation of the

already ongoing small scale and isolated developments.

User engagement

10/10

The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social scientists.

This pilot will address a really large value chain and will affect a broad group of consumers due to considerable market potential. This will make sure that the

pilot involves active engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a system that is useful and acceptable for people.

New business models 10/10

The use case provides a basis for completely new business models. Every actor of the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new business models:

Vehicle manufacturers: could shift from "ownership" to "access", offer after sales services (e.g. over-the-air updates) and provide remote diagnosis and maintenance planning;

Car sharing and rental companies: could seek value-added services via better integration with other means of transportation and optimize operation and maintenance of the fleet;

Bike sharing solutions: could seek value-added services via better integration with other means of transportation;

Public sector: could better organise road tolling, traffic management, emergency services, etc.;

Electrical vehicles charging stations: those companies can put in place charging stations at a wide variety of locations (e.g. on private company and public parking spots), connect them to their electricity facilities but

allow for reimbursements since the users will actually pay for the consumed

electricity; Leasing companies: rather than a traditional leasing, leasing companies

could organise carpooling and car-sharing initiatives among the personnel of its clients, they could offer vehicle tracking, remote diagnostics, maintenance planning and deliver Key Performance Indicators (KPIs);

Mobile/Internet payment companies: could integrate electronic

of 94

I.2. Smart agriculture and food traceability

ticketing solutions, mobility budget, etc. on their payment platform; Insurance companies: could implement a pay-per-use model, better

segment their customer base according to their driving behaviour and allow

for target group marketing and obtain a data base for tariff calculations; Network operators: could provide the necessary networking capabilities

for the connected car enabling value-added services; and

Platform service providers: this LSP will enable new markets for platform service providers, who will provide the integrated information services (e.g. real-time congestion information, vehicle locations, driving behaviour, public

transport time-tables and real-time schedule, etc.) that will form the basis of all these value-added services.

Cross-

border potential 10/10

In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more

than three European countries. The uptake of such a multi-modal demonstrator project can be compared to the

uptake achieved by the eCall demonstrator [eCall2]. The creation of such a horizontal platform will require regulations and

appropriate legal frameworks to enable a cross- cities and/or cross-border travelling aspect (such as highways, cities public transports).

References [eCall] eCall : http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ecall-time-saved-lives-saved [EETS] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/studies/eets_en.htm [eCall2] eCall demonstrator: http://www.embeduk.com/case-studies/ecall-via-model-based-development [DATEX] DATEX II standard: http://www.datex2.eu/ [Calypso] http://www.calypsostandard.net/ [ITS] A survey on ITS: http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr15%285%2913/4.pdf [SP] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/ [LM] http://www.utne.com/environment/first-last-toughest-mile-in-transportation.aspx#axzz2yn1QAbDP [Oyster] http://wima.mc/dan/PRESENTATIONS_CONF/22_april/dobson2.pdf [Ubigo] http://web.viktoria.se/ubigo/las-mer/about-english/ [PET] PET Whitebook: http://www.dutchdpa.nl/downloads_overige/PET_whitebook.pdf [Reg] http://www.automotiveit.com/netherlands-wants-to-ok-large-scale-self-driving-car-test/news/id-009301 [SIRI] CEN SIRI standard: https://www.vdv.de/siri.aspx http://www.drivefactor.com/usage-based-insurance-5-reasons-this-is-the-year/ [TN-ITS] TN-ITS initiative: http://tn-its.eu/ [ROSATTE] ROSATTE: http://tn-its.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ROSATTE-D31-Specification-of-data-exchange-methods-v16.pdf [EULF] EULF action: http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/02-interoperability-architecture/2-13action_en.htm [ELF] ELF project: http://www.elfproject.eu/content/overview

[Strategy&] http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/what-we-think/reports-white-

papers/article-display/connected-car-2014-study [WBG] World bank group: smart mobility research report https://daue6ehqissah.cloudfront.net/breakouts/2014/2014%2010%2014%20Shomik%20Mehndiratta%20IoTWF.pdf

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases using smart solutions for controlling and monitoring

agricultural production and distribution systems. This includes applications such as remote fertilisation, remote irrigation, or pest detection. It also allows food traceability and information exchange (e.g. on food provenance or transport conditions) across the whole supply chain. One possible scope for this use case

could be a more difficult crop to cultivate (e.g. olives).

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ecall-time-saved-lives-saved

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/studies/eets_en.htm

http://www.embeduk.com/case-studies/ecall-via-model-based-development

http://www.embeduk.com/case-studies/ecall-via-model-based-development

http://www.datex2.eu/

http://www.calypsostandard.net/

http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr15%285%2913/4.pdf

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/

http://www.utne.com/environment/first-last-toughest-mile-in-transportation.aspx#axzz2yn1QAbDP

http://www.utne.com/environment/first-last-toughest-mile-in-transportation.aspx#axzz2yn1QAbDP

http://wima.mc/dan/PRESENTATIONS_CONF/22_april/dobson2.pdf

http://web.viktoria.se/ubigo/las-mer/about-english/

http://www.dutchdpa.nl/downloads_overi

http://www.automotiveit.com/netherlands-wants-to-ok-large-scale-self-driving-car-test/news/id-009301

http://www.automotiveit.com/netherlands-wants-to-ok-large-scale-self-driving-car-test/news/id-009301

https://www.vdv.de/siri.aspx

http://www.drivefactor.com/usage-based-insurance-5-reasons-this-is-the-year/

http://tn-its.eu/

http://tn-its.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ROSATTE-D31-Specification-of-data-exchange-methods-v16.pdf

http://tn-its.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ROSATTE-D31-Specification-of-data-exchange-methods-v16.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/02-interoperability-architecture/2-13action_en.htm

http://www.elfproject.eu/content/overview

https://daue6ehqissah.cloudfront.net/breakouts/2014/2014%2010%2014%20Shomik%20Mehndiratta%20IoTWF.pdf

https://daue6ehqissah.cloudfront.net/breakouts/2014/2014%2010%2014%20Shomik%20Mehndiratta%20IoTWF.pdf

of 94



15http://liveworx.thingworx.com/Portals/0/2014%20Presentations/OnFarm_Smart%20Agriculture%20and%20the%20Internet%20of%20Things.pdf

Specific use cases

Open-air agriculture and horticulture Automated detection of pests and diseases on crop fields; Irrigate crop remotely and monitor soil to add necessary nutrients, poisons,

etc.; Monitor crop to optimise harvesting and picking order; and

Automated harvesting and lawn mowing.

Food traceability Tracking food during the complete supply chain; Providing information of food provenance; and

Monitor the conditions of the environment during transport (e.g. temperature, humidity, etc.)

Cattle Track location of cattle in big farms;

Remotely monitor activity and vital health parameters of cattle; Feed cattle remotely and add necessary nutrients and vitamins depending

on the animal's conditions; and

Track animals during long-distance transportation to improve animal safety and well-being.

Societal

challenges 5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Food security,

sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research, and the bio economy”, since for example smart agriculture and food production is expected to save 50 billion gallons of fresh water a year15.

Industry coverage

5/5

Applicable to several sectors, including "Agriculture, forestry and fishing", and "Wholesale and retail trade".

Market coverage

5/5

This use case has impact on the total value chain regarding to food production and consumption, which allows for improvement from the field, to the

supermarket and the consumer.

Technical maturity

3/5

The use case is already at a later stage of development, parallel pilots and even commercial solutions already exist.

Open-air agriculture Examples of already existing commercial solutions are: Farmlogs, Siega systems and Onfarm: applications that enable

monitoring agriculture related environmental parameters, tracking of field rainfall, monitoring of local grain prices, managing farm operations, etc.;

Phenonet project is a part of Open IoT that enables plant breeders and

farmers to compare and evaluate the performance of different wheat varieties using real time measurements for a variety of remote sensors [Phenonet];

FIspace platform is a B2B software platform which funds, supports and coaches several smart agriculture applications, they currently have 8 use case trial experimentation sites in Europe on Crop Protection Information Sharing, Fish Distribution (Re-)Planning, Flowers & Plants Supply Chain

Monitoring, Fresh Fruit And Vegetables, Greenhouse Management And Control, Meat Provenance Information.

SmartAgriFood is a project that develops prototypes and works towards

actual applicable tools to be used in the Smart Agriculture domain; and Optifert develops and implements a demand driven and fully automatic

of 94

and combined irrigation and fertilization system to enable farmers to monitor and control their water and fertilizer consumption.

Horticulture: Next to the solutions mentioned above, also some horticulture specific

initiatives already exist:

SensorMetrix and Floricode commercial solutions which include for example a portal for registration and coding of floriculture products that allows all the users in the supply chain to exchange information.

Food traceability Some basic initiatives and commercial solutions exist: FIspace platform develops tools for Meat Information On Provenance,

which enable the tracing of meat and its provenance; and GS1 develops standards to ensure Food Traceability, e.g. BarCodes, RFID,

EPCglobal, etc.

Cattle Commercial systems for animal transport monitoring exist (e.g. TrackACow: a

Heat Detection and Cow Welfare Telemetry Monitoring System), but these are ad hoc or offline [12]. The connection with IoT would enable better and more accurate monitoring. In general, since there already exist multiple (commercial) solutions in all four

of those aspects, the pilot should focus on achieving real interaction between all the players involved in those pilots, to achieve end-to-end food traceability and be able to really benefit from big data analyses.

Usability score

5/5

In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to

use it.

The usability of these use cases has been proven to be high in multiple commercial successes in several initiatives in the EU, United Stated and Canada

(see BC1). Also some clarification initiatives for food traceability are present [FoodTraceability].

No existing solutions are identified to monitor living animals during transport, but combining existing technologies will be able to develop a usable solution [SensorMetrix], [OpenIoT].

The Internet of Things has a lot of potential in the smart agriculture sector, especially due to the fact of the growing world population which forces the agriculture sector to move towards more efficient and sustainable ways of

production. Although for the moment, the cost-benefit relationship is very important for the actors involved, since it is a sector with a lot of small companies the affordability of the solution is very important (especially if we

want to move for example towards monitoring individuals products instead of containers).

In the agriculture sector, there are a lot companies who are really willing to publish their data on an open platform, e.g. Fion publishes information to enable traceability of their meat, which creates some kind of trust between the company and their buyers.

IoT could also improve the sustainability of the sector, e.g. by reducing the required amount of pesticides.

User

benefits

5/5

The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to

the user.

Open-air agriculture and horticulture The benefits are fundamental, those are: Increase in efficiency and productivity in irrigation (e.g. savings up to

50 billion gallons a year according to OnFarm), fertilization, pesticides, etc.

of 94

Decrease the environmental impact for everyone, since it would also be far easier to have an early detection of diseases and drought, therefore decreasing loss of production or unhealthy end products.

Food traceability

These benefits would also be significant. It would enable

The mapping of the whole supply chain and its offshoots. Improved detection and tracing of diseases in an early stage. Tracing the origin of fraudulent products would be faster, more

accurate and easier.

Cattle The benefits generated by cattle tracking/monitoring are fundamental, since the

EC made animal welfare one of their key points: Monitor cattle during transportation would give a better insight in stress-

or harmful situations, making it possible to avoid or enhance them.

Tracking cattle on the field could also increase productivity and efficiency.

Entry barriers

5/5

In general the barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to enter for new players. These barriers are in general:

Economies of scale and capital requirements: For an individual farmer (in Europe most of the time SME's) deploying a smart agriculture solution could be very costly, but this can be mitigated by operating in cooperation

with multiple farmers; and Severe differences between companies, especially between the rather

big agriculture companies who have a well-developed IT infrastructure and

the small local farmer who mainly use manual methods

Horticulture also intrudes an additional barrier in product differentiation, since there could be customer loyalties, because there already are some largely

integrated solutions.

Investment risks 5/5

The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe to invest in.

All those initiatives could be very costly and the initial investments could be very high for an individual farmer (in Europe most of the time SME's), but this entry barrier can be mitigated by operating in large cooperation and trying to spread these costs. There are also enablers that support and fund

these types of initiatives.

Information security

risks

5/5

The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic information.

The information security risks that could appear are: Confidentiality: no confidential information (e.g. pricing information) will

be involved in the pilot, the necessary data that will be collected, is

already available for everyone who wants to measure it with manual methods, this pilot project will only automate this process;

Integrity: only a very small risk of loss of integrity (e.g. changing the collected values), which can easily be ensured by encrypting the data

when stored or during communication with other devices. For food traceability, there is also an additional integrity risk, since the entire supply chain could be mapped and used fraudulently. On the other hand it lessens

the risk, because the mapping of the complete chain can enhance the reaction time if a disease or fraud is detected.; and

Availability: loss would not entail big risks, since traditional methods could

be used again to overcome the unavailability of the solution.

Openness 5/5

The use case can be built upon open standards and specifications that can be freely reused.

of 94


Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot: Device communications can be achieved by the use of open standards

and open solutions provided by the OpenIoT project, which can be freely used [OpenIoT];

Exchange of commercial, logistical and financial information can be

managed by the use of open messaging standards, e.g. Floricode (flowers), Agroconnect (animals) and Brugicon (fruits and vegetables);

Food traceability can be simplified by the use of some of the traceability

standards developed by GS1, e.g. BarCodes, eCom, GDSN, EPCglobal) [16, 17];

Wireless sensor network can be set-up using 802.15.4/Zigbee protocols; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services, such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.

Legal/ ethical

barriers 5/5

The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal barriers.

There are no legal barriers for open-air agriculture, horticulture, food traceability and cattle.

To ensure traceability of food in Europe, there is a legal requirement within the EU (and all countries who wish to import into the EU), the so called 'one up one down' regulation, which require business to keep records regarding who they

have received goods from and who they have delivered them to. This regulation can be seen as a legal enabler to support this pilot.


score 10/10


Examples of organisations that could team up are: Farmers: the agriculture activity in Europe is mostly done by local farmers,

feeders and breeders which are often SMEs. It will be very important to include them as much as possible in the pilot;

Inputs: feeders, pesticides, animal medication and fertilizer manufacturers: those companies are very important players in the value

chain and could benefit from improved efficiency ; Import and export: those companies take care of the cross-border trade; Packaging sector: those companies are very import to achieve end-to-end

food traceability; Transporters and Logistics: those companies are responsible for the

collection and transportation of the produced goods (e.g. milk, animals,

vegetables) to distribution centres and supermarkets, e.g. Dasher, FM logistics and Cbutt;

Distributors (wholesale and retail): these companies will actually sell the goods to the end-user, e.g. Carrefour, Aldi and Auchan;

Food safety administrations which are responsible and have to guarantee the quality and safety of the food chain;

End-users: the actual consumers of the goods produced;

Government who are responsible for all kinds of regulations related to food production and distribution; and

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary

communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the non-telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.

Solution vendors: Optifert, BO-MO d.o., Cit development, SDZ GmbH, Q-ray BV, Mieloo & Alexander Business Integrators, Fraunhofer Institute for

Materialflow and Logistics (IML), ATB - Institute for Applied Systems

of 94

Technology Bremen GmbH, mobics.gr, di.uoa.gr, European EPC Competence Center

Inter-operability

6/10

This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data, i.e. automated sharing of data amongst systems based on a common exchange model.

Within the existing pilots (e.g. FIspace), seamless data sharing is enabled and based on a common exchange model.

A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the cooperating actors to do the following: Farmers which will share information on the provenance of the meat, the

used irrigation and fertilisation, etc.; Transporters and Logistics may share information on transport

conditions, products origin, etc.;

Distributors (wholesale and retail) may share information on origin and provenance, intelligent shelf-life indications, etc.;

End-users will be able to provide feedback to the actors in the value chain;

and Government will share information on regulations and insights gained by

big data analytics.

Replication 6/10

Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.

The challenges that may arise during replication are: Big difference in IT infrastructure between different countries and

between small, local farmers and bigger companies.

Scale 10/10

The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to a full-size system.

Since this pilot really wants to involve all the actors in the agriculture, farming and food traceability value chain, the scale can be considered large enough.

A demonstrator acting as validator could showcase the harmonisation of the already ongoing small scale and isolated pilots and state-of-the-art commercial solutions.

User engagement

10/10


This pilot will address a really large value chain and will affect a broad group of consumers due to considerable market potential, large scale and value chain coverage. This will make sure that the pilot involves active

engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a system that is useful and acceptable for people.

New business models

10/10

The use case provides a basis for completely new business models. These initiatives and technologies create a new way of enhancing the

agricultural sector. It enables new services, which can be moulded into new business models. Every actor of the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new

business models: Farmers will be able to differentiate their production by the use of for

example alternative fertilisation methods and show this towards the

costumer, they will be able to set up local initiatives (e.g. subscribe to a service that delivers weekly a set of vegetables at home, mainly produced

by local farmers or specific to a certain diet);

Transporters and Logistics will be able to proof the provenance of their products and will be able to outsource the quality monitoring during transport;

Distributors (wholesale and retail) can improve their marketing with

proof on the origin of the products and can benefit from improved usage

of 94

I.3. Energy savings at home and in buildings

analyses; Consulting initiatives will arise and will be able to give advice on

monitoring solutions, ideal fertilisation methods based on the data gathered

by the sensors, etc.; and Governments will be able to promote small and local farmers, sell insights

from big data analyses.

Cross-border

potential 10/10

In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more than three European countries.

A lot of ongoing projects and pilots are already cross-border, thus the uptake can be expected to be quite high (e.g. several cross-border horticulture project which originated in The Netherlands).

References [FarmLogs] http://farmlogs.com/

[OnFarm] http://www.onfarm.com/about-onfarm/ [Libelium] http://www.libelium.com/wireless_sensor_networks_to_detec_forest_fires/ http://www.libelium.com/smart_agriculture_vineyard_sensors_waspmote/

[Spimesense] http://spimesense.com/applications/ [TrackACow] http://www.trackacow.co.uk/ [FIspace] http://www.fispace.eu/apps.html [OpenIoT] http://openiot.eu/?q=node/45

[FoodTraceability] http://www.foodtraceability.eu/page/home & http://www.tracefood.org [SmartAgrifood] http://smartagrifood.eu/pilots [Floricode] http://www.floricode.com/en-us/home.aspx

[SensorMetrix] http://www.sensormetrix.co.uk/monitoring_livestock_transportation_a_11.php [Optifert] http://www.optifert.eu/index.php/background [50 billion gallons water savings]

http://liveworx.thingworx.com/Portals/0/2014%20Presentation/OnFarm_Smart%20Agriculture%20and%20the%20Internet%20of%20Things.pdf [Thingsee] http://www.thingsee.com/

[GS1 - Standards] http://www.slideshare.net/gatordkim/gs1-agrifoodautoidlabskaistdaeyoung-

kim27062014 http://www.slideshare.net/gatordkim/gs1-epcglobal-framework-and-oliot-project-overview-oliot-workshop-2014

[Phenonet] Phenonet smart agriculture project: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/ICT-and-Services/National-Challenges/Wireless-sensors-in-agriculture.aspx

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases in the area of residential smart grids that involve the

use of a home energy management system (HEMS) that would exploit automation and self-learning capabilities to monitor and steer local energy consumption (electricity and carbon fuels) and generation (small-scale

windmills, solar energy cells, stand-by generators). This includes the better planning of electrical vehicle charging, automated reporting of the total cost of ownership of electrical appliances, and steering of HVAC units. The planning

takes into account thermostats, weather forecasts, dynamic electricity pricing and demand response codes, and availability of (locally) generated renewable energy.

Specific use cases

Delay the start of electrical appliances (electrical vehicles, dishwasher, tumble dryer, boiler) and HVAC units based on user requirements, dynamic energy prices, forecasted availability of (locally) generated renewable

energy, weather forecasts; Provide advice on potential energy savings via the monitoring and analysis

of energy consumption patterns in devices;

Receive automated reports on the total cost ownership of electrical appliances, with suggestions for potential cost savings, because users often forget about running costs;

Wireless sensor networks that control HVAC and lighting based on activity-

levels; and

of 94



Automatically publish data, generated by smart meters to allow for easy

information sharing and application development based on open data services for facility companies and real estate.

District-level energy management, as demonstrated by existing projects

such as URB-Grade, Ambassador, EPIC-HUB, etc.

Societal

challenges 5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Climate action,

environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.

Industry coverage

5/5

Applicable to diverse sectors: construction companies, utility companies, real estate and facility management companies.

Market coverage

5/5

This use case covers a mass group of consumers in the residential housing market and professional real-estate market, since all households and building owners can easily benefit from the gained savings.

Technical

maturity 5/5

Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a large-

scale pilot. The needed policies, standards, and technologies exist but a combination of all specific use cases does not exist yet in practice.

On the one hand, commercial solutions exist or are emerging for some specific use cases such as those to be able to remotely steer electric appliances:

Siemens and Bosch: developed together an app Home Connected will allow users to control their household appliances [HomeConnect];

Miele will launch in 2015 a brand dedicated to more connected

appliances Miele@Home. [Miele] GE and LG connected oven [GE, LG] NetAtmo: smart thermostats connected to an app and weather data. It

gives every month personal energy savings reports, track the

consumption and help to schedule the heating more efficiently. [NetAtmo]

Smart plugs: [Electrabel]

Installation and government measure are in place in the UK to foster deployment of smart meters at large scale.

On the other hand, for some specific use cases, the market is still at a research/pilot stage such as for a dynamic electricity pricing system at a residential scale based and demand response codes and using smart meters.

The Linear Project in the Netherlands is one of the largest smart grid research projects in Europe with around 250 families tested that combines smart appliances and smart meters.

The project would ensure the existence of a complete system.

Usability

5/5

In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution

frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to

use it.

Studies have been done on that topic demonstrating that interactive aspects around the solution is very important (e.g. having a display screen) (Source:

of 94

interview ESMIG).

Main challenge will be the end users acceptance and to keep their motivation on the long term: solutions should be as automated as possible but let the possibility to users to retrieve control if they want. (Source: interview EERA

JPSC) Expertise and research are available about the psychology of consumer engagement in Demand Response [Vaasaett].

An IDC study shows that Smart Energy has the largest growth potential across leading smart environments (health, transport, manufacturing, homes,

environment and agriculture) [IDC].

User

benefits 5/5

The benefits address fundamental needs of citizens and businesses in

terms of energy usage, and thus cost reduction by the use of smart

devices.

Evidence for the following use benefits were identified:

Savings on heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC):

Energy savings from smart thermostats could be as much as 40% (Source: interview NetAtmo). In many countries, buildings represent around 40% in terms of primary energy consumption and households

mainly consume energy for heating (70%), cooling, hot water, cooking and appliances. [BPIE]

Savings on electricity bill: Energy savings via a residential smart grid

solution would amount to about 100€ savings in electricity costs per year for an average household under current market conditions (Source: Linear smart grid project).

Reducing peak capacity power generation: by letting power

consumption better follow available capacity, demand peaks are

smoothened, reducing the need for peak power generation and grid balancing measures. The latter often is more expensive or less

environmentally friendly. Increase the capacity for distributed renewable energy sources:

the use of local demand control systems enables the electricity grid to

absorb a higher amount of distributed renewable energy sources. Value added-services: A home energy management system may also

lead to purchase advice (e.g. install better lamps, change the fridge …). (Source: interview ESMIG)

Entry barriers

3/5

There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be overcome.

This use case has the potential of attracting a large number of players and would introduce only a few market entry barriers.

Investment risk: for smart plug solutions, the initial investments are too high compared to the possible winnings and the need for users to change their habits.

Switching cost: not all lighting and heating appliances support smart meters and thermostats, a severe equipment switching cost could arise.

Lack of standards and openness: is a barrier for new entrants (source: interview ESMIG)

Lack of collaboration: A lot of actors will have to comply on a strategy and large companies might have more power to impose their technology or solutions (source: interview ESMIG). Currently horizontal

IoT infrastructures are mostly dominated by large companies/”big

market players”. Currently, there does not exist a set of common standards and specifications for horizontal IoT infrastructures. (source:

interview Lhings)

Investment risks

There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be

mitigated.

of 94

3/5

There are limited investment risks linked to this use case, since people are

already convinced that they need this solution the companies only have to open

the channels to roll out the solution. (Source: interviews NetAtmo, ESMIG)

Information

security risks 3/5


general be mitigated.

The information security risks that could appear are: Confidentiality: confidentiality risk can be mitigated in the context of a

home energy management system. Centralising personal data can only happen upon user consent. Customers will be aware of what they are

sharing to benefit from service providers (source: interview ESMIG). Clear and auditable rules for privacy management and handling of personal data will be required for the pilot (source: interview NetAtmo).

Availability: The availability of the home energy management system may become critical to guarantee availability of electricity and comfort (HVAC).

Integrity: only a very small risk of loss of integrity (e.g. changing the

collected values), which can easily be ensured by encrypting the data when stored or during communication with other devices. With Home Connected, Siemens and Bosch addressed the issue of the information security risk and worked with TUV to ensure to meet highest level of

security standards. [HomeConnect]. Yetu suggested encrypted hardware at homes that would be used as a key for using data (source: interview Yetu).

Openness 3/5

The use case is based on open standards and specifications that can be freely reused on some technologies but work is still on-going for others.

Standards on smart meters exist but are not well used nor accepted. Aim of the Smart Meter Coordination Group (SM-CG) is to ensure that what a European

Member State may want to do in smart metering is covered by suitable

standards. SM-CG, under a European mandate, developed 6 functionalities that should be provided by the Smart Metering Information Systems [SMCG]: Automatic meter reading

Information exchange Support advance tariffing & payment systems Allow remote disablement & enablement of supply

Facilitate energy services Customer display Standards for communications are not a best practice solution or

recommendations [SMCG] and SM-CG standards do not cover ‘back office’ or other industry IT systems impacted by smart meters (but work will have implications).

In the USA, groups such as openAMI and UtilityAM promote the OpenHAN, a set of standards for home networks.

There is an ongoing standardisation initiative on which TNO and ETSI are working: Smart appliances ontology: TNO aims to bring the information from different smart appliances in one common ontology that can be used to match

the data. The ontology created will fit into the ETSI M2M architecture. [TNO] Opinions diverge on the possibility to foster openness: For ESMIG, standardisation at European level would be beneficial but it’s a

hard work due to the strong differences between European countries. As soon you have a common standard, it will allow the market to extend.

(Hard for a Spanish player to work in Germany).

For NetAtmo, the use case can largely be built by the use of open API’s. It seems that consumers are not yet be able to control appliances from different brands with a single app, nor have multiple appliances communicate with each other, for example:

of 94


Value chain coverage:

10/10

The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by (predominantly) European organisations for both developing and

applying the solution. Consumer electronics companies: It is important to involve a good set

of companies providing home appliances and “smart” devices from

different countries to prevent failure in the interoperability/replicability aspects. This LSP in energy savings in homes will be able to bring all actors in the value chain together and can be composed by predominantly

European organisations since 85% of the heating (e.g. Bosch and Vaillant) and lightning (e.g. Schneider Electrics, Legrand, Siemens) companies are European (source: interview NetAtmo, interview ESMIG).

Vendors of home energy management systems: German companies

are leading the European market such as Miele that is helped by Qivicon, a cross-brand networking platform and other leading German industrial companies. [Miele];

Electricity companies: EDF, GDF Suez, Statkraft; Research organisations: TNO; DSOs: Regulators and DSOs should be involved (source: interview EERA

JPSC); and Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary

communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the non-

telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.

Inter-operability

6/10

This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data between several home appliance services due to the use of open API’s in their cloud

services. It will be challenging to achieve interoperability for home energy management

systems. However, interoperability is not the major concern for the pilot. (Source: interview ESMIG).

Replication 10/10

The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and locations.

Despite small differences in technical maturity and local market conditions, this use case focuses on the residential applications, making its results easy to

replicate in different locations and settings, provided that the aforementioned entry barriers can be overcome.

Scale 10/10

The scale of the multi-modal LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to a full-size system.

The LSP will enable putting in place home energy management systems in

households, in connection with grid balancing systems of DSOs for dynamic

Home Connect uses wireless Internet (WLAN) to connect appliances with

mobile devices. [HomeConnect] Miele is developing its own brand Miele@Home and have already now more

than 400 Miele appliances that offer some level of connectivity. Older

models can also be retrofitted to include a communication module. [Miele] On the other hand, Siemens and Bosch adopted another strategy to create

an alliance involving many European manufacturer that would us the same app Home Connect based on open standards. [HomeConnect]

Legal/ ethical

barriers 5/5

There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in general be overcome.

There are no ethical barriers. However, the consumer has to be given the choice to use a home energy management system, a solution cannot be imposed (source: ESMIG)

of 94

pricing and demand response.

User

engagement 10/10

The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and

social scientists.

Similar pilots like the Linear smart grid project in Belgium, have demonstrated

that users (250 households as test users) adapt their behaviour when

rewarded for flexibility. If the usability is there and the user benefits are

efficiently communicated, the user engagement will be ensured. (Source:

interview ESMIG).

New business models

10/10

This LSP will provide a basis to validate new business models.

Consumer electronics companies: can build a stronger customer

relationship via networked services. New business models will be developed especially around services (from utility companies, manufacturers and new kind of service providers). For example, home

appliances can be rented with a price based on the energy savings they allow (source: interview ESMIG) or freemium services for remote control and automation in switching on or off home appliances and per-per-use

models for energy billing. (source: interview NetAtmo). Electricity companies and DSOs: can explore new pricing models for

electricity, e;g. at a fixed price for grid connectivity (depending on the grid input and output capacity), and a variable electricity price demanding

on grid balancing parameters.

Cross-

border potential

10/10

The solution is likely to be taken up by multiple European countries

since there are no severe structural differences in home infrastructure in

different countries. Although installation procedures can differ cross-border

(e.g. for heating installation).

References

[TNO] Smart appliance ontology: https://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context=thema&content=prop_case&laag1=892&laag2=920&laag3=122&item_id=2137&Taal=2 [BPIE] Building Performance Institute Europe report:

http://www.bpie.eu/uploads/lib/document/attachment/20/HR_EU_B_under_microscope_study.pdf [ETSI] report M2M on smart metering:

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102600_102699/102691/01.01.01_60/tr_102691v010101p.pdf [SMCG] Smart Meter Coordination Group report:

http://stargrid.eu/downloads/2014/04/1101_SMCG_STARGRIDpresentation_FINAL.pdf [VAASAETT] Energy Data Store specialist: http://www.vaasaett.com/data/ [Windriver] http://www.windriver.com/announces/intel-gateway-solutions-for-iot/ [Netbiter] www.netbiter.com/applications/building-and-hvac/hvac

[Samsung] smart washing machine: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/128570-samsung-ww9000-smart-washing-machine-offers-full-lcd-touchscreen-smartphone-like-controls [HomeConnect] http://www.home-connect.com/en/

[Miele] smart household appliances: http://www.cnet.com/products/miele-w1-prestige-washer/ [GE] connected oven:

http://www.cnet.com/products/ge-pt9550sfss-profile-30-stainless-steel-electric-double-wall-oven-convection/ [LG] connected oven: http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-smart-thinq-single-oven-range-with-infrared-grill-

lre3027st/

I.4. Smart assisted living and wellbeing

Use case A group of IoT use cases which use intelligent devices (e.g. wearables, sensors,

of 94


16http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing

description smartphones, and intelligent home appliances) to autonomously generate

reports on an individual's physical activity, overall vital signs and well-being. It allows the use and sharing of generated data for personal use or report to specific services (e.g. doctors, nurses, dieticians and sport coaches, drug

researchers) through connected devices. The same ecosystem and technology also enables "smart assisted living": the remote follow-up of vulnerable people (children, elderly, hospital patients, etc.) and the automated notification of emergency services, family, etc. when necessary.

Specific use cases

Early detection and notification of a wide variety of potential diseases (e.g. Alzheimer's, Epilepsy, Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease,

Hypertension, Cardiovascular Diseases, Obesity and Congestive Heart Failure) and accidents (e.g. fallen elderly, epilepsy attack or runaways) by the use of wearables and intelligent home appliances (e.g. mirrors,

weighting scales, etc.); Enrich electronic health records with information on social behaviour and

overall wellbeing to provide better sampling for clinical trials and longitudinal research on drugs;

Automated reporting on eating, drinking and hygiene habits by intelligent appliances (e.g. oven, refrigerator, toothbrush and even fork), which can even be forwarded to your dietician, dentist or GP for improved follow-up;

Automated and intelligent monitoring and reporting on people's physical activity by the use of intelligent wearables and clothing (e.g. shoes with step counters, shirts measuring body humidity) to detect a possible

decrease in physical activity indicating illness, to motivate to reach certain targets and which can even be forwarded to your sports coach or GP for improved follow-up;

Intelligent monitoring of your sleep routine (e.g. heart rate, breathing

capacity and movements) to calculate ideal wake up times and reduce insomnia;

Remotely monitor vital health signs of vulnerable individuals (e.g. new-born

babies, elderly people, persons who are recently dismissed from the hospital, etc.) to allow them to stay longer at their own homes;

Develop an open platform on which patients and caretakers (e.g. nursing

staff, GPs, dentists, dieticians and sports coaches) can easily communicate with each other, ask questions regarding certain measurements, give feedback which will improve the efficiency of the day-to-day follow-up of patients; and

Enable location tracking of vulnerable individuals (e.g. young children and elderly) to avoid that they get lost.

Societal challenges

5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Health, demographic change and wellbeing”, and also has a clear link with the EU 2020 objectives and the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on “Active and Health

Ageing.” This use case is also enforced by the ageing population in Europe which results in an increased share in elderly people16.

Industry coverage

5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since it brings together public and private sectors based on the interest of the individuals. Automated or tech-

based monitoring and reporting on physical status can be of interest for health insurances, health professionals (e.g. nurses, dieticians, General Practitioners (GPs)), health and fitness clubs and food stores.

Market coverage

These use cases cover a large segment in the B2C area, since the target group can support people from healthy young (e.g. kids or new-born babies) to

of 94


5/5 elderly who need special care. Vulnerable and elderly ( over age 65) is around

15-16% of the EU population and children below 14 are around the same therefore the combination would be around 30-35% of the EU population who can benefit from the solutions offered by IoT.

Technical maturity

5/5

Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a large-scale pilot. Several similar, but rather limited commercial solutions already exist and show

the technical maturity of the use case, e.g.: Vital health signs monitoring is already being done by the digital patch

from SensiumVitals [Sensium], 3G-enabled Cardiac telemetry from

Carionet, the smart baby monitoring solutions from Mimobaby and Owlet and the Sense sleep analyser or WiThings smart weighting scales;

Physical activity tracking solutions are widespread nowadays, e.g. Fitlinx

Pebble+, Garmin and Wahoo fitness trackers; Children tracking can for example be achieved with the GPS equipped

watch from herO; Senior safety systems are already developed by BeClose;

Healthcare specific wireless sensor networks can be achieved by the use of ANT+ or BodyLAN; and

Automated reporting on eating, drinking and hygiene can be

achieved, e.g. [Colibree] for dental health, [Mirror] for pupil size and skin colour, etc.;

Those solutions are really vertically oriented, state-of-the-art and are at the

early stages of the technology and product adoption lifecycle [PwC], thus they can use a demonstrator to showcase the possibilities and make them really interoperable.

During interviews we were able to confirm the fact that this is an ideal timing for a Large-Scale Pilot in this area:

1. “The technical maturity is there and it is the right time for launching a Large Scale Project in this domain.” (source: HP)

2. “The needed technologies (e.g. sensors, connectivity and infrastructure) and standards are definitely mature enough to generate decent diagnostic

models. But since there are no existing commercial solutions that combine multiple services, this is the ideal timing for a large-scale pilot showcasing the ecosystem that can be created.” (source: HICT)

3. “Governments try sometimes to reinvent the wheel each time even if the technology is there. Private companies and SMEs can bring the market at a higher level with current technology if it is better used.” (source: WiThings)

4. “Solutions nowadays are often called Internet of Thing instead of Internet of Things, thus indicating the lack in interoperability.” (source: Televic)

Usability 5/5

The actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it. The pilot consists of the following major aspects:

Localisation of lost children and elderly is very likely to be used frequently since caring family members really fear that something will happen if their kids or dementing parents get lost;

Vital health sign monitoring allows people to leave the hospital earlier and elderly to live longer at their own homes, which is definitely something potential users want to achieve;

Early detection of potential diseases will make elderly feel more safe, will increase the wellbeing and decrease the need to visit a GP on a regular basis;

of 94

Automated reporting on physical activity and eating, drinking and

other habits is something that a lot of people (e.g. growing market of wearables, worth 12B$ in 2018 [Statistica]) want to use since a healthy style of life will improve their wellbeing and joy of life; and

Efficient communication platform between patients and caretakers are wanted since they can reduce the number of required visits to the GP and lower the threshold of asking questions which will result in an improved follow-up.

Already existing similar project also showed that the usability is very high: DIoTTO project for monitoring elderly person’s routines and deviations to

these routines [DIoTTO] SensiumVital pilot project in the Saint John’s Health Center showed that

more than 80% of the caretakers found the solution was helpful and

confirmed that patients agreed on wearing the sensors [Sensium] The biggest usability issue is the fact that it can be expected that multiple value chain actors won’t be eager to shift towards new business

models (e.g. GPs want to conquer the way they are working nowadays). The government has to push (and maybe even force) the healthcare sector

towards using such Future Internet solutions, albeit to solve the upcoming problems of an aging population and lack of staff in hospitals and nursing homes.

Another small usability issue that has to be mitigated with the clear benefits related to this use case could be the resistance to change from the patients due to the fear of poor or wrongly being diagnosed.

User

benefits

5/5

The benefits address fundamental needs of citizens and businesses.

These benefits are: 1. Better diagnostics and patient care: patient health records are enriched

with detailed information on vital signs, physical activity and etc.;

2. Improve population health: due to constant and efficient follow-up; 3. Enable more informative research: provides a good source of

information for clinical trials and longitudinal research on drugs; 4. Improved sense of safety: location tracking of elderly/sick people,

detection of fallen people and changes in physical activity; 5. Improved efficiency: GPs and nursing staff can better allocate their time

and resources (can receive notifications when something happens, but also

will have a fuller set of information); and 6. Improved quality of life: early detection and improved follow-up of

diseases (e.g. early detection of Alzheimer’s or insulin level monitoring for

diabetes patients) and increased independence of sick or elder people (elderly can stay at home rather than go to retirement home).

All actors in the healthcare value chain have a vested interest to move into

remote patient monitoring. The focus should not be simply on the end user (the patient), but on the full healthcare continuum: healthcare workers (home care and healthcare providers, administrators), insurance firms as well as end-user

(source: interview HP). "There is increasing clinical evidence of the value of continuous physiological

data in managing chronic diseases and monitoring patients' post-hospitalization," Theo Ahadome, senior analyst at IMS Research said. "

[Wearable]

Entry barriers

3/5


Those entry barriers could be:

of 94

Lack of financial incentives for GPs and other caretakers: multiple

value chain actors aren’t eager to shift towards the new business models and want to stick to the usual way of working;

Regulation regarding including SMEs: nowadays it is very hard for SMEs

to do something in the healthcare domain due to strict regulations and long approval times to produce clinical equipment;

Government policies: high barriers as the financial model of health care will have to be fundamentally changed (e.g. regarding to reimbursements);

Slow uptake of innovation in the healthcare industry due to strict regulations, very long trial periods and its multi-dimensional nature (e.g. medical, clinical and infrastructure);

Regulation regarding to data protection: the Federal Communications Commission regulation that could potentially affect data protection;

Back-office organisation: a very structured and efficient handling of the

collected data will be needed. Although this can be mitigated by collecting all data in a central processing unit first, from which it is dispatched in case of a real emergency to the most appropriate services; and

Variance in the workflow/process: overcoming management of change

issues among a diverse population of organizations/implementing entities.

Investment

risks 3/5

There are some small investment risks; however, these can in general be

mitigated. Those investment risks could be:

Political risks: the public sector policy can drastically change regulation, which would create instabilities in the market. Although the more recent public-private partnerships have become more trustworthy;

Low incentives for GPs: to achieve the cooperation with actuals GPs

there will have to be real incentives for them. A possible example to mitigate this is a new remuneration system based on the number of people

he is following; and

Workflow variance: overcoming the necessary management of change issues among a diverse populations of organisations/implementing entities could be very hard.


risks 3/5

There are significant information security risks that are difficult to mitigate.

Specifically, the system needs to support the following requirements in order to mitigate the risks: Availability of the information and user authorization: can be

mitigated by the use of OAuth 2.0 [OAuth] or Access Control Mechanisms (ACMs) so individuals are aware and have control about the services they allow to access their data;

Confidentiality and Integrity of information exchanged or stored: can be mitigated by the use of decent encryption schemes; and

Personal data protection and the inability to link information from

different contexts together to a specific individual can be achieved using privacy-enhancing techniques (PETs) [PET].

This need for decent encryption could put additional challenges on the M2M

service platform, e.g. health application provider may not be able to directly rely on the security provided by the M2M service provider and must instead implement end to end security at application layer.

Especially since current secure messaging suites such as PGP and TLS may not provide a sufficient framework to handle trusted communication due to

regulation concerns in the storage, transmission, or destruction of electronic

health information. These regulations are inconsistent across different jurisdiction regions and must be enhanced to allow for handling trusted communication.

of 94


Consumers remain concerned about privacy. But they trust clinicians more with

their data than any other entity. To retain that trust, companies will need to be transparent about what is being done with the data. [PwC]

Openness

5/5

The use case can largely be built on common standards and

specifications that can be freely reused. Standards that can be used are

Interoperable personal health devices (PHDs) such as weighing scales, blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors and the like can be achieved by the use of the CEN ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data

(PHD) standards [PHD]; Exchangeable patients records can use the HL7 Clinical Data

Architecture (CDA) [HL7], the EuroRec initiatives around Electronic Health

Record systems (EHRs) [EHR], the ICD-10 disease classifications and the ICD, LOINC, HRHIS or ISO 27799 coding standards for medical diagnoses and procedures;

Exchangeable medical images can be done by the use of the DICOM:

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine standards; Wireless Medical Body Area Networks (MBANs) can use the IEEE

802.15.6NB1 global standard for wireless healthcare; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services, such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX or MobiquiThings/Sigfox/Lora.

There are a large amount of standards that can be used to build this use case, so the main focus should be within demonstrating the cooperation possibilities that these standards can offer.

Legal/ ethical

barriers

3/5


The delivered services will in essence stay the same; there is only a change in how those services will be provided (e.g. remotely instead of during a visit). The lack of a solid government regulation and clear directives can be seen as

the biggest barriers to enter the market.


10/10


Actors include among others: Actual users: patients, elderly and other vulnerable people, but also

individuals who want to keep track of their physical activity;

Remote monitoring device manufacturers: Toumaz Group, Televic and WiThings;

Clinicians and care coordinators: GPs/nursing staff;

EMR/PHR/Health Database providers: Cegidim, Santeo and Epic; Ongoing initiatives: FI-Star [FI-Star], DIoTTO [DIoTTO]; and Pharmaceutical industry: Bayer/Johnson & Johnson/GlaxoSmithKline/

Pfizer;

Equipment manufacturers: companies that will manufacture the necessary on-board units and sensors, e.g. Be-Mobile, RDM Telematics and Springworks AB;

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the non-telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox;

Platform service providers: responsible for the collection and analyses of large quantities of (anonymised) patient data on viral signs and behaviour, e.g. Evrythng, Sensolus and ThingWorx or platforms as FIWARE and OM2M.

of 94

Security companies: could provide a “first line” of security checks (e.g.

go and check whether an alarm is real or not).

Inter-

operability

10/10

This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of Information: universal

interpretation of information through data processing based on

cooperating applications/using open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the cooperating actors to do the following:

Actual users will share information on their physical activity and vital health signs;

Pharmaceutical industry will share information on medicines and

vaccinations that can be used; Caretakers will share diagnoses and information about potential diseases;

and Health insurance will share information on insurance policies.

Although their cooperation and consensus can be hard to achieve, since there are a lot of different players around the table who want to protect their

own business model. The government will have to play a major role in pushing these actors

towards new and innovative solutions, albeit to solve the upcoming problems of an aging population. The standardisation efforts currently for medical records and data which are currently going on (e.g. HL7, HIPAA, European Institute for Health Record Systems (EuroRec Institute), CEN

ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) standards etc.) will play a major role in achieving this goal.

Replication 6/10


The wellbeing aspect of this pilot can be easily replicated since it has no direct link with local infrastructures and has no need to interface with GPs, hospitals, etc. Although this is the case with the smart assisted living aspect, thus there

are some challenges that could arise are: Regulatory issues: due to the lack of EU specific legislation around

telemedicine and severe differences in the approach of the Member States (e.g. related to reimbursement and medical liability), an efficient cross-

border tele-healthcare system will require a lot of efforts to be made [Regulation]; and

Workflow variance: overcoming the necessary management of change

issues among diverse populations of organisations/implementing entities could be very hard.

These challenges are manageable with clear legislation, for example the EC is currently working on an eHealth action plan [Action] which focusses on wider interoperability with a knowledge sharing platform [Momentum] and code of practice for tele-health practitioners. [Code]

In case of replications; 80% of the will be easily transmittable, while 20% need to be adjusted according to the situation. In order to be successful we need to

ensure that the implemented framework is well recorded (source: interview with HP).

Scale 10/10

The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to a full-size system. Since the pilot wants to involve as many actors as possible in the large value

chain of the growing healthcare market (e.g. from caretakers to insurance companies), the scale can be considered large enough.

of 94

User

engagement 10/10

The pilot would imply active engagement of multiple user groups.

This pilot will address a really large value chain and will affect a broad group of consumers due to considerable market potential. This will make sure that the

pilot involves active engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a system that is useful and acceptable for people.

New

business models 10/10

The use case provides a basis for completely new business models.

Every actor of the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new business models:

Clinicians, GPs and care coordinators will allow GPs and nursing homes to test solutions on remote patient monitoring, with different levels of service and remuneration systems based on the number of people they are

monitoring and following; EMR/PHR/Health Database providers can sell analyses on large

amounts of (anonymized) data to decision makers, insurance companies, pharmaceutical industries, etc.;

Pharmaceutical companies can improve their relationship with the actual patients who take medication;

Insurance companies can move from a conventional fixed-price service-

cost structure to where the orientation is on utilization or incentive-based; Network operators: could provide the necessary networking capabilities

for the monitoring; and

Platform service providers: this LSP will enable new markets for platform service providers, who will provide the integrated information services (e.g. the collection and analyses of large quantities of (anonymised) patient data on viral signs and behaviour, etc.) that will form the basis of all these value-

added services.

The biggest issue here is the fact a lot of these value chain actors don’t want to

move towards those new business models (e.g. GPs who want to conquer their way of working and do not yet have clear incentives for change). The government will have to play a major role and has to push (and maybe

even force) the healthcare sector towards these new business models, albeit to solve the upcoming problems of an aging population and lack of staff in hospitals and nursing homes.

Cross-border

potential

6/10

In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by two-three European countries.

Due to the entry barriers, investment risks and severe information security risks there will be some inertia and this LSP isn't likely to be taken up by the majority of the European countries in the next two years. Although a lot of good

initiatives around cross border care (e.g. the cross-border healthcare directive [CBC], which already provides a set of rules on healthcare access and reimbursement across European borders) show the possibilities of cross border

policies. The ability to replicate after the pilot is highly dependent on the receptivity of the prospective organizations seeking to replicate and the viability and stability

of the new business models. Technically, it would not be difficult to replicate a solution, even with relatively high level of customization required for each new country. However, the willingness of prospect countries to replicate and the

effective management of the change process is the single biggest factor to speed and success of replication.

References [PwC] PwC Health Research Institute: http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/healthcare-new-entrants/index.jhtml [Wearable] http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/10-wearable-health-tech-devices-to-

watch/d/d-id/1107148?page_number=6 [EHR] Report on Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/healthcare-new-entrants/index.jhtml

http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/10-wearable-health-tech-devices-to-watch/d/d-id/1107148?page_number=6

http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/10-wearable-health-tech-devices-to-watch/d/d-id/1107148?page_number=6

of 94

I.5. Worker safety

Records: Phase 2

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2014/EHRdomains2.aspx [ETSI] ETSI use cases for eHealth: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102700_102799/102732/01.01.01_60/tr_102732v010101p.p

df [PHD] ISO/IEEE 11073 PHD Standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEEE_11073_Personal_Health_Data_%28PHD%29_Standards [OAuth] OAuth 2.0: http://oauth.net/2/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing [CoD] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Causes_of_death_%E2%80

%94_standardised_death_rate_per_100_000_inhabitants,_males,_EU-28,_2004%E2%80%9310_(1)_(2004_%3D_100)_YB14_II.png [LVBM] Low Voltage Body Monitoring solution:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6733186 [HL7] HL7 standards: http://www.hl7.org/ [FI-Star] FI-Star: https://www.fi-star.eu/fi-star.html [EuroRec] EuroRec: http://www.eurorec.org/

[CBC] EU Cross Border Care directive: http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/policy/index_en.htm [Sensium] SensiumVital: http://www.toumaz.com/sites/default/files/White%20paper%20-

%20v1%207%20NL.pdf [Colibree] Colibree smart toothbrush: http://www.kolibree.com/en/ [Mirror] Smart Mirror: http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/could-smart-mirror-save-your-

life_en.html [ABI] ABI Research: www.abiresearch.com/research/product/1005339-wireless-health-and-fitness [DIoTTO] Zorgproeftuinen project DIoTTO: http://www.zorgproeftuinen.be/nl/node/328 [PET] PET Whitebook: http://www.dutchdpa.nl/downloads_overige/PET_whitebook.pdf

[Statistica] Statistica research on growing wearable market: http://www.statista.com/statistics/259372/wearable-device-market-value/

[Regulation]

http://docbox.etsi.org/Workshop/2014/201405_EHEALTHWORKSHOP/S02_REGULATIONS/EC_DGCONNECT_DESWARTE.pdf [Momentum] http://telemedicine-momentum.eu/

[Code] http://telehealthcode.eu/ [Action] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/newsletter-item-detail.cfm?item_id=9155


A group of IoT use cases aiming to increase worker safety in factories and on construction yards by adding sensors to industrial equipment (e.g. forklifts, cranes, bulldozers, conveyor belts) and personal safety equipment (e.g. wearables, helmets, clothing). The use cases enable to locate workers, notify

co-workers of possible dangerous situations, monitor vital health signs (e.g. temperature and oxygen levels for firefighters), monitoring factory hall parameters, avoiding collisions, emergency stops of machinery, etc.

To preserve a certain level of confidentiality, notifications are only sent to the worker himself and others in his vicinity that are directly affected by the actions. Only when certain incidents are reoccurring and sever safety threats

arise, the medical assistants and in the end management could be informed.

Specific use

cases

Monitor safety of workers (auto off, warning messages, etc.) and provide

detailed analytics on safety behaviour by the use of factory-floor wearables; Wireless sensor networks for tracing workers in harsh production

environments; and Odour and hazardous gas monitoring system using wireless sensor

networks.

Interesting

companies and organi-

Manufacturers of safety equipment: [3M], [Uvex], [JSP], [SIOEN],

[Snickers], [Centurion] IT service providers: [Cisco], [IBM]

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2014/EHRdomains2.aspx

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102700_102799/102732/01.01.01_60/tr_102732v010101p.pdf

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102700_102799/102732/01.01.01_60/tr_102732v010101p.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEEE_11073_Personal_Health_Data_%28PHD%29_Standards

http://oauth.net/2/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Causes_of_death_%E2%80%94_standardised_death_rate_per_100_000_inhabitants,_males,_EU-28,_2004%E2%80%9310_(1)_(2004_%3D_100)_YB14_II.png



http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6733186

http://www.hl7.org/

https://www.fi-star.eu/fi-star.html

http://www.eurorec.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/policy/index_en.htm

http://www.toumaz.com/sites/default/files/White%20paper%20-%20v1%207%20NL.pdf

http://www.toumaz.com/sites/default/files/White%20paper%20-%20v1%207%20NL.pdf

http://www.kolibree.com/en/

http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/could-smart-mirror-save-your-life_en.html

http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/could-smart-mirror-save-your-life_en.html

http://www.abiresearch.com/research/product/1005339-wireless-health-and-fitness

http://www.zorgproeftuinen.be/nl/node/328

http://www.statista.com/statistics/259372/wearable-device-market-value/

http://docbox.etsi.org/Workshop/2014/201405_EHEALTHWORKSHOP/S02_REGULATIONS/EC_DGCONNECT_DESWARTE.pdf

http://docbox.etsi.org/Workshop/2014/201405_EHEALTHWORKSHOP/S02_REGULATIONS/EC_DGCONNECT_DESWARTE.pdf

http://telehealthcode.eu/

of 94



sations to deploy the

LSP

Manufacturing industry: [Total], [Volkswagen], [BASF], [ArcelorMittal], Quarrying and mining: [DPM], [Anglo American plc] Construction: [Vinci], [ACS], [Hochtief], [CFE]

Government : [EU]

Societal challenges

5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Health, demographic change and well-being”.

Industry

coverage 5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since all sectors which involve

moving equipment, moving raw materials and goods, dangerous/chemical substances and dangerous working environments can benefit from this use case.

Market coverage

5/5

This use case covers mass consumers in the B2B area, since it allows for increased worker’s safety in multiple industries using processes in which moving equipment, moving raw materials and goods, dangerous/chemical

substances, dangerous working environments etc. might endanger worker safety. (E.g. manufacturing and transport), provides insights for insurance companies and also relates to emergency services in case of accidents.

It may also affect the B2C market where consumers do not want to consciously buy products of whose production process endangered the lives of workers.

Technical

maturity

5/5


scale pilot.

Several similar, but limited pilots and commercial solutions already exist and show the technical maturity, e.g.

Industrial equipment RaymondCorp enables tracking of forklifts to avoid collisions [MMH,

Modern Materials Handling, iWarehouse]; and

SK Solutions developed a tool that adds artificial intelligence to any mobile equipment (e.g. cranes, bulldozers, etc.) to avoid collisions [SK Solutions].

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Monitoring of mining workers to increase their safety is already done by Cisco for a large mining company [Cisco, Acrodex, Cisco – DPM]; and

Human Condition Global is developing a smart vest and helmet which is capable of monitoring vital health signs and tracking the location of for

example firefighters, construction workers and cops/soldiers. The helmet is for example equipped with an airbag which inflates in case of accidents [Human Condition Global, HCG Infographic].

These initiatives all originate in the United States, but show that the technical maturity and market interest is there.

The already existing pilots also focus too much on specific aspects of worker safety (e.g. tracking of forklifts) and don’t allow collaboration with other safety increasing solutions (e.g. interoperability between the GPS in a worker’s helmet

and the one on a forklift).

Usability

5/5


frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.

The success of the already ongoing commercial and pilot initiatives in the United States show that the usability is high. Especially due to the fact that the tools used for monitoring purposes don’t

of 94

imply any interaction from the user, they only enable monitoring by being connected to the Internet.

Since this solutions offer possibilities to locate workers faster, improve response times in case of accidents and monitor worker’s conditions this solution will be

used frequently.

User benefits

5/5

The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to the user (e.g. increased safety).

The benefits for the users could be of lifesaving importance, e.g. monitoring of vital health signs, toxic gas detection, locating workers in case of accidents and collisions and accidents avoidance could save a lot of lives.

The human global condition institute calculated based on an OSHA-Us study that the use of smart helmets and vests could safe more than 400 workers’

lives per year in the US [Human Condition Global]. Due to the fact that at this moment 22,6% of European workforce is in manufacturing and 10,8% in construction (in total more than 50 million employees) this solutions could save

a lot of lives in Europe as well [EC Statistics].

Entry barriers

5/5

The barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to enter for new players.

The relatively low barriers that eventually could arise are: Economies of scale since these products will only be affordable if they can

be produced in large quantities; Capital requirements: production could need large initial investments, but

a business model could be that they outsource the actual production.

Government policy: there are a lot of regulations for personal protective equipment, so this could be an issue. On the other hand current helmets and vests are already manufactured according to these regulations and the

additions to make them ‘smart’ should not change much to the compliance

[PPE EU Regulations].

Investment

risks 5/5

The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe to

invest in. Those low investment risks could be:

There are some political risks, since personal protective equipment is tightly regulated.

Also technology and operational risks are present. If a producer invest

heavily in trying to make a standard, but another standard is being adopted it could entail high financial costs.

Affordability risks are also present, since safety helmets and vests are cheap nowadays. Making them “smart” would mean a network is

necessary and the products themselves could be significantly more expensive.

Fortunately, all these risks are “mitigated” or nullified by the increase of

safety they offer (and efficiency: DPM had an increase of 400% production due to the cisco ‘smart’ implementation [Cisco - DPM]).


risks 3/5

There are some information security risks; however, these can in general be mitigated. The information security risks that could appear are:

The confidentiality and integrity risks are rather small, the only a risk is an exposure, which could results in the theft or change of information about the location and on vital health signs of all workers; and

Availability loss would not entail big risks, since traditional methods could

be used again to overcome the unavailability of the solution.

Openness 3/5

There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition restrictions on the use. The case specific standards are proprietary and are not available under an open

licence.

of 94


Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot: Wireless sensor network can be set-up using 802.15.4/Zigbee protocols

and RFID; Interoperable and open data platform can be developed by the use FI-

Ware or OneM2M architectures, in combination with well documented

RESTful API's; and Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,

such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.

Legal/ ethical

barriers

3/5


There are a lot of regulations for personal protective equipment, so this could be an issue. On the other hand current helmets and vests are already manufactured according to these regulations and the additions to

make them ‘smart’ should not change much to the compliance [PPE EU Regulations]; and

Loss of freedom can be seen as an ethical barrier, since constant

monitoring and tracking workers could give them the feeling that they lost their freedom and could create a big brother effect.


6/10

The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of individual elements)

This LSP in worker’s safety will be able to bring a large part of the actors in the value chain together, which can be composed by predominantly European organisations. Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Producers: the production of PPE in Europe is mostly done by large

companies. It will be very important to include them as much as possible in the pilot; [3M], [Uvex], [JSP], [SIOEN], [Snickers], [Centurion]

Transport, Logistics and Construction companies: those companies

could use the products (smart vest & helmet, collision & activity systems); Government: which is responsible for all kinds of regulations related to

PPE; and

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the non-telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.

Inter-operability

6/10

This pilot allows for seamless sharing of data, based on a common exchange model.

The LSP should enable the seamless sharing of data. It would need a general platform used by all construction companies, architect, transporters, etc. in order to make sure that a subcontractor, site supervisor, architect, etc. that

arrive on site can easily be coupled to the system to ensure its safety. The cooperating actors could be for example: Construction and manufacturing companies: workers will be the end

users, providing data on whereabouts, vital health signs, etc. and the management will use the data to monitor activities and ensure safety & efficiency;

Transporters and Logistics: providing data on truck drivers (whereabouts, vital signs, activity, …);

Architects and site supervisors: providing data on themselves when

visiting construction sites (whereabouts, vital signs, activity, etc.) and they could enable 3D mapping of the construction site, so that workers can be localized in 3D; and

Government: performing data analyses based on data provided by

manufacturing and construction to detect trends in safety threats and provide regulation on standards and technologies.

of 94

Replication 10/10


The general idea and objective of the pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and locations, since all construction sites are similar according

to the point-of-view of the LSP.

Scale 10/10


Since this pilot really wants to involve all the actors in construction and manufacturing, the scale can be considered large enough.

A demonstrator acting as validator could showcase the increase in safety and efficiency.

User engagement

10/10


This pilot will address a really large part of the value chain and will affect a broad group of user groups. This will make sure that the pilot involves active engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a system that is useful and acceptable for people.

New business

models 6/10

The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional business models, but does not fundamentally change these business

models. These initiatives and technologies create a new way of monitoring and

creating a safe workers’ environment. It enables new services, which can be moulded into new business models. Manufacturers of safety equipment: They can differentiate themselves

from their competitors by selling smart safety equipment and services

coupled to it; IT service provides: service providers could offer a monitoring

solution/service, with the products (smart helmet & vest) included;

Manufacturing industry: more efficient and safe (attracting a better workforce);

Quarrying and mining: more efficient and safe (attracting a better

workforce); and Construction: more efficient and safe (attracting a better workforce).

Cross-border

potential 10/10

In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more than three European countries if the LSP is successful. This use case is likely to be taken up by multiple countries, especially if this

pilot can showcase the possibilities of increasing efficiency and saving actual lives. At the same time it could be an LSP with multinational companies in a

cooperation with the EU to workout regulations and standards.

References

[WhiteLight Group, LLC] http://whitelightgrp.com/internet-things-transforming-construction/ [MMH, Modern Materials Handling] http://www.mmh.com/article/4_ways_the_Internet_of_things_will_reshape_manufacturing [iWarehouse] https://www.raymondcorp.com/about-us-overview

[SK Solutions] http://www.sk-navigator.com/software/anti-collision.html [Cisco] http://www.cisco.com [Cisco - DPM] http://www.cisco.com/web/NL/tomorrow-starts-here/pdf/C36-730784-

01_Dundee_Precious_Metals_CS_v3a_Netherlands.pdf [Acrodex] http://www.acrodex.com/

[Human Condition Global] http://humanconditionglobal.com/construction-safety-technology/

[3M] http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_EU/PPE_SafetySolutions_EU/Safety/Product_Catalogue/~/Head-Protection?N=5158345+3294857473&rt=r3 [Uvex] http://www.uvex-safety.com/en/products/safety-helmets/safety-helmets-hard-hats/

[JSP] http://www.jsp.co.uk/products/head-protection

http://whitelightgrp.com/internet-things-transforming-construction/

http://www.mmh.com/article/4_ways_the_internet_of_things_will_reshape_manufacturing

https://www.raymondcorp.com/about-us-overview

http://www.sk-navigator.com/software/anti-collision.html

http://www.cisco.com/

http://www.cisco.com/web/NL/tomorrow-starts-here/pdf/C36-730784-01_Dundee_Precious_Metals_CS_v3a_Netherlands.pdf

http://www.cisco.com/web/NL/tomorrow-starts-here/pdf/C36-730784-01_Dundee_Precious_Metals_CS_v3a_Netherlands.pdf

http://www.acrodex.com/

http://humanconditionglobal.com/construction-safety-technology/

http://www.uvex-safety.com/en/products/safety-helmets/safety-helmets-hard-hats/

http://www.jsp.co.uk/products/head-protection

of 94

I.6. Smart living environment



[SIOEN] http://www.sioenapparel.com/EN/sioen-apparel-13.aspx [Centurion] http://www.centurionsafety.eu [Snickers] http://www.snickersworkwear.com/about-us

[HCG Infographic] http://humanconditionglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ConstructionSafety_Infographic.jpg

[EC Statistics]

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Construction_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Manufacturing_statistics_-

_NACE_Rev._2 [PPE EU Regulations] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/personal-protective-

equipment/index_en.htm

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases involving organisations in the public, cultural, tourism,

and entertainment sector that deal with the confluence of the physical living environment and a virtual reality. This makes everyday objects, artworks, books, games, music more interactive through the use of devices such as 3D glasses, motion sensors and motion controllers, image recognition, tags, etc.

delivering an augmented user experience.

Specific use

cases

Personalised user experience (different available languages, age,

interests...) and gamification for guided city tours and museum visits. Augmented reality and interaction for sports games, theatre plays, concerts,

etc.

Increasing social interaction in cities via gamification (source: smart-ip.eu). Interaction with objects in the public environment (e.g. streetlights) and

entertainment (e.g. dance floor).

Interviewed organi-sations

I2cat (Spain) EERA JPSC Manchester expert in digital experience (United Kingdom)

City of Bristol (United Kingdom)

Societal challenges

5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: "Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies mainly through innovative services for citizens"

Industry coverage

0/5

This use case is only applicable to one specific industry sector: “Arts, entertainment and recreation”.

Market coverage

5/5

This use case covers a mass group of consumers, since it aims at the large market related to tourism and entertainment (e.g. museums, (movie) theatres,

theme parks, public monuments, cultural heritage, etc.).

Technical

maturity 5/5


scale pilot.

High maturity for the following technology components:

Sensors/Cameras in Museum, amusement parks Smart mobile devices: smartphones, tablets, head-mounted display (3D

glasses) Advertising panels

http://www.sioenapparel.com/EN/sioen-apparel-13.aspx

http://www.centurionsafety.eu/

http://www.snickersworkwear.com/about-us

http://humanconditionglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ConstructionSafety_Infographic.jpg

http://humanconditionglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ConstructionSafety_Infographic.jpg

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Construction_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Construction_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Manufacturing_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Manufacturing_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/personal-protective-equipment/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/personal-protective-equipment/index_en.htm

of 94

Augmented reality technology

Game consoles Technology is mature but mobile Internet connectivity is still lagging behind.

The necessary improvements in infrastructure, network and software are expected within the 2 next years to bring pilot at a large scale (source: interview i2cat). The speed of interaction is important in a LSP at a city scale. The latency of interaction can lead to a loss of interest for users (source:

Bristol) Many cities are well developed in Asia and the question is how Europe will catch

up. The technical maturity is there but cities need to take this up and not to lose moment (source: interview EERA JPSC)

There is a technical infrastructure but often these environments such as museums are not technologically literate (source: interview Manchester city).

Usability

3/5

Although there are some usability issues, in general, the actual or

potential users would still like to use the solution under condition that the abovementioned usability issues will be solved.

Usability for end users is a critical success factor. Innovative user interfaces such as 3D displays, 3D motion controls, head-mounted displays (3D glasses), motion sensors, touch screens, etc. are becoming intuitive and easy to use.

Nevertheless, a mental barrier and a knowledge gap may remain among end users (Source: interview i2cat).

User benefits

3/5

The benefits offered by the use case are of a nice-to-have nature for the user. For a large part of the population, the use case will foster end user comfort.

Benefits would be Quality of life Social activity

Easier access to information and services But a small group of people (elderly or disabled people), benefits can be

fundamental since the use case will allow them to live experiences they usually cannot (such as people with eye problems) (source: interview i2cat). It will also enable services in the educational sector (source: interview Manchester). The learning capabilities such LSP will foster is of fundamental importance for users

(source: interview Bristol).

Entry

barriers 5/5

The barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to enter

for new players. There are a few small barriers that can restricts this use case in the ability to

allow new players to enter the market: Infrastructure owned by third-parties who do not see business

interest to make available their infrastructure for SMEs in the creative industry;

Right and copyright of existing players that are leader in some industry (music, movies);

Capital investments: Cost can be high especially and a budget

restricted or if the city is cutting its budget (source: interview Manchester).

Community mindset: a community structure and mindset is required

but it is rarely the case. (Source: interview i2cat). An LSP might bring together the right players.

Entry barriers are high and SMEs do not have the resources (interview

Bristol). Bristol sees that it is hard for start-ups and crowdfunding is of good help. In Bristol they have incubators for start-ups.

of 94


Investment

risks 5/5


invest in. Those low barriers could be:

Political risks: Government or local policy regarding the creative industry might change with and weaken the development of a pilot that would be deployed over several years. (Source: interview i2cat). Currently, Bristol is supportive of the creative industry which is very helpful (source: interview

Bristol). Technology and operational risks: average. Technology developed in

such pilot should take into account the fast development of technology.

There is a low risk related to the emergence of new (replacing) technologies. The risk exists if investment is made in a closed product solution. Lower risk in an open source solution. City would foster open

technology but it raises legal and ethical barrier and big companies prefer their proprietary solutions. (Source: i2cat)

Affordability risks: low since it will foster the development of multiple services provided by any kind of actor. The competition and the large scale

effect will help to reduce the cost for end-users (source: interview i2cat). Could be a public-private partnership, key to bring different stakeholders together as it is indirect benefit for the cities (source: interview EERA JPSC)

Capacity risks: average. The support must be ensured and stable until the business model is viable by itself. (Source: interview i2cat)


risks 5/5

There are some information security risks; however, these can in general be mitigated (e.g. with clear and auditable rules for privacy management and handling of personal data). Confidentiality: there is less need for keeping data confidential. Personal

data of users is not needed for most use cases or could be reasonably well protected.

Integrity: According to EERA JPSC, the information security risk is not

very critical. Information are usually not sensitive and can only be used for advertising purposes. (Source: interview i2cat).

Availability: Outages or downtimes do not lead to considerable damages.

(Source: interview i2cat)

Openness

3/5

There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition

restrictions on the use of relevant standards and specifications for this use case. Today, there are only limited standards and specifications available that are

available under FRAND conditions. (Source: interview i2cat). Cities might foster openness and use of standards and specifications, but risk increasingly to have to rely on closed systems. Large companies would remain to be involved with

proprietary technology (e.g. Schneider Electric and Cisco with the smart city campus project).

Legal/ ethical

barriers 5/5

There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in general be overcome. There are legal barriers to might halt such pilot but no ethical barriers (sources:

interview i2cat, EERA JPSC)

Value chain

coverage 10/10

The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by

(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and applying the solution.

The use case would bring together the following actors in the value chain: Entertainment industry: Music corporations (e.g. universal music), movie

of 94

corporations (e.g. Disney, Dreamworks);

Providers of Internet media: e.g. Netflix (streaming); Music platforms: Spotify, Deezer, SoundCloud, itunes; Gaming designers;

Virtual reality devices manufacturers: headset (Oculus, Zeiss), 3D glasses (Google glass), 3D display providers: Holografika;

Public administrations: cities (Bristol is a pioneer), Education bodies: schools, universities;

Museums, tour operators; Entertainment places: amusement parks, night clubs; and Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary


There are many projects in Europe conducted by cities and some at European scale such as spitfire. A lot of effort is still necessary since current cooperation could be more efficient (source: i2cat).

Inter-operability

6/10

Seamless Sharing of Data: automated sharing of data amongst systems based on a common exchange model.

Interoperability will be complex to achieve because it will be hard to have a common basis. (Source: interview i2cat).

Replication 6/10


The European diversity can be a barrier for the replication in this case. Culture, government issues can break the replication. (Source: i2cat) Bristol is working with other cities and for them, the replicability is very important but challenging target.

Scale 6/10

The pilot is a sub-system, a component for a full-sized system.

Due to the nature of this pilot, smart living environment applications developed in the context of this pilot will not be embedded in a larger ecosystem.

User engagement

10/10

The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social scientists. The creative and participative aspects of such pilot make it accessible to

multiple groups of users and foster e-inclusion. It can initiate stronger community solutions where the citizens are the major actors (source: i2cat, Manchester).

New business

models 10/10


Many new business models will emerge with many type of service providers that will aim to improve user’s comfort (source: i2cat). Children that will have access to complex but easy to use technology might be

the motor of the emergence of new business (source: Manchester).

Cross-border

potential 10/10


According to Bristol, at least 10 other cities that would develop a project in that domain.

References

[Bristol] Bristol is Open: www.bristolisopen.com

[CREAM]: http://communities.cre-am.eu/ [Creatifi]:http://www.slideshare.net/arturserra/creatifi-leveraging-thefuture-internet-for-creative-industries [Holografika] http://www.holografika.com/

[Oculus] http://www.oculus.com/

http://communities.cre-am.eu/

of 94

I.7. Smart manufacturing: customisation



[zeiss]: http://www.zeiss.com/cinemizer-oled/en_de/home.html

http://pro.europeana.eu/pro-blog/-/blogs/2033630 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/figuerola-presa.pdf

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases that enable the production of customised outputs.

Such production systems combine the low unit costs of mass production processes with the flexibility of individual customisation.

Specific use cases

Continuous Additive Manufacturing; Flexible automation for robot manufacturing; Robot systems for additive manufacturing;

Production of one-of-a-kind customer designs; and Dynamic production systems and shop floors - mobile robot for efficient and

flexible use in cleanrooms.

Interviewed organi-

sations

Admesy (the Netherlands) Opiflex (Sweden)

TNO (the Netherlands)

Societal challenges

0/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenges: “Secure, clean and efficient energy”; and

“Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.

Industry

coverage

5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, in particular those with complex

supply chains, consisting of many steps and/or partners. This includes nearly all

manufacturing sectors, which is the complete secondary sector of the EU economy. It also covers sectors such as logistics, retail, wholesale, waste

management, transportation, public services etc.

Market coverage

5/5

These use cases cover a mass group of consumers in both the B2B and B2C area, since it has impact throughout the whole lifecycle and value chain of

manufactured items.

Technical maturity

3/5


Several similar, commercial solutions already exist and show the technical maturity, e.g.

Optiflex already offers a commercial solution that enables customisation and flexibility using mobile robotics;

In the market of display manufacturing (cfr. interview with Ademesy), there exist commercial solutions to automate the control on colour and

light emission. The Siemens Electronic Works facility in Amberg, Germany, produces

electronics components following a custom, built-to-order process

involving more than 1.6 billion components for over 50,000 annual product variations, for which Siemens sources about 10,000 materials from 250 suppliers

In other markets and for the application of Internet of Things in production environments technical maturity is more moderate, since those initiatives are still in the development and demonstration phase. E.g. continuous additive

manufacturing is still in the technology development and demonstration phase.

http://pro.europeana.eu/pro-blog/-/blogs/2033630

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/figuerola-presa.pdf

of 94

Due to the limited number and very specific nature of the existing commercial solutions, the technology is definitely not too mature for a Large-Scale Pilot [EFFRA].

Usability 5/5


Companies that offer flexible automation solutions aim to make their technology as easy to use as possible, but there are of course always several

usability issues to be dealt with, e.g. Changing setups of for instance flexible robotics systems, which requires

more skills (programming) from operators than fixed machines (Opiflex); and

Information security challenges for quality measurement equipment that captures and generates a lot of business intelligence (Admesy).

User benefits

5/5

The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to the user.

The application of IoT for this specific subdomain of customisation and flexibility focuses on increasing performance, flexibility, productivity and usability.

Entry barriers

3/5


These barriers are Capital requirements are very large for offering complete manufacturing

systems (e.g. like Siemens does); and

Interoperability between hardware and software constitutes switching costs. However, new entrants can start as parts or components suppliers, illustrated by Opiflex and Admesy, which both offer technical solutions that,

combined with existing manufacturing equipment provide advanced

manufacturing performance. This industry is characterised by enormously specialised companies,

with huge quantities of parts being incorporated in one production solution;

and The opportunities to differentiate are vast, but to come to system solutions

requires collaboration across the value chain and between different

component suppliers. One of the key drivers for deciding to adopt automation/customisation solutions

is the increased productivity in comparison to the investment requirement. Naturally, this investment is easiest to earn back when production volumes are very high. Mobile robotics platforms, like Opiflex offer, however, to decrease the required production volume for efficient automation. Small series

production and even handicraft become potential subjects for automation, through this technologies, effectively decreasing entry barriers for automation partners to these segments.

Investment risks

3/5

There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be mitigated.

The risks that can arise are This technology can be of temporary nature, however, because this

constitutes an enabling technology, namely flexible production technology,

the risk is limited; The specific automation market is very international, which means that

companies operate in different political contexts (e.g. Admesy indicated

that conducting business in China is always risky);

Automation/customisation technology, as mentioned afore, is associated with considerable affordability risks. However, because this technology

nearly always results in direct cost reductions, this risk is mitigated. In fact, Opiflex foresees that European manufacturing SMEs eventually will have to automate (part of) their production, in order to be able to compete internationally;

of 94


This technology is not necessarily associated with capacity risks (or at least more risk than existing capacity), as a substantial share of automation/customisation technology constitutes replacement of existing

production capacity.

Information

security risks 5/5

The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively

safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic information.

The main information security risks associated with this technology is the risk of leakage of data, due to connecting all machines and tools within a factory to the Internet, which creates a wealth of data. Fortunately, this is only particularly true when production data leaves the factory and currently in many

production environments, information is only shared between different machines or production departments, but not necessarily with external parties. Admesy indicated for example that one of its key customers, a global

smartphone manufacturer, strictly prohibits any production data to leave its factories and takes adequate measures.

When applying IoT across the whole value chain, naturally this risk become more prominent. However, because (parts of) the factory is only accessible to a limited number of parties (e.g. suppliers, operators, maintenance service providers and retailers), the security risk should be manageable.

A production manager from Philips also stated: “It is open innovation with a fence around it”, implying innovation collaboration with a limited partnership.

Openness 3/5

There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition restrictions on the use. [Kontron]

Openness on use of patents differs between application domains. Admesy indicates that for their market, most competitors rely on the same underlying

sensor technology which is well covered with patents offered against FRAND

conditions, whereas at an application level (e.g. assembling different components into a measurement instrument, and integrating that instrument in a production line) the amount of patents used is limited and the used

technology is shared openly. This differs from Opiflex, which has filed and acquired several patents to protect the different elements of its product offering. While in continuous additive

manufacturing, using IPR is restricted with non-FRAD conditions (case of TNO).

Legal/

ethical barriers

5/5

There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in

general be overcome. The use case is not associated with substantial legal barriers, but where the topic touches on the elimination of jobs as a result of automation, some

ethical issues might arise. This is also applicable to a specific market, such as continuous additive manufacturing, according to TNO.

However, as for instance the CEO of Opiflex indicates, that automation and customisation of European manufacturing will likely result in increased productivity. This might eventually result in production that was initially

outsourced to low-wage countries, to return to Europe. Effectively, this might result in more, higher skilled, European jobs. In addition, this frees up manpower, initially occupied with monotonous labour, to

conduct more creative and finger-fine jobs.


10/10


of 94

In theory, the use case stretches across the whole value chain. With production getting more customised in terms of production parameters and volumes, other company functions, like procurement and logistics also need to

become more tailored and connected. Full value chain coverage is expected to take place as the technology matures, for instance due to earlier mentioned

information security issues and collaboration challenges.

Although European parties are definitely not the only competitors in the customisation and automation domain, but is does boast some of the most

prominent suppliers of this technology, e.g. Siemens, Bosch, Festo, SAP, Trumpf, Fraunhofer, Kuka, ABB, Phoenix Contact, Shapeways etc.

Inter-operability

6/10

This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data amongst systems, based on a common exchange model.

For IoT application in the manufacturing automation or customisation domain sharing of data needs to be seamless and automated between different system elements. Although interoperating technologies are already developed for

industry 4.0, these are not yet adopted by all system partners. TNO added that currently data is shred on a common exchange model, but it is not yet universally interpreted based on APIs.

There are always manners to make one supplier’s device work with another supplier’s device, but this requires a substantial amount of integration costs

[AW].

Replication

6/10

Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot

in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable. The nature of this use case is that it is flexible and easy to customise to

different requirements and contexts. Because different elements in the

production system communicate and contain embedded intelligence, replication of the pilot should be facilitated.

However, suitability of the pilot for replication depends on the type of production line that is selected for the pilot. Naturally, ultra-high tech production systems like those for semiconductors or nanotechnology cannot

easily be replicated in changing settings, due to the very sensitive environmental conditions surrounding such a system (highly susceptible to contamination). Replication of production pilots based on more mainstream technologies is

substantially easier. According to Admesy’s CEO this is being done frequently in countries like China. European parties often lack the resources and manpower to do this. However, with a combined effort and supported with European

resources, these obstacles should be manageable.

Scale

10/10

The scale of the multi-modal LSP can be considered large enough, since

it is close to a full-size system. As this technology constitutes an integrated production system, with many

production elements and adjacent value chain activities being integrated, the possibilities to create a close to a full-size system are plentiful.

User

engagement 6/10

The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a small

number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users. This pilot will affect mostly the plant owner, since the operation of a production

facility is normally limited to them.

Other evident user groups would be Unions or other representatives of employees/operators;

Maintenance companies that have to conduct maintenance of the (pilot) production line; and

Procurement and logistics companies that offer adjacent value chain activities.

of 94

I.8. Environmental monitoring

In general, a production environment is relatively ‘fenced off’, which can limit the involvement of social scientists.

New business

models 10/10


Most of the actors in the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new or adjustments in their business models: Manufacturers will be able to increase the customisation and flexibility of

the production line, which provides substantial change of the business model and opens-up opportunities for new products (from a producer-side) and services (from a supplier-side), but those are limited since the focus is still on production;

Supplier companies can now provide new software solutions and services for maintenance, inventory management, factory management and distribution optimisation; and

SMEs and start-ups will be able to provide new business models around decentralised and mass customisation manufacturing (e.g. using consumer-owned 3D printers) [3DHubs], but these companies currently still mostly

focus on niche markets.

Cross-border

potential 10/10


It is highly likely that frontrunners in this technology field, like Germany, Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland [RB] will start adaptation in the

coming 2 years. This is highlighted by leading European players in this domain originating from

various European countries (although Germany still boasts the main share of companies active in this domain).

References:

[EEFRA] EFFRA (2013) Factories of the future – multi-annual roadmap for the contractual PPP under Horizon 2020, Prepared for the European Commission, DG RTD, Page 121 [RB] Roland Berger strategy consultants (2014) Industry 4.0 – the new industrial revolution:

How Europe will succeed. [3DHubs] http://www.3dhubs.com/ [Kontron] http://blog.kontron.com/cloud/iot.html

[AW] http://www.automationworld.com/industry-40-and-opc-ua


A group of IoT use cases that involve gathering large quantities data from a wide variety of sensors (owned by the public sector and private organisations, and households) to monitor air quality, temperature, rain fall, river levels, noise levels, electromagnetic fields, forest fires, seismic activity, etc. The gathered

data will then be published on open platforms as a service to the public and private sector to enable value-added services. Possible collaboration with the EEA on its Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) and the JRC on

implementing INSPIRE.

Specific use

cases

Equip streets and open spaces with air quality and noise sensors to

automatically report to municipalities, bars and industries on pollution, pollen and noise levels and to detect risks on toxic exposure due to very high CO(2) levels or presence of toxic gases;

Equipping natural areas (e.g. forests, deserts, ski areas or other uninhabited regions) with a large wireless sensor network which could enable early detection of emergencies (e.g. drowning people) and disasters

(e.g. forest fires, hurricanes, avalanches, earthquakes and other possible

disasters); Big data analytics tools could use the generated data to construct

forecasting models on for example air quality to support and improve

decision making processes and to be used by insurance and real estate companies;

of 94



Monitoring the quality of water in rivers and brooks will enable early detection of pollution caused by dumping of toxic or chemical waste from industries; and

The open platform could collaborate with the EEA on its Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) and the JRC on implementing

INSPIRE.

The following use cases related to improving the collaboration between citizens and government and monitoring and tracking of living animals could also be

included in the pilot, but are considered out of scope during benchmarking due to the totally different objectives and big differences in needed technology: Publish discovered problems (littering, broken lights or unavailable services)

on a cloud platform;

Track and monitor (rare) animals in natural areas; Track birds to analyse migration routes; and Find and map minerals, oils and natural gases in large urban areas using

animals equipped with sensors or unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs).

Interviewed

organi-sations

Libelium (Spain) Expert in digital experience

Societal challenges

5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.

Industry

coverage 0/5

This use case will only by applied by one specific industry sector: “Public

administration and defence; compulsory social security”.

Market coverage

5/5

A large segment of consumers is covered. For example, it provides feedback on the effects of waste emissions by industrial activity, provides an instrument for policy making to the public sector, and helps the real estate sector.

Technical maturity

5/5

Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a large-scale pilot. Several similar, but limited (pilot) projects already exist and show the technical

maturity, e.g. Air quality sensors have been deployed in the Rescatame project in

Salamanca (Spain), where more than 200 air quality sensor were used to

create prediction models and introduce sustainable traffic management [Rescatame];

Open data platforms to collect sensor data have already been

deployed in multiple American cities (e.g. Sacramento, Palo Alto)[Junar]; Sensor-based Citizen’s Communities are developed during the Citi-

Sense project; Water monitoring solutions have been tested in Valencia [SW];

Forest fire detection has been done with a wireless sensor network in Asturias and Galicia [FF] and has a commercial solution with DIMAP-FactorLink; and

A platform to deploy, operate and maintain heterogeneous networked environmental monitoring objects are used in the PLANET pilot [PLANET].

Those small to medium sized pilots show the technical maturity of the different aspects of this use case, but aren’t built upon a horizontal and open platform, enabling developers and other third parties to use the gathered data and develop value added services.

of 94

During interviews the fact rose that there is no city that wants to be the first to invest in a real large scale wireless sensor network. An EU-funded

large scale pilot in this area could be a demonstrator of the technologies, and when deployed successfully, a lot of other cities or regions will follow.

Usability 5/5


The biggest issue that could arise is the risk on low user engagement, since it will be hard to convince the majority of the citizens to engage in such a use case.

However, the success of the already existing similar, but limited projects and pilots (e.g. the ones listed in above) show that the usability for environmental monitoring solutions can be very high.

For example, monitoring pollution in Stockholm resulted in a people’s referendum to approve a congestion tax for downtown access. The results were a 22 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and 18 percent reduction in the

average time of traffic jams [LLGA]. Libelium once launched a pilot in which they advertised the actual air pollution (in ppm) in the streets and saw it decreasing over several weeks due to the

facts that people started driving slower and really put effort in lowering their emissions. This shows that users are will easier put effort in changing their behaviour if they can actually see the improvements in air quality from day to

day.

User

benefits 3/5

The benefits offered by the use case are of a nice-to-have nature for

the user. Those benefits are:

Increased insights in quality of life and health in certain areas;

Improved policy making, since analyses on the gathered data will provide feedback and forecasts on the effects of waste emissions by industrial activity; and

Increased safety due to disaster and accident detection, monitoring of toxic gases and automated notification of emergency services.

Monitor pollution levels in central cities is key to provide adequate information to citizens and take actions to reduce it. [WSN]

Entry barriers

3/5

There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be overcome. These barriers are:

Large financial investments are needed to deploy a network with decent calibrated sensors, which is essential to increase the reliability. These investments can be hard for SMEs and municipalities, thus an LSP in this

area can support them financially to enter this market; and Compliancy: it can be difficult to align with all the players in the value

chain, since there exist a lot of similar technologies and every player can

have its own preferences, thus agreeing on the standards used will be essential for the success of the pilot.

Investment

risks 5/5


invest in. The liability of the collected information can be seen a small investment

risk, due to the fact that large scale implementation often choose to use cheap

sensors to lower the cost. Those sensors can be deployed in large amounts, but lack reliability and accuracy. If municipalities want to use the gathered data as

input for policy making, they have to be sure that whatever is monitored is accurate and reliable. Reliable (e.g. calibrated) sensors exist, but they are much more expensive.

of 94


Since the market of wireless sensor equipment is changing very fast, there is always a risk that in a few years new and more efficient technologies will be developed. The large scale pilot should incorporate this idea and use

open standards and platforms that allow to incorporate those new technologies in the pilot, even after it has been deployed.


risks

5/5

The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic information.

There are no confidentiality risks related to this pilot, since it does not gather personal or other sensitive data. All the data that will be collected, is already available for everyone who wants to measure it, but this pilot

project will automate this process and published the results as open data, available for everyone interested. The integrity of the data (e.g. others tampering with the sensor readings)

can be seen as a small risk, but this can easily be ensured by encrypting the data when stored or during communication with other devices or the cloud platform.

Openness 5/5

The use case can largely be built on open standards and specifications that can be freely reused.

Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot: Wireless sensor network can be set-up using 802.15.4/Zigbee protocols; Standardised data exchange and querying can be achieved using

initiatives from the Open Geospatial Consortium (e.g. Geography Markup Language, SensorML, GeoSPARQL and the OGC Web Map Services) [OGC] and from the European Commission INSPIRE data specifications, which are

a GML application profile. These can be used under a permissive licence; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,

such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.

The importance of the use of standards in this use case, has also been identified during interviews:

“It is most important that the information that is collected and processed follows a certain standard, since it will be used by several services. The openness of the actual sensors and the communication protocol that is used

is less important.” (source: Libelium)

Legal/

ethical barriers

5/5

The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal

barriers. The only small legal barrier could be the required level of reliability of the information for decision and policy making, but this can be achieved by the

use of decent and well calibrated sensors.


6/10

The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of individual elements) Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Equipment manufacturers: companies that will manufacture the necessary sensors, e.g. Libelium;

Real estate and insurance companies: can use the analyses on the data

to include in their pricing models, improve their decision making, etc.;

Geospatial organisations are responsible for the collection, analysis and distribution of geospatial intelligence, e.g. OSGeo [OSGF] ;

Public sector: (local) governments, city councils, police departments, can use the data in the context of their public task: environmental policy making, law enforcement, pollution control, etc.;


of 94

communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the non-telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox;

Platform service providers: responsible for the collection, presentation

and analyses of data (e.g. real-time overview of air quality, noise levels), e.g. Evrythng, Sensolus and ThingWorx or platforms as FIWARE and

OM2M;; and

Ongoing initiatives: collaboration with similar ongoing initiatives is possible, e.g. the PLANET integrated platform to deploy, operate and maintain heterogeneous networked environment monitoring objects

[PLANET], INSPIRE JRC [INSPIRE], EEA SEIS [SEIS].

Inter-operability:

6/10

This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data: automated sharing of data amongst systems based on a common exchange model.

A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the

cooperating actors to do the following: Public sector will share data on spatial organisation and legal policies (e.g.

maximum pollen and noise levels);

Meteorological service providers can share detailed and reliable weather and other meteorological information with the inhabitants;

Real-estate and insurance companies can share data regarding to market interest, pricing models, risk areas, etc.; and

Animal and nature welfare groups can share information on risks for disasters, occurrence of animals, essential forests and natural areas.

The pilot will have to demonstrate the interoperability between the different actors and especially between the wide varieties of devices which will be used, because this is the main problem nowadays.

Replication 10/10


The general idea of the pilot of environmental monitoring solutions can easily be replicated in other locations or settings, since the pilot is easily configurable and designed to support heterogeneous sensors and

network technologies.

Scale

10/10

The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to

a full-size system. Although it is important to not only focus on the scale of the project (and

thus invest in a massive amount of cheap sensors), but take into account that decision making requires decent and reliable sensors which has to be calibrated. This decreases the scale (due the increase of price) of the pilot with a factor 5 (source: Libelium), but is very important to sustain the project.

User engagement

6/10

The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a small number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users.

The pilot will affect a broad group of consumers, since it applicable and usable by all inhabitants of the region in which the pilot has been deployed.

According to the interviewed experts, the main problem is that citizens don’t show strong appetite to share the information generated by their own sensors. Next to this, the interviewed experts state that the gathered information mainly will be used by the public sector.

New business

models: 6/10


models.

Possible new business models could be:

Public sector: The main investments has to be carried by the public sector to allow for better (environmental) policy making. The public sector will not be able to monetise on its investment since most of the data will be published as open data to a wide variety of service providers (revised PSI

Directive);

of 94

I.9. Balancing the electricity grid


Meteorological service providers: better forecasting models (micro-climate);

Insurance companies: differentiate insurance price on the region; and

Real-estate companies: can provide potential buyers with detailed statistics on the air pollution, noise levels, etc. in a specific area.

Cross-border

potential:

10/10


A lot of European cities are already deploying small and medium scale pilots [Pilots] regarding to environmental monitoring. A successful and really large scale pilot could be a demonstrator to convince others.

References [OGC] Open Geospatial Consortium: http://www.opengeospatial.org/ [OSGF] Open Source Geospatial Foundation: http://www.osgeo.org

[INSPIRE] INSPIRE: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/ [SEIS] EEA Shared Environmental Information System: http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/shared-environmental-information-system-1

[EU] EU Directive on management and quality of ambient air http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l28031a_en.htm [WSN] http://www.libelium.com/smart_cities_wsn_air_pollution/ [Rescatame] Rescatame project: http://www.rescatame.eu/

[Rescatame2] Rescatame project results: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.createPage&s_ref=LIFE08ENV/E/000107&n_proj_id=3485

[LLGA] http://www.llga.org/SolutionHistory?sid=70 [Pilots] Environmental monitoring pilots across Europe: http://www.libelium.com/case-studies [PLANET] PLANET framework: http://planet.etra-id.com/

[Junar] Junar open data platform: http://www.junar.com/ [CS] City-Sense pilot: http://www.citi-sense.eu/ [SW] Smart Water monitoring project:

http://www.libelium.com/smart_water_cycle_monitoring_sensor_network/

[FF] Forest fire detection project: http://www.libelium.com/wireless_sensor_networks_to_detec_forest_fires/


A group of IoT use cases in the area of industrial smart grids that involve the control of a large cluster of electricity generation units (e.g. backup generator sets, micro combined heat and power (microCHP), windmills, fuel cells, solar energy, hydro turbines) and consumption units (e.g. HVAC units, factories) to

dynamically steer power production (load-aware generation) and consumption (demand response) and to smoothen demand peaks.

Specific use cases

Virtual Power Plants: clustering distributed electricity generation units (such as micro Combined Heat Power, wind-turbines, small hydro, back-up generator sets etc.) which are collectively run by a central control entity

and are capable of producing electricity following demand peaks. Demand response solution: demand response signals (codes or dynamic

prices) to steer electricity demand. Charging station for electrical vehicles

Load-aware power generation

Interviewed

organi-sations

Centre for IT-Intelligent Energy System in Cities

ENTSO-E Ventyx-ABB

CEER

Societal This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Secure, clean and

http://www.libelium.com/case-studies

http://planet.etra-id.com/

http://www.junar.com/

http://www.citi-sense.eu/

http://www.libelium.com/smart_water_cycle_monitoring_sensor_network/

of 94


challenges

5/5

efficient energy”.

Industry

coverage

5/5

Applicable to diverse sectors, since it would touch any sector in which energy is

consumed and or produced at significant scale: Distribution System Operator

(DSO), Transmission System Operator (TSO), Combined-Heat Water installations, industrial installations, electric vehicle charging stations, etc.

Market coverage

0/5

This use case only covers a small segment of consumers in the B2B area, given current energy policy.

Technical maturity

3/5


Load-aware power generation is proven by the many Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) that already exist today. For example, Statkraft operates a 5000MW virtual power plant in Germany [Statkraft]. VPP cloud solutions exist (such

as CyberGrid) [CyberGrid]; Significant improvements in demand response (DR) deployment had been

done in the last years in Europe: Belgium, United Kingdom, Finland, France, Ireland and Switzerland have reached a level where Demand Response is a

commercially viable product offering [SEDC]. In the USA, high adoption of OpenADR solution witnesses the maturity of the technology [OpenADRAlliance]

More than 400 research projects have been identified so far by the Smart Grids Observatory [JRCIET]

Usability

5/5


frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it. The usability is high: success in USA is a good illustration of the adoption rate.

Large electricity consumers already have a strong interest in selling their flexibility, for example in Belgium, ArcelorMittal sells its energy demand

flexibility to the REstore aggregator.

User

benefits 5/5

The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to the user.

Load-aware power generation and demand response offers consumers the opportunity to benefit directly from the Smart Grid and market liberalization [SEDC]:

more stability of the electrical network; reduction of black-out risk; financial benefits from being paid for allowing a consumption flexibility;

contribution to the electric network as an independent electricity producer; help power-consuming clients update their infrastructure and systems and

schedule their power usage more effectively during the day, trimming their

power bills significantly

Entry

barriers 3/5


SEDC identified a list a barriers at different levels and for different actor types[SEDC] in the Demand Response domain: Regulatory barriers across almost the entire European Union halt the

ability of third parties to enter the market. It remains the main barrier. This

has to do with the fact that grid balancing (regarding primary, secondary, and tertiary reserves) is regulated at the national level.

Enabling industry participation in Demand Response may be problematic: Either demand is not accepted within the national market as a resource (Demand Response is not lawful) or the market roles and responsibilities do not allow for direct access to industrial consumers to

of 94

service providers and therefore a clear path to market. Dialogue and close cooperation between demand response providers such as aggregators, retailers and large consumers is a key factor success as what has been

shown in Belgium, France, Austria and Finland.

When those barriers do not exist, development is fast and services and

solutions can be provided by SMEs such as for example REstore [REstore] (a company founded in 2010 and which is now a European Demand Response aggregator).

Investment risks 3/5

There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be mitigated. Political risks: low risk. The change in regulatory system in Europe goes

towards a favourable direction for the development of load-aware power

generation and demand response solutions. So far, no market has made a step backward. [SEDC]

Macroeconomic risks: average risk. The energy market is a utility

market with low risk linked to economic fluctuations. Technology and operational risks: low risk. Efforts on openness are

favourable to reduce risks linked to new (replacing) technologies or

operating paradigms; main actors of the value chain (DSOs, TSOs) are historical actors with a stable position. Risk would come from new actors of RES type or aggregators for which the business is relatively new and still evolving considerably.

Affordability risks: low risk. Organisations and companies are eager to invest in such project knowing the positive impacts. End-user wise, organisations aim to ensure equity and affordability [SEDC]


risks 3/5

There are some information security risks; however, these can in general be mitigated.

Concerns are high especially on the integrity of the control system. In Europe, the CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Smart Grid Coordination Group [20]

provided high level guidance on how standards can be used to develop Smart

Grid information security. In the USA, the PIER (Public Interest Research Program) [PIER] identified an exhaustive list of information security risks:

Risk of market manipulation (confidentiality): Most of the DR functions in the smart grid, such as load shedding, time-of-use pricing (ToU), dynamic pricing, etc. require confidentiality and prevent adversaries

to manipulate the information in the system. Failure to provide integrity and/or confidentiality could result in the exposure of customer's information, unauthorized modification and manipulation of the information.

Risk of instability (integrity): Since specifications like OpenADR are

based on the Internet communication, the information transmitted in each DRAS interface must be protected and prevented from any kind of data manipulation, such as changing pricing information and DR codes to

maintain the reliability of the grid.

Openness 5/5

The use case is based on open standards and specifications that can be freely reused.

Actors are aware of the importance to work with open technology and work in partnerships with national and international organisations. In Europe, SGCG (Smart Grid Coordination Group composed by CEN-CENELEC-ETSI) developed standards for Smart Grid at different levels but pointed out

that it is a continuing process since the business is changing fast and being more and more complex. They worked under a European mandate.[20] In USA, the SGIP (Smart Grid Interoperability Panel composed by tens of

companies of the electricity market) provides a long list of standards applicable to the electrical market [SGIP] and the OpenSG user group is promoting efforts for openness [OpenSGUG].

Europe is lagging behind the USA in the development of standards for DR and European countries starts to adopt American solutions due to that (e.g. EDF in

of 94


France uses the OpenADR2.0 developed by the OpenADR alliance [OpenADRAlliance])

OpenADR 2.0 is a set of standards to facilitate common information exchange between electricity service providers, aggregators, and end users. A specific

application area of interest is demand response.

SEDC [SEDC] denunciates the lack of standards and transparent requirements for how energy consumption reductions are measured and therefore also how

they are valued. Today, this lack can lead to 3 different measurement standards for consumer’s consumption reduction. For example, it the TSO, the Balancing Responsible Party (BRP) and the retailer may have each its own set of criteria.

Legal/ ethical

barriers 3/5


Online Ethic Research (OER) pointed out that beyond questions of regulation and governance, the Smart Grid poses other social and ethical challenges

including: Protecting the privacy of consumer usage information; Securing the grid from attacks by foreign nations, terrorists, and

malevolent hackers;

Ensuring social equity both in terms of access and cost of electric power service; and

Maximizing utilization of energy efficiency.

Value chain

coverage

10/10

The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by

(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and

applying the solution. Many European companies and organisations are well developed in the smart

Energy and smart Grid domains for which the value chain is large and involves: Distribution System Operators (DSOs); Transmission System Operators (TSOs);

Traditional electricity generators: nuclear power stations, combined-cycle gas turbine facilities or combined heat and power plants;

RES: Renewable Energy Sources (wind or solar farms and thermal or hydroelectric power stations);

DRES: Distributed Renewable Energy System; Electricity consumers: industrial, commercial, residential; Regulators: national and regional;

Standards bodies: CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, OpenADR alliance, etc. ; Consortia and alliances: EDSO, ENTSO-E, SGIP, SGCG, etc.; Electricity exchange platforms: power exchanges platforms are used by

market players to anonymously negotiate same-day or next-day purchases and sales of electricity;

Demand Response aggregators: intermediaries between operator and consumers (such as Restore [Restore]);

Service providers: Ancillary Services Providers, Metering Operators, CT Service Providers, Electric Power Grid Equipment Vendors; and



Attention should be paid to the coordination aspect of the project, to what kind of company would take the lead of the consortium. Some technology providers might be too specific. DSOs are very country-specific and there is no real benefits for DSOs to work with other countries (source: interview Ventyx).

Inter- Seamless Sharing of Information: universal interpretation of

of 94

operability 10/10

information through data processing based on cooperating applications/using open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).

The interoperability will be ensured by the strategy adopted by all actors in the development of open and standardized technology.

Replication 6/10


The current lack of standards in Europe is a big challenge [SGCG]. However, efforts are already given in that direction. SEDC points out [SEDC] that regulatory barriers across almost the entire

European Union halt the ability of third parties to enter the market. Dialogue and close cooperation between demand response providers such as

aggregators, retailers and large consumers is a key factor success as what has been shown in Belgium, France, Austria and Finland.

Scale 10/10

The pilot is close to a full-size system. The large number of actors involved in the value chain, the inherent large coverage of actors such as TSOs, DSOs and the implication of consumers

required are evidence that the pilot is close to a full-size system.

User

engagement 6/10

The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a small

number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users. The pilot will affect a broad group of industrial organisations, however, as no

end consumers are targeted by industrial smart grid solutions, the pilot does not involve testing consumer behaviour, nor requires social scientists.

Solutions developed initially for big consumers (large industries) may also

become appealing for Medium and Small Enterprises. Incentives through the possibility of being paid for consumption flexibility is attractive for industry players.

New business

models 6/10


models. Industry consumers see their consumption being automatically adapted

following an incentive-based pricing system that foster the reduction of peak consumption. VPP allows a more accurate and efficient electricity production which is synonym of change in the tradition electricity generation and production

business model and foster implication of DRES [RenewableEnergyWord.com].

Cross-border

potential

10/10


The electricity markets are in transition in Europe: With big and small service providers, with big and small consumers

(business consumers and individuals). EDF is already using OpenADR [OpenADRAlliance]

StatKraft launched in Germany the first VPP in 2012 and the success of it (it is now the largest power plant of Germany) is an example for other countries.

Many countries and many companies are developing services associated to Smart Grids [SmartGridNews]

However, SEDC points out [SEDC] that regulatory barriers across almost the entire European Union halt the ability of third parties to enter the market.

References [SGCG] Smart Grid Coordination Group: http://www.smartgrids.eu/CEN-CENELEC-ETSI

[EDSO] projects : http://www.edsoforsmartgrids.eu/projects/edso-projects/

of 94

I.10. Smart public safety

[SEDC] Smart Energy Demand Coalition report "Mapping Demand Response in Europe Today": http://sedc-coalition.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SEDC-Mapping_DR_In_Europe-2014-04111.pdf [PIER] Public Interest Energy Research report “Smart Grid Cyber Security potential threats,

vulnerabilities and risks”: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-

047/CEC-500-2012-047.pdf [SGCG] Smart Grid Coordination GroupSmart Grid report on Information Security:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/xpert_group1_security.pdf [SGIP] Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, catalog of standards: http://www.sgip.org/member-dashboard?request=getcapabilities&service=wms&version=1.1.0e-stable-and-carriage-house [ESTI] report:

http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102900_102999/102935/02.01.01_60/tr_102935v020101p.pdf [OEC] (Online Ethic Center):

http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/Enviro/Energy/EnergyAPPE2012/APPEKostyk2012.aspx [JRCIET] Joint Research Center Institute for Energy and Transport: http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smart-grids-observatory

[ENTSO-E] Demand Side Response policy paper:

https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/14091

5_DSR_Policy_web.pdf

[ENTSO-E] market design policy paper:

https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/14091

5_Market_Design_Policy__web.pdf

[OpenADRAlliance]: http://www.openadr.org/members

[OpenADRAlliance]: article “openADR, not just California technology”: http://www.fiercesmartgrid.com/story/openadr-not-just-california-technology/2014-07-30 [Electrabel] energy toolbox: https://www.electrabel.be/fr/particulier/prix-gaz-electricite-

fournisseur/smartenergybox [Elia] Player description: http://www.elia.be/en/about-elia/electricity-market-players#anchor1

[Statkraft] http://www.statkraft.com/media/news/2014/Germanys-largest-power-plant/

[Cybergrid] VPP cloud solution: http://www.ebadge-fp7.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/cyberGRID-eBADGE-EEM13.pdf [VAASAETT] Energy Data Store specialist: http://www.vaasaett.com/data/ [Restore] http://www.restore.eu/news/power-stations-of-the-future-virtual-power-plant

[RenewableEnergyWord.com] http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/09/virtual-power-plants-a-new-model-for-renewables-integration

[SmartGridNews] key players: http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Key_Players/ [OpenSGUG] Open Smart Grid User Group: http://osgug.ucaiug.org/default.aspx

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases that involve using sensors (including surveillance

cameras) to allow a more secure public environment by the detection of public safety-specific information from the sensor readings and captured images (e.g. emotions, behaviour, and other safety-related events) that are used in an

intelligent, semi-automated system by law enforcement agencies and emergency services. The focus should be on the use of sensors to prevent crime (e.g. street noise, vandalism) or other calamities (stampedes).

Specific use cases

Enable advanced face and behaviour recognition using smart cameras; Remote controllable surveillance drones; Crowd monitoring and control to avoid stampedes;

Remote temperature readings of people at airports; and

Increase brightness of street lighting at night, when noise levels increase (e.g. prevent bar fights).

Interviewed organi-

sations

City of Santander and Telefonica City of Ghent (Belgium)

EERA JPSC

http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Key_Players/

of 94



17 http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/

Societal challenges

5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens” since it covers

challenges related to crime prevention and general safety matters (e.g. fire, earthquake, flood, accidents) in cities to support the work of the police, emergency services and law enforcement.

The need for technology in this area is supported by the following facts: Government expenditure on public order and safety amounted to around

EUR 240 billion in 2012 in the EU-27;

Cities suffer from higher crime statistics and applications exist to support avoiding certain neighbourhoods17;

Surveillance installations have proven to influence positively preventive measures, therefore IoT through connected devices can offer one of the

most efficient solution increase public safety. This area requires public intervention, since the market itself does not focus

on it.

Other areas, such as disasters and accidents are more specific areas, but have a huge social impact.

Industry coverage

5/5

This use case is likely to be used by diverse sectors, since it brings together public and private sector industries, such as municipalities, police and law enforcement, emergency services, voluntary neighbourhood watch, private

security agencies and provides insights for insurance and real-estate companies.

Market

coverage 0/5

This use case targets a rather narrow group of end-consumers.

Technical

maturity 5/5


scale pilot. There are several use cases that exist and are tested in different cities on a

smaller scale and a limited scope. As a consequence, the use case could benefit from these experiences and become a large-scale pilot. Technology is available and is not the main barrier. (Source: City of Ghent)

There are few existing commercial solutions and the technology is not fully developed yet, but in a few years at time of deployment the maturity could be there. (Source: Smart Santander project)

Usability 5/5

In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to

use it. Unless further application are developed which can be done on voluntary basis, most of these technologies do not require active end-user involvement.

For the intermediaries, such public agencies staff the use of such solutions would also not require intensive trainings.

Users should not experience any technological barriers since the user friendly aspect would be developed to foster citizens' participation. (Source: City of Ghent)

User buy-in might be an issue due to potential privacy concerns which can be overcome. (Source: Smart Santander project)

User

benefits

The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to

the user.

of 94

5/5 The individual scope of the projects needs to be well defined as certain public spaces might raise no privacy concerns or benefits of a smart environment are

higher for users. Safety and security are fundamental aspects of the society.

End users could find more benefit if services are reflecting personal needs (e.g.

child-tracking wearables for parents combines with other connected objects, sensors in public spaces or having alternative routes suggested to avoid traffic jams due to accidents). (Source: Smart Santander project)

Entry barriers

3/5

There are some barriers to entry; however these can in general be overcome.

Those barriers are (Source: City of Ghent, Smart Santander project): Legal and policy barriers: seem to be the critical barriers. They are at

multiple levels and active cooperation would be needed (regional, national,

European). Even at city level it requires the collaboration of many stakeholder.

Large capital investments will be required and maintenance/hidden costs

are feared. Lack of infrastructures to involve citizens has also been pointed out. Responsiveness: emergency services are not equipped to efficiently

respond on this kind of reporting which will require a process and

administrative functioning change

Investment

risks 3/5

There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be

mitigated. The main risk is the return of investment, which is highly questionable. It

could be assumed that public surveillance enhances public safety, but as CCTV cameras in UK show, that might not necessarily reduce criminality. Potentially it could tackle illegal waste dumping and thus reduce polluting or even decrease

reaction time (this was a very successful project in Amsterdam for fire

department). It can bring high operating cost: to maintain the solution. (Source: Smart

Santander project)

Information

security risks 3/5


general be mitigated (e.g. with clear and auditable rules for privacy management and handling of personal data).

This is a complex area, but there should be a clear rules about who can access the data. (Source: interview Smart Santander project) A centralised platform and sensitive information available on the Internet definitely raises security risk concerns. (Source: interview City of Ghent)

Openness 3/5

There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition restrictions on the use.

This is due to the fact that solutions are still not as mature that we could be talking about standardisation. There are several levels of standards depending

on the technology. Specialized actors in security system are at a high stage of maturity in Europe and usually have their proprietary technology. Cities might still impose standards when launching calls but seen in a global system involving multiple companies, global openness might not been reached.

An LSP can introduce and showcase the need for those standards, especially if we want to integrate the system in emergency and police services. FI-Ware

could be a solid basis for this. (Source: Smart Santander project).

Legal/ ethical

barriers 0/5

There are significant legal and/or ethical barriers that are difficult to overcome. There might be privacy issues but as these practices already exist and general

safety is higher priority concern, it is supposed to be efficiently managed.

of 94


Privacy laws in Europe and each country can be a significant barrier for cities. Privacy is also a big concern of citizens. (Source: City of Ghent)

Citizens might be reluctant to use this solution, from a privacy perspective, but also in equipping the environment with sensors and camera’s. (Source: Smart

Santander project)


6/10

The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of individual elements).

Examples of organisations that could team up are: Emergency services will be able to respond much faster in case of

emergencies; Equipment manufacturers: manufacturers of the equipment used to

monitor the public environment, e.g. Libelium;

Network operators: provide the necessary telecommunication services, e.g. Telefonica/Vodafone, but also the non-telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox;

Real estate and insurance companies can use the analyses on the data

to include in their pricing models, improve their decision making, etc.; Public sector: local governments, city councils; and Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary


Most of the equipment (especially smart cameras) used in manufactured in Asia, but they can be installed and deployed by European companies. (Source:

Smart Santander project)

Inter-operability

6/10

This use case allows for seamless sharing of data, based on a common exchange model.

Depending on the legal framework and standards developed for sharing data on this matter, interoperability should be of upmost concern.

Best way to ensure interoperability is by using open standards, e.g. FI-Ware. Especially since it consists of information from different levels. (Source: Smart Santander project)

Replication 6/10

Some challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.

All components can be re-used and can be replicated in any country, city and public space.

It has a potential, both from the perspective of the concept and from the potential to reuse the developed framework and make cooperation between cities. (Source: Smart Santander project)

Scale 10/10


This use case has a large scale potential as all settlements, cities can be covered in Europe.

User engagement

6/10

The pilot implies some user engagement, but it focuses on a limited category of users.

This use case can stand by itself with cooperation among different stakeholders such as public and private organisations. On the other hand, user engagement potential can increase if more private objects (e.g. cars, wearables) and applications are developed on the top with collaboration, information purposes

(e.g. accidents and alternative route planning).

of 94

I.11. Energy savings in production processes


I.12. Smart water distribution networks


New business model:

6/10

The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional business models, but does not fundamentally change these business models.

New business models for security companies, public sector, etc.(Source: Smart Santander project). However, no fundamental changes.

Cross-border

potential

10/10


The cross-border potential of such a project would certainly cover more than 3 countries as all cities in Europe can benefit from such IoT solutions. In the SafeCity [SafeCity] project 15 European countries have been involved.

References Application for Smart neighbourhoods: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/

[SafeCity]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwXAsnD_yw Technology literature: http://disi.unitn.it/~somov/pdf/eurosensors2014-1.pdf

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases allowing the management of energy usage by

manufacturers and thereby creating cost savings. This includes among others the following use cases: Continuous monitoring of temperature and humidity for delicate production

climates; Get insights in the often hidden total cost of ownership of industrial

equipment; and Scalable cost-effective resource inflow monitoring on usage and quality.

Societal

challenges 5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenges:

“Secure, clean and efficient energy”; and “Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw material”.

Industry coverage

0/5

This use case is particularly applicable to the high energy consuming industries (e.g. metal manufacturing sector).

Market coverage

0/5

This use case covers a small segment of consumers in the B2B area. Not all production processes can benefit from IoT technology to realise energy savings.

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases using a network of sensors and remotely operated

valves to improve leakage detection, purification, and quality control.

Societal

challenges 5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenges:

“Secure, clean and efficient energy”; and “Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”. This can be supported by the following facts:

Due to our current water management systems, one in five people on the planet do not have adequate access to safe, clean drinking water.

of 94

I.13. Automated manufacturing


I.14. Smart design (maker movement)


This use case ensures more efficient water usage due to purification and re-

allocation of water, automated quality checking processes and tackles the low efficiency in water distribution and consumption.

Industry

coverage 0/5

This use case is only applicable to one specific industry sector:

“Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities”.

Market coverage

0/5

This use case targets a rather narrow group of B2B end-consumers.

Use case

description

A group of IoT use cases enabling the connection of machinery and systems

within the plant so that manufacturers can automate workflows to maintain and optimise production systems without human intervention. This includes among others the following use cases:

Machine-to-machine communication and embedded intelligence; Intelligent connected tools for operators; Software to monitor how equipment is performing and automatically make

corrections;

Smart tools that monitor and guide operator work flows; and Automated pick-up and delivery in large inventories.

Societal

challenges 0/5

This use case has no direct link with a Horizon 2020 challenge.

Industry coverage

5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since it relates to almost all manufacturing sectors that are producing mass-consumer goods or require

zero-tolerance engineering (food industry, car manufacturers, electronics etc.).

Market

coverage 0/5

This use case only covers a small segment in the B2B area.


A group of IoT use cases that involve researchers, artists, individuals, SMEs, etc. to (collaboratively or individually) design smart objects using (3D-printed or traditionally crafted) digitised components and every-day objects. The use

cases typically are on the confluence of different domains such as design, software programming, and art. Individuals actively and freely participate in developing connected, personalised products. Outputs are used for cultural,

educational, commercial, or research purposes.

Societal

challenges 0/5

This use case only has an indirect link with the Horizon 2020 challenge:

"Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies".

Industry coverage

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since this cluster aim to develop products in all types of industries, including for example street lightning, dance

of 94

I.15. Smart factory


I.16. Smart manufacturing: supply chain


5/5 floors, furniture, wearables, etc.

Market coverage

0/5

This use case covers specific, rather narrow segments of consumers in the B2C area.


A group of IoT use cases allowing to collect real-time factory data which, in turn, facilitates management decisions and aiming to minimise equipment failures by means of collecting actual performance data and monitoring equipment health.

Societal

challenges 0/5


Industry

coverage 5/5

Applicable to diverse sectors, since all manufacturing sectors can implement a

smart factory solution. All these sectors generate production data that can be analysed and provide fruit for management, and all these sectors make use of equipment that requires periodical maintenance.

Market coverage

0/5

This use case is only valuable for a limited market, since only the manufacturing sectors will benefit from gaining information about production

and maintenance.


A group of IoT use cases equipping manufactured items with reusable Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) smart tags and/or sensors connecting the production line to the systems of other actors in the supply chain, making the entire lifecycle of individual manufactured items visible so that all parties can

understand interdependencies, the flow of materials, and manufacturing cycle times. This use cases enables among others: Decentralised manufacturing hubs;

Consistent tracking of goods throughout the distribution chain; Linking real-time distribution data with real-time production data; Pervasive visibility: closing the ‘black spots’ or visibility gaps across a

supply chain using RFID chips; Proactive replenishment of inventory; Reduce packaging by publishing product specifications, in reusable RFID

tags;

Protect against counterfeiting with secured RFID tags; Locate products on warehouse shelves; Automated inventory;

Automated checkout in distribution centres; Automated waste disposal; and Automated waste sorting facilities based on information in reusable RFID

tags.

Societal

challenges 0/5


of 94

I.17. Comfort and security at home


I.18. Open platforms for the audio-visual industry


Industry

coverage 5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, in particular those with complex

supply chains, consisting of many steps and/or partners. This includes nearly all manufacturing sectors, which is the complete secondary sector of the EU economy. It also covers sectors such as logistics, retail, wholesale, waste

management, transportation, public services etc.

Market coverage

0/5

This use case is more related to the manufacturing sector.


A group of IoT use cases that connect a set of devices to increase the comfort of the inhabitant by enabling remote control and allow for automated services. It also includes a group of IoT use cases that involve the use of connected

sensors that can, in real-time, inform the inhabitants, other people (e.g. family members, neighbours) and emergency services of possible burglaries, fire, vandalism,... to improve the sense of safety at home.

Societal challenges

0/5

This use case has only an indirect link with the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its

citizens.”

Industry

coverage 5/5

This use case is applicable to diverse sectors: home appliance manufacturers,

garden specialists, security system providers, retailers (e.g. real-time shopping list), emergency sectors, etc.

Market

coverage 0/5

This use case is due to the large investments which are needed only applicable

for a small consumer group.


A group of IoT use cases for the audio-visual industry that allows content providers (news agencies, production houses, theatres, television channels,

etc.) to publish their content via multiple content distributors using open platforms, allowing consumers to access the content on a large set of devices (smartphone, TV, laptop, tablet, game consoles and others):

Providing storage of content by content providers; Providing open, streaming optimization techniques for Internet Service

Providers (ISPs); Streaming of content (video, audio) to various devices by consumers

following different funding sources: advertisement, subscription, pay-per-view, etc.; and

Analysis of usage statistics.

Societal

challenges

0/5


Industry

coverage 0/5

Applicable a narrow group of companies in the "Information and

communication" and "Arts, entertainment and recreation" area, including news agencies, production houses, theatres, television channels, Internet service

of 94

I.19. Citizen engagement and better public services


providers, cable distribution companies, etc.

Market coverage

5/5

This use case is applicable to a mass consumer group, since it relates to all individuals with access to television, laptop or other media which can be

connected to the Internet to play audio-visual content.


A group of IoT use cases aiming to create a platform for bringing closer citizens' needs and offer interoperable, user-centric public services in cities. Any decisions or services delivered can be tackled with broader engagement and better management of resources. It can include community generated

information such as "fix-my-street" type of initiatives (e.g. waste, buildings, and safety, lost children) combined with use of connected devices received and treated by the relevant public bodies. Furthermore, engagement can cover

collective open, public sector and social innovation, bringing different stakeholders together for more efficient service delivery (e.g. schools, libraries). This can also involve connecting information and ensure

interoperability of different services for more personalised services.

Societal

challenges 5/5

This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Europe in a

changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies mainly through innovative services for citizens”. It also partly covers the Public Services aspect of the Digital Agenda.

Industry

coverage 0/5

This use case is only applicable to one specific industry sector:

“Public administration and defence; compulsory social security”.

Market coverage

0/5

This use case only covers a small segment in the Consumer-to-Administration (C2A) area.

of 94

Annex II. Interviews

This annex contains an overview of the 28 interviews that were carried out in the

context of this study. It first indicates the selection procedure and interview structure.

II.1. Selection of interview candidates

Based on the analysis of the IoT vendor landscape in Europe, we prepared a long list

of organisations and related interview candidates. This long list is included in the dataset that is associated with this study. For each selected use case a number of

interview candidates were identified and invited for an interview. The selection of interview candidates was focused on European organisations, with a potential interest

in the use cases. These include large companies, niche players, standards bodies,

industry consortia, and consumer organisations.

II.2. Interview structure

The interview questions were structured following the criteria of the benchmark

framework explained in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Table 10

contains an overview of the questions that were asked for most interviews. The

interview candidates were first presented the benchmark evidence gathered via desk

research and were asked to validate and supplement the gathered evidence.

Table 10: Interview structure

Interview description

Company Name of interviewee Date

Description of IoT activity

Name of cluster discussed

Which specific use cases seem relevant and interesting to you? Are there use cases in this clusters which are, according to your expertise, not feasible to include in this LSP.

Benchmark framework: European value

Existing research projects: which existing European-level research projects could support this use case?

Industry coverage: Which industries will it cover?

Market coverage: How many potential consumers?

Benchmark framework: Attractiveness

Technical maturity: what key technologies will enable this LSP? Will they be mature enough

and not yet out-dated for deployment in a LSP?

Usability: what aspects make the use case attractive to users?

User benefits: what are the key benefits for the users? Which features are of fundamental importance to the user?

Entry barriers: what restricts this LSP in the ability to allow new (often small) players to enter and begin operating in this domain, e.g. Economies of scale are needed

Product differentiation to overcome customer loyalties Capital investments

Switching cost, one-time cost related to switching from one supplier to another

Access to channels of distribution Government policies

Investment risks: do you see any key risks associated with investing in this LSP?

Political risks (e.g. change in regulatory system); Macroeconomic risks (e.g. economic fluctuations);

of 94

II.3. Interviewed organisations

Table 11 provides an overview of the organisations that were interviewed.

Table 11: Interviewed experts

Technology and operational risks (e.g. risk of emergence of new (replacing) technologies or operating paradigms; risk of changing customer preferences etc.);

Affordability risks (i.e. a risk that the solution will be too costly for the users); Capacity risks (e.g. discontinuation of support from key benefactors)

Information security risks: how does this use case relate to sensitive electronic information?

Can the risks easily be mitigated?

Confidentiality: limited data access Integrity: maintaining and assuring the accuracy and consistency Authentication: ensure that data is genuine

Openness: which open standards and open solutions can be used to avoid (technology) lock-in? Or can they be used under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions?

Legal/ethical barriers: which ethical or legal barriers could arise during deployment?

Benchmark framework: LSP potential

Value chain coverage: what are the different parts of the value chain? Which potential (European) actors can cover certain parts? Which organisations can be interesting or could be willing to cooperate in the deployment of this LSP?

Interoperability: how can this LSP allow for (automated) inter-operation between multiple systems and organisations?

Replication: how can we ensure that this LSP can easily be replicated on other locations or in different settings, while re-using certain components?

Scale: how can this LSP, according to the barriers (e.g. budget and time), be deployed on a large scale?

User engagement: which user groups are addressed by this LSP? How can this LSP increase e-inclusions?

New business models: which new business models could be tested due to the deployment of this LSP?

Cross-border potential: what could enforce the uptake of the pilot by multiple European

countries?

Organisation Country IoT Domain / Use

Case(s)

Admesy NL Smart manufacturing

University of Bristol UK Smart cities

EERA JPSC EU Smart cities

Smart grid

European Factories of the Future Research Association EFFRA

EU Smart manufacturing

EnergyVille BE Smart grid

ENTSO-E EU Smart gird

ESMIG EU Smart grid

ETSI/OneM2M EU Cross-domain

City of Ghent BE Smart city

HICT BE Smart health

HP/mHealth Alliance UK Smart health

I2Cat ES Smart city

of 94

ITS Belgium BE Smart mobility

Libelium ES Cross-domain

Lhings ES Cross-domain

Manchester UK Smart city

Medopad UK Smart health

Netatmo FR Smart energy

OptiFlex SE Smart manufacturing

Optifert project DE Smart agriculture

City of Santander ES Smart city

Sensolus BE Cross-domain

SmartAgriFood/FISpace NL Cross-domain

Smart Cities Center DK Smart grid

Televic BE Smart health

ThingWorx UK Cross-domain

TNO NL Smart manufacturing

Ventyx DE Smart grid

WiThings FR Smart Heatlth

Yetu DE Cross-domain

Zen Car BE Smart mobility

of 94

Annex III. Validation workshop

This annex provides an overview of the organisations that participated in the

validation workshop and the received feedback during and after the validation

workshop.

III.1. Validation workshop participating organisations

The experts listed in Table 12 have been invited to participate in the validation

workshop to be held on 17 December. The 14 experts listed in column 1

(Organisation) in italic and underlined have participated in the workshop.

Table 12: Validation workshop experts

Organisation Country IoT Domain

AIT (Austrian Institute of Technology)/

EERA Smart Cities Joint Programme Austria

Smart Cities and Smart

Energy

Alstom France Smart Grid

Anitec Italy Cross Domain

Arduino Italy Makers community

ARM UK Cross Domain

Bastille Networks Belgium Cross Domain

Bosch Systems Germany Industrial equipment

Centre for IT-Intelligent Energy Systems in Cities

Denmark Smart Energy and Smart Grid

City of Ghent Belgium Smart Cities

City of Santander Spain Smart Cities

CSEM Switzerland Research and

development centre

Digital Europe EU Industry organisation

EERA Smart Cities Joint Programme Belgium Smart Cities

EnergyVille Belgium Smart Energy

EFFRA EU Industry organisation

ENTSO-E EU Smart Energy and Smart Grid

ETSI Europe Cross Domain

EuMat Denmark Technology platform

FabLab - Brussels Belgium Fabrication laboratory community

FIspace/SmartAgrifood Europe Smart Agriculture and Food

Hitachi United Kingdom Smart Cities

ITS Belgium Smart Transport and Smart Mobility

of 94

III.2. Validation workshop feedback

The following tables list the issues that have been raised during the validation

workshop, for each issue, the tables below indicate whether and how it has been

addressed.

Table 13: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the Benchmark Framework

Libelium Spain Smart Factory and Smart Manufacturing

Linear project Belgium Smart Energy and

Smart Grid

Manchester Digital Development Agency UK Smart Cities

Nokia Research Finland Networked services

OASIS EU Standardisation organisation

oneM2M (Telecom Italia) EU Standardisation organisation

Philips Research The Netherlands Smart Home and Smart

Buildings

PwC United States Cross Domain

PwC Technology United States Technology strategist

Santander - Telefonica Spain Smart Cities

SAP Germany Smart Homes

Siemens AG Germany Industrial equipment

Sigfox France Networked services

Sintef Norway Research organisation

Springworks Sweden Smart Mobility and Transport

Telefonica R&D Spain Smart Cities

Televic Belgium Smart Health

Ventyx Switzerland Smart Energy and Smart Grid

WiThings France Smart Health

Add a benchmark criterion on relevance

Issue: Include a criterion on the relevance of the proposed use case to the IoT.

Remedy: No action. All proposed use cases should be relevant to the area of IoT. Where this is not the case, they should be revised.

Scoring rule of entry barriers and investment risks

Issue: The LSPs could help to overcome entry barriers and investment risks. This should be

reflected in the scoring rule: the related criteria should give the highest score in the case

where there are some risks/barriers that can be overcome.

Remedy: No action. A counter argument could be given: use cases with limited entry

barriers and investment risk can be more easily replicated and are more likely to be sustained.

of 94

Table 14: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the proposed use cases

Issue: Label the use cases more consistently, now some of them are means (e.g. load-aware

power generation and demand response) and others are objectives (e.g. smart living

environment).

Remedy: The labels of the uses cases were revised indicating the expected benefit.

Issue: Split up the smart agriculture and food traceability use case. The use case is ranked

artificially higher due to this clustering.

Remedy: No action. Since we focus on interoperability between all players of the value chain,

we believe that there may be a synergy between the production of food and its traceability

through the supply chain. For example, consumers and/or food safety administrations may be

interested to see the link between production processes and supply chain. This requires

Add a benchmark criterion on organisational complexity

Issue: Include a criterion on the organisational complexity of the proposed use case. For

example, organising the use case on multi-modal mobility with multiple public transport

organisations may be too challenging for the LSPs.

Remedy: No action. This could be taken into account by the Commission when preparing the call, or by the consortium responding to the call.

Add a benchmark criterion on scalability

Issue: Include a criterion on the scalability of the proposed use case to the IoT, since this will

reflect the capabilities of a use case to expand beyond the scale of the pilot.

Remedy: No action. There is already a criterion on scale included that favours use cases with a larger scaling potential as one of the key requirements for large-scale pilots. Also criteria

like replicability, and technical feasibility will indicate that the use case is scalable beyond the pilot.

Add a benchmark criterion on sustainability

Issue: Include a criterion on the sustainability of the proposed use case to the IoT, e.g. some

use cases make use of technologies that are nowadays available, but are likely to be replaced

by new ones in the near future (e.g. routing and networking protocols, communication

networks, energy solutions).

Remedy: No action. In general, sustainability will increase for those LSPs and use cases for

which the investment risks and entry barriers are low. The report also contains a proposed

accompanying measure on sustainability.

Add a benchmark criterion on innovation of IoT components

Issue: It is stated that the benchmark criteria should be consistent with the objectives of

LSP. One of them (the last one) states that they should foster innovation across multiple IoT

technological components, such as devices, networks and applications. This could have

opened a window of opportunity, but somehow it has not found its place among the ‘LSP

potential’ criteria finally considered.

Remedy: No action. This objective of the LSPs, in combination with others, is addressed by

the ‘technical maturity’ criterion.

Benchmark framework: scoring rules

Issue: The scoring system is not fully understood, and the same for some allocation of

points, e.g. regarding societal challenges.

Remedy: The scoring rules are set in Section Error! Reference source not found.. The

scoring of societal challenges reflects the societal challenges on which the Horizon 2020

framework programme focuses its funding.

Benchmark framework: scoring of the ‘user engagement’ criterion

Issue: In the dimension ‘LSP potential’, ‘User engagement’ is the only criterion scored on a

scale of 5 points rather than 10 points. This seems odd.

Remedy: The scoring rule was changed to a scale of 10 points. This did not change the

proposed use cases.

of 94

putting in place the necessary links between crop and cattle during production and trade

items in the supply chain.

Issue: Include the charging of electrical vehicles in the use cases.

Remedy: The energy management and monitoring and multi-modal mobility use case make

reference to vehicle charging accordingly.

Issue: Make the granularity more consistent; some are broader and some are more specific

which is influencing some of the scores, and thus the outcome.

Remedy: No action. The granularity of the use case differs to obtain the required interaction

between multiple value chain actors.

Issue: Describe the use cases with a more generic terminology to broaden the use case (i.e.

vehicles and not cars).

Remedy: The use case was revised accordingly.

Issue: The use cases seem to be focussing too much on vertically-oriented organisations and

systems.

Remedy: No action. The proposed use cases (e.g. multi-modal mobility) are described in

such a way that they do cross-cut vertically oriented closed systems and applications.

Evidence of this can be found in the scoring of ‘value chain coverage’ criterion.

Use cases: smart water distribution networks and energy savings in production processes

Issue: Two of the proposals that have not been shortlisted could also be useful: smart

water, and energy savings in production. Many European Cities have ageing water pipes.

Burst pipes cause considerable disruption and costs. A smart monitoring system could help

predict pipe weaknesses and encourage proactive maintenance.

Similarly, electric motors are very inefficient in their use of energy. Smart motors could help.

But industry has been slow to take this up, in part because there is a gap between those who

invest the capital in machinery and those who finance the running costs.

Remedy: No action. These use cases have not been shortlisted, as they scored lower on the

selection criteria (European value).

Issue: Include an accompanying measure on evaluation metrics of the deployed LSPs (e.g.

quantitative values to prove hypothesis in user acceptance, benefits, etc.).

Remedy: such a recommendation on accompanying measures was added.

Table 15: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the shortlisted use cases

Issue: The use cases around (1) Multi-modal mobility – smart road infrastructure, (2) Smart assisted living and wellbeing, and (3) Energy savings at home were validated by multiple experts as good candidates for an LSP.

Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure

Issue: Give the security and privacy issues a similar score to the smart public safety use

case.

Remedy: The scores on information security risks were revised across all use cases for more

consistency.

Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure

Issue: The use case is a bit too ambitious, it will not be possible to address everything in the

description, especially if the different aspects are not managed by one single (public

transport) company.

Remedy: The suggested scope restriction was included in the description of the use case.

The proposed use case can be seen as a guideline for the launch of a call in this area.

Smart agriculture and food traceability

Issue: Focus the use case more on small scale solutions for more difficult crop (e.g. olives).

Remedy: The suggested scope was included in the description of the use case.

Smart assisted living and wellbeing

Issue: Clarify the relationship between the ‘assisted living’ and ‘wellbeing’ part of the use

of 94

case.

Remedy: The relationship was clarified as follows. The same infrastructure for ‘assisted

living’ can also be used for ‘wellbeing’; and enable to include this data in electronic health

records. The wellbeing part generates (social) behaviour data and vital signs data that can

be relevant for identifying the right persons for clinical trials (enriched patient data records

allow to select better samples for clinical trials), that can be used to lower medical insurance

contributions (proof of a healthy lifestyle), as extra information for caretakers (e.g. a GP

knows your recent average and extreme vital signs at the beginning of a doctor’s visit), etc.


Issue: Score the legal and ethical barriers of this use cases lower.

Remedy: The scoring of the use case was revised and compared across all use cases for

consistency.


Issue: The risks associated with information security and privacy issues should be similar to

the Smart public safety use case.

Remedy: The scoring of information security risks was revised and compared across all use

cases for consistency.

Smart manufacturing: customisation

Issue: Raised doubts concerning the novelty and level of IoT in this use case. This will mainly

be done by the private sector itself.

Remedy: The novelty aspect was included in the “technical maturity score” of 3 out of 5. The

IoT nature stems for the use of information that is on the product itself to achieve a higher

level of customisation and a better flow of manufactured items through the supply chain.

Worker safety

Issue: Worker safety is seen as an important domain of application for IoT, and is seen in

relation to and as linked with among others Industry 4.0. If applied in a coherent and worker

friendly manner (i.e. respecting privacy of the workers in medical and in wider sense), it has

the potential of reducing accidents, reducing costs (in production and in worker care) and

reducing non-quality. Notifications should not be sent directly to management, first to the

worker himself and others in his vicinity that are directly affected by the actions. Only when

certain incidents are reoccurring and sever safety threats, the medical assistants and in the

end the management can be informed.

Remedy: The description of the use case was changed to reflect who should receive safety

notifications to increase the acceptability by workers and unions.

Smart public safety

Issue: The use case should not focus on smart surveillance cameras, since this is not so

much IoT. It should evolve more towards the use of sensors to prevent crime, e.g. sound

sensors which enable brighter street lighting when the risk on bar fights is higher.

Remedy: The idea was included in the description of the use case.

Smart living environment

Comment: Start with the deployment of a wireless sensor network to control the street

lighting system. The energy cost savings can be used to fund further deployment of a smart

city wide network, on which individuals can connect to gather information (e.g. around last

minute discounts at restaurants, etc.). Tests in the UK show that by using smarter lights (not

even LEDs) there can be energy savings of 30%. This can be invested in using the streetlights

to host the antennae for a wireless network, and various sensors (for traffic management,

calibrating lighting levels etc.). For example it makes it more affordable to have sensors on

manhole covers to detect interference, or in car parking spaces to provide real time

information on parking availability.

Remedy: This idea was included in the use case.

Energy savings at home and in buildings and Balancing the electricity grid use cases.

Issue: Some of the experts suggested to combine the two use cases, since both are quite

similar.

of 94

Remedy: No action. After a small discussion, no agreement among experts could be found

and the use case was not merged. The former is an application of a residential smart grid

and the latter is an application of an industrial smart grid.

Energy savings at home and in buildings and energy savings for production

processes

Issue: Put emphasis on the total cost of ownership of electrical equipment, since this is an

aspect the user often forgets about.

Remedy: This was reflected in the description.

Nature of the proposed use cases

Issue: 19 use cases have been somehow pre-selected and then shortlisted. For instance, the

implication of IoT in 6.4 Manufacturing is not clear: customization and 6.15 Smart design. It

is not clear also in how far these already identified cases will set a ‘fixed’ model of reference

application fields for the future ICT vision of IoT developments.

Remedy: This report is one of many inputs to the next H2020 Work Programme. The

proposed use cases are not intended as a ‘fixed’ model of reference application fields. This is

also not implied in the report.

Energy savings at home and in buildings

Issue: Energy management at home and in buildings: This use case seems to be incomplete,

as the whole district performance in terms of energy management is not included (Not even

in another use case). RES generation, district consumption, smart grid integration should be

included also as a use case at district level. Plenty European projects funded by the

commission are working on improving the performance of the district energy management

(as examples, URB-Grade, Ambassador, EPIC-HUB...), and their impact in the IoT should also

be taken into account.

Remedy: The use case description already mentioned a home energy management system

taking into account “dynamic electricity pricing and demand response codes, and availability

of (locally) generated renewable energy”. The additional clarifications were added to the use

case description.

Energy savings in production processes

Issue: It looks like energy saving and resource saving is only of interested for some high

energy industries. Especially when not only looking at electrical energy, this topic is important

for a lot of industrial companies.

Remedy: This feedback seems justified and would require a more in-depth study of the use

case. This was listed as ‘future work’ in the conclusion of the study.

Include device manufacturers in the list of organisations

Issue: Examples list only solution providers. It is proposed to add at least some European

companies clearly involved as device providers in sensors, actuators, communications; this

would be useful to complete the visibility of this European industrial segment, and to give

recognition to its pulling role in achieving spreading IoT knowledge and deployment.

Remedy: This feedback is justified and was suggested as ‘future work’ in the conclusion of

the study.

Smart assisted living and well-being

Issue: Wearables are mentioned but not clearly and mostly inserted in well-being.

Remedy: This was clarified in the smart-assisted living and well-being use case. Wearables

are also clearly mentioned in the ‘worker safety’ use case.

Smart-assisted living and well-being

Issue: There is a strong correlation between assisted living and smart health (which is not

yet addressed), but this is separate from well-being platforms, that address much more

comfort rather than support or monitoring functionality.

Remedy: No action. The same infrastructure for ‘assisted living’ can also be used for

‘wellbeing’; and enable to include this data in electronic health records. The wellbeing part

generates (social) behaviour data and vital signs data that can be relevant for identifying the

right persons for clinical trials (enriched patient data records allow to select better samples

for clinical trials), that can be used to lower medical insurance contributions (proof of a

of 94

Table 16: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the proposed

accompanying measures

Table 17: General issues on the report

healthy lifestyle), as extra information for caretakers (e.g. a GP knows your recent average

and extreme vital signs at the beginning of a doctor’s visit), etc.

Smart-assisted living and well-being: risks related to medical devices

Issue: There are major issues to be addressed regarding data security and regulatory, legal

and ethical aspects, including certification as medical devices that cannot be solved as easy

as it seems to be implied in the report.

Remedy: The scoring was revised accordingly.

Smart Manufacturing: customisation

Issue: Flexible and especially additive manufacturing techniques do not seem to qualify as

lighthouse use cases for IoT.

Remedy: The scoring of this use case was revised on criteria such as technical readiness,

replicability, etc.

Automated manufacturing

Issue: The argumentation for 0 points in societal challenge is at least surprising: automation

and technology in every case can be a reason for unemployment, but it can also create

lasting new jobs.

Remedy: Surprisingly, employment is not a societal challenge that is explicitly listed for the

Horizon 2020 framework programme.

Overall comment on selected use cases: focus on IoT platforms rather than IoT

equipment

Issue: The orientation of the study with focus on LSP as a tool for testing actual IoT solutions

at a certain scale, so the focus is more on the demonstration of uses cases in real-life settings

from a deployment feasibility and business model validation perspective rather than in

innovation in the hardware (specially the physical-to-electronic transducers of the nodes).

For the rest of the document then ‘sensors’ are considered dumb or taken for granted.

Sensors are indeed mentioned in many of the examples, but challenges for improving their

functionalities or adapting them to the constraints of uses cases are not considered. They are

succinctly included in the ‘Enablement hardware’ category of the Horizontal Sector as a part

of a ‘processing solution’.

The conclusion could be, that IoT use cases mainly focus on communication and data

processing aspects, and the technology and knowledge to realise the intelligent things is

assumed already available (for example by using electronic boards provided by Libelium).

However, to realise the vision of Internet of Things with many everyday objects equipped

with sensing and communication capabilities together with some data processing intelligence

still requires research in the area of sensing technology and production, system

miniaturization and system integration. Without this key enabling technology and knowledge

of designing and producing intelligent object, the Internet of Things lacks its basis.

Remedy: It is true that study does not focus on challenges for improving sensor

functionalities or adapting them to the constraints and requirements of the use cases. This

was included as future work in the conclusion of the study.

Issue: The proposed accompanying measure on the architecture office was well received. It

was further suggested that the architecture office should look at possible interconnections

between the use cases, e.g. sharing information across multiple use cases. LSPs should be

encouraged to exploit cross-LSP synergies.

Remedy: This was included in the proposed accompanying measures.

Issue: Include an accompanying measure on evaluation metrics of the deployed LSPs (e.g.

quantitative values to prove hypothesis in user acceptance, benefits, etc.).

Remedy: This was included in the proposed accompanying measures.

of 94

Expected benefits

Issue: “The LSPs will build a critical mass for specifications and standards via the

implementation of open platforms;” Consider to change this text to read: “The LSPs platforms

will build on existing open standards (e.g. oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS, IETF etc.) and shall

influence standards evolutions and maintenance based on lessons learnt from the LSPs.”

Remedy: The examples of standards and specifications were added, together with additional

examples.

LSP Objectives

Issue: “Deliver an open APIs to promote interoperability and creation of standards;” In general a use case is designed with no architecture or protocols in mind. A use case should

in principle be benchmarked based on a black box approach. In other term a use case cannot

deliver an API, but the implementation of a solution to address the use case can be based on

open API. I would rather remove this criteria or at least change it to read: “Implement open

APIs from the relevant standards to promote interoperability”

Remedy: This objective was set by the European Commission.

Benchmark framework: openness

Issue: Regarding the benchmark criterion for ‘openness’: “Assessing whether the use case

allows for the use of standards, platforms, hardware, and software that can be used in

accordance with fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions.” A use case is

orthogonal to the solution. The actual solution may have IPR dimension.

Remedy: No action. This criterion measures whether there are significant IPR restrictions

that would make solutions that realise the use case have excessive IPR restrictions.

Expected benefits: open standards and specifications

Issue: Conclusions section: “The LSPs should deploy its pilots on interoperable and open-

source platforms based on open standards and specifications”. There might be open-source

platforms based on the same standard but that are not interoperable, depending on the

quality of the implementation and the standard. Open source does not guarantee

interoperability. The notion of open source may not apply to all aspects of the LSP: e.g. radio.

There is also a link between open source and IPR which may not be aligned with the FRAND

principle mentioned several times in this report. To be careful, I suggest this text is changed

to read: “The LSPs should leverage where feasible the use of open-source implementation

(e.g. fi-ware, OM2M) of open standards that target applicative cross-domain interoperability

(e.g. oneM2M), for the service layer and API aspects.”

Remedy: The conclusion was altered in this way.

Definition of IoT

Issue: The canonical IoT definition used does not include words like sensors. It focuses on

network infrastructure and seamless interfacing and connectivity of entities. These entities

gain identity by being part of the net, but their presence and relation with their environment

(and the corresponding raw information gathering) is not considered. (Fig. 1 is not self-

explanatory, a ‘sensor’ box is present but arrows do not show any hierarchical order, or

relative importance whatsoever)

Remedy: The canonical definition was kept. Figure 1 was slightly updated to have a closer

relationship with the definition.

IoT market: importance of hardware enablers for the IoT

Issue: There is a weak allusion to ‘More Moore and more than Moore’. It mainly refers again

to information processing, connectivity and computing, and the only comment related to the

hardware is devoid to any added value (just says that is becoming easier and cheaper to

produce).

Remedy: The importance of hardware enablers for the IoT was further emphasised,

acknowledging that IoT devices not only need to be smaller, lighter, reduce power

consumption, and cheaper, but that also further research and development is needed on

sensor devices.

IoT landscape: limited to OEM solution providers

of 94

Issue: The description of the landscape seems limited, on the lower part limited to OEM

solution providers. This is motivated by using mature solutions (innovation character) to

sustain ICT development. From a device -industrial perspective, IoT is nodes with sensors,

actuators, and communications and a “community environment”, and these devices are the

technological backbone for systems and OEM solutions, the very front end for the

interconnections between users, machines, and networks.

Remedy: This is listed as future work.

IoT market organisation overview

Issue: The market organisation overview is lacking references to European companies in

several sectors, e.g.

Infineon, NXP

Bosch, ST (worldwide #1 and #2 in MEMS bases IoT sensors)

Siemens, Thales etc.

Remedy: The tables in Section Error! Reference source not found. are mere examples.

ST was added to the dataset of organisations that was created together with the report.

Objective: Focus on SMEs

Issue: Focus on SMEs ok, but then collaborative R&D is not possible without sizable groups.

Remedy: No action, this is an objective of the LSPs set by the European Commission.

Definition of IoT: importance of hardware enablers for the IoT

Issue: It is suggested to make visible both

• Internet of Services (IoS) and

• core IoT (IoT nodes, communications, platforms), as the development of IoS and core

IoT will necessarily take place according to parallel lines, to some extent independently.

The report also takes a strongly application driven approach. However, connection with IoT

technology and need for new IoT infrastructure deployment does not seem to have been

sufficiently taken into account. This in turn risks pilots to end up being mostly ICT

applications, with only a minor role for IoT infrastructure.

Remedy: the importance of hardware enablers was more emphasised in the report. Also, as

future work, it was suggested to continue investment in core IoT, in addition to the LSPs

which promote the market adoption of IoT.

IoT market organisation: horizontal sectors – too strong focus on big data analytics

Issue: In the upper part of the value chain, there is a rather strong focus on big data: the

latter can be a useful tool, but the data analysis part of pilot services should be more related

to the application of services and their interoperability among different “vertical” service

providers (Distribution System Operators, utility business, public councils, etc.; and, we still

should take into account the recent trend of goods companies that are moving towards

market promotion on services enabled by more than on the their products themselves).

Remedy: The definition of ‘service provider’ was indeed too much restricted too big data

analytics. The definition was updated into: “… companies [that] provide services such as

(real-time) (spatial) data services, APIs, data analytics tools, etc.”

IoT market organisation: horizontal sectors

Issue:

The presentation of IoT architecture and components is incomplete, regarding the IoT nodes

themselves as well as regarding communications.

Service Layer only lists data analytics and big data. Such analytic services are quite

general without a big use for end-users. There will be much more useful services

that will combine information from different things providing useful services. Such

useful services combining data from things and maybe other services may be much

more than only data analysis.

IoT nodes are systems; however, in the presentation the system level is absent;

Smart Systems and idem Integration and CPS represent the concepts for tools for

the implementation of IoT nodes.

unfortunately the communications means mentioned are suitable mostly for

consumer products and limited and non-critical applications and use scenarios; for

of 94

industrial applications, and for critical application scenarios, e.g. in medical, or for

providing the necessary geographical coverage, e.g. for environmental applications,

the mentioned communications means are too limited or even less suitable, and

instead WAN (e.g. UMTS, GSM, GSM-R, satellite) and specialised radio interfaces

and protocols may be required.

Connectivity does mainly list Telco Providers, not companies providing and

developing the technology, e.g. RFID and NFC are not core competences of telco-

providers; GPS is not communications

There is no reference to the possible adoption of the Architecture Reference Model

(ARM).

Remedy:

Service layer: The definition of ‘service provider’ was indeed too much restricted too

big data analytics. The definition was updated into: “… companies [that] provide

services such as (real-time) (spatial) data services, APIs, data analytics tools, etc.”

IoT nodes are systems: please note that a segmentation of IoT organisations is

provided here, not an IoT architecture.

Communications: UMTS, GSM, GSM-R, satellite were listed as more appropriate

technologies used in ‘enablement networks’.

Companies providing and developing the technology: those organisations are under

the category ‘enablement hardware’ and ‘enablement software’

A reference to IoT-A ARM was added for a more refined view of relevant architecture

building blocks. Please note that a segmentation of IoT organisations is provided

here, not a comprehensive listing of IoT architecture building blocks.

Expected benefits: standardisation

Issue: The importance for standardisation has been pointed at, but not that this

standardisation should be flexible enough to leave room for innovation.

Remedy: this limitation was added to the conclusion on expected benefits.

SC78DI07171 D4 Final study report - Internet of Things & Li-Fi Event › wp-content › uploads ›...

Documents

Transcript of SC78DI07171 D4 Final study report - Internet of Things & Li-Fi Event › wp-content › uploads ›...