19 / 58
edfas.org
19
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS | VOLUME 18 NO. 3
in used in combination with other intelligence to better
understand a person’s mental as well as physical health
state in relation to various stress factors. If a wearable
sensorwas linkedwith the user’s calendar, the systemmay
be able to connect the dots and realize that the reason a
user is stressed is because there is a key meeting coming
up in 15 minutes. Without the link to the calendar, while
the devicemay be able to do numerousmeasurements of
the human body, the overall system would not have any
context for the results.
Another compelling use for the IoT 1.0 vision is the
capability for devices towork together through the system
to make someone (like me) more comfortable on a day
when they are ill. Perhaps a device would note that my
skin temperature is rising, detecting a fever, and know
that I prefer a warmer room when I am feverish. With the
IoT 1.0 providing a link between the devicemonitoringmy
temperature and the devices regulating climate control
in my home, the system could adjust my environment to
make it more comfortable without any direct interaction
fromme.
With the notionofmultivendor, heterogeneous devices
linked to one another and able to act in concert, the
benefits of the IoT 1.0 for humans become quite easy to
imagine. For example, we all have numerous keys, and
many of us have garage-door openers, but do we really
need these things in the emerging IoT world? Could a
system recognize us and let us into our homes securely
and conveniently without a key or garage-door opener? It
would be great if, when my car approached the driveway
of my home, the system sensed my approach and auto-
matically opened the garage door. When I leave the house,
it should be able to close the door, lock it automatically,
and turn on the home-security systems, because it knows
I am gone.
Across security andaccess control, utilitymanagement
(lighting, electric vehicles, energy efficiency, garden and
home appliances), healthcare and assisted living, audio/
visual services, entertainment, and so on, the benefits
to such a vision of the IoT are clear. However, challenges
must be addressed to achieve an IoT 1.0 in which hetero-
geneous, multiple connected deviceswork together tomy
benefit without me controlling everything.
The singlemost problematic set of pain points inhibit-
ing realization of the IoT 1.0 vision today may be device
failures. Communication and battery issues can undo
whole systems and their potential benefits. Plus, there’s
usually a limited user interface for debugging. Without
a better solution for managing and adapting to device
failure, the IoTwill continue to bemore of a technological
novelty or curiosity than amajor underpinning of daily life
around the globe.
MY IoT@HOME
I recently counted over 100 commercially available
connected devices in my house.
One hundred!
Presence
sensors, motion sensors, electronic lock, lighting control,
water sensors, garage-door opener, cameras, sirens, smart
meters, smoke detectors, and so on (Fig. 2). For example,
I have a very heavily connected and guarded front porch:
four cameras, threemotion sensors, three infrared lights,
“MY DEFINITION OF THE TRUE IoT
–
IoT 1.0,
IF YOUWILL
–
IS WHEN HETEROGENEOUS,
MULTIPLE CONNECTED DEVICES ARE
WORKING TOGETHER TO OUR BENEFIT
AND WITHOUT US HAVING TO MAKE ALL
OF THE DECISIONS. ”
Fig. 2
In my IoT@Home, apps and devices provide benefits, but such a large number of devices creates the issue of device
failure, which requires a significant amount of debugging time.