Figure 1. Possibilities of the IoT (Source: Tan & Wang, 2010)
The Internet of Things (IoT) is currently experiencing a lag in consumer adoption potentially due to the industry led technology push with little consideration of consumer needs. This research aimed to assess current consumer awareness and adoption whilst in addition analysing future interest in IoT products or services and the barriers preventing adoption. Initial research involved a literature review of concept origins, technology, applications, data management, and standards for the IoT. Additional research was undertaken using a mixed methodology approach comprising of semistructured informal interviews and a structured online questionnaire survey both performed using members of the general public. The results revealed a current overall poor awareness and adoption of IoT products and services, however, a significant interest in future adoption. Various communication and technical barriers were also identified preventing current interest from actual adoption. The research discusses key insights from data collection which could aid in the removal of observed barriers. These insights involved increased consumer education, development of greater product benefit, and the introduction of standards to ensure interoperability. Application of these research findings could help enable increased widespread adoption of IoT products and service.
Context
The Internet of Things (IoT) allow machine-to-user and machine-to-machine communication to create a digital ecosystem of connected devices that react to and exchange data. The ecosystem is predicted to total 50 billion devices by the year 2020 (Evans, 2011). Existing approaches are predominantly industry led provided by a technology push with a focused development of technical and infrastructure solutions and little given to the consumer. This has led to visions of the future based on technological advances rather than consumer needs. Although 46% of connected devices are predicted to be solely machine to machine by 2020, only 26% of connected devices will be for the business share (Cisco, 2016). This leaves a large proportion of use for consumers, but with little consideration of the consumer's needs to provide successful adoption.
Aim
Examine the current trends of integrating the IoT into consumer's lives and its inherent value to users. This aims to provide insight into possible opportunities or barriers for integration of future IoT technology into the ever increasing connected world.
Objectives
Research Questions
Outcome of this Research
An identification of the barriers to the widespread adoption to the Internet of Things (IoT).
The term “Internet of Things” originated from Kevin Aston in 1999. In the subsequent decades, it has evolved with technology to connect a wide variety of objects in various applications, from agriculture and weather to health and the home. It could be described as “a world-wide network of interconnected objects uniquely addressable, based on standard communication protocols” (INFSO, 2008). At the heart of all applications are communication and the transfer of data between connected physical objects or “things”. Development in microelectronics and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) has allowed a ubiquitous connection of objects providing an anytime, any place for anything paradigm, see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Possibilities of the IoT (Source: Tan & Wang, 2010)
Due to the scalability and size of the IoT, there are several challenges placed on sensor technology. Identification, security, data volume, signal quality, and power efficiency, which are all essential, but limiting elements to the successful widespread integration of the IoT (Hanson, 2017). The “Internet” element of the IoT suggests a future of a network orientated solution using an IP protocol for inter-networking to provide sufficient scale and flexibility for the predicted IoT (Vasseur & Dunkels, 2010). A standard such as 6LoWPAN/IPv6 provides a scalable connectivity for objects without the need for gateways or proxies. However, the “Things” element suggests integrating objects into a familiar network. This has been a foundation since Kevin Aston in 1999, focused around tagging objects mainly comprised of RFIDs, Electronic Product Code (EPC) and Unique IDentifier architecture (Atziori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010). While definitely at the core of the IoT, it focuses solely on the means of object identification rather than the endless possibilities that the IoT is capable of. Despite the ambiguity of technology used, the possible applications of the technology are one of the more important factors in successful integration (Industry4.hu, 2017).
The IoT, although over two decades old, is still in its infancy of possible effect and applications. If there is actionable data to be collected and analysed then it is likely the IoT can provide value with an application (Table 1). Current applications are vast, but can be grouped into three main categories; Society, Environment, and Industry (Porkodi & Bhuvaneswari, 2014). Table 1 describes each category.
Table 1. Society, Environment, and Industry categories (Source: Porkodi & Bhuvaneswari, 2014)
Societal benefits are varied and broad since they often will overlap with developments in other categories. Digital ubiquity is something that is increasingly present in the modern western world and digital literacy is becoming essential for modern life. Companies like Amazon, who are pioneering current consumer integration of the IoT with services like 'Amazon Dash' and the 'Amazon Echo', already provide an insight into how industry driven innovation diffuses down into consumer life. Amazon's success in integrating these services could be due to its user centred approach focusing on meeting user needs, making services accessible, and quality of experience, which is supported by a foundation technical service performance (Shin, 2017).
The rise of self-quantification and development of personal health monitoring has provided in-depth medical data to the general population at a fraction of the cost. Technology only available to the few is now commercially available to all (Rich & Miah, 2016). Assessment, treatment, and monitoring can become much more tailored to the individual as well as making these services more efficient. This is partly due to increased consumer responsibility of health through selfmonitoring from various devices, like Apple's Watch, Fitbit, and Google Glass, empowering their users through exact personal data and knowledge (Metcalf, Milliard, Gomez, & Schwartz, 2016). This provides the possibility of approaching medicine from a preventative standpoint due to an increased level of foresight from personal health monitoring, which provides untold possibilities in reducing illness and disease as well as its related cost to society. However, there are inherent ethical concerns with the collection and action on vast amounts of personal health data (Rich & Miah, 2016). Discrimination based upon personal health data could affect a wide variety of aspects in users lives in a negative way. Protection and fair use of this data, like all data in the IoT, is essential to the successful integration of these services (Mainetti, Patrono, & Vilei, 2011).
Smart homes are an area of both societal and environmental domain, which is currently experiencing large amounts of interest, innovation, and investment (Stojkoska & Trivodaliev, 2017). Integrating IoT-based technology and services into homes are arguably one that will have the most impact on the consumer. The same industry led IoT developments in automation and efficiency can be applied to the home setting, from Samsung's Family Hub refrigerator to Hive's wireless thermostat, providing more control and insight of domestic activities from any location (Andrés, Alejandra, Miguel, Augusto, & Pedro, 2016). Other applications of IoT technology into the smart home setting involve security, scheduling, home control, automation of tasks, and energy saving. Despite all of the possible end user benefits smart home applications can offer, it is still yet to gain any noticeable mass market spread (Lim & Anderson, 2016). To explore reasons for the lack of mass market spread, it is important to define its application. A smart home could be described as “the integration of technology and services through home networking for a better quality of living” (Robles & Kim, 2010). This integration to create a product ecosystem in the home requires a multi-industry collaboration that is currently not present, potentially due to the lack of technical paradigms that govern these industries to shape the innovation process (Peine, 2008). Compatibility of different communication protocols as well as different brand products provides a significant cost and logistical barrier to consumers, preventing successful application of technology to homes in a harmonious way (Chong, Zhihao, & Yifeng, 2011). For these reasons, smart home technology is not yet able to provide end users with the full experience of its benefits (Postscapes.com, 2017). This combined with a disparity between user needs, practices, and routines and their applications into useful and meaningful design solutions are all issues still requiring an address to aid further market spread (Peine, 2008).
Environmental considerations of domestic IoT systems are primarily provided via smart home integration as discussed prior. For further impact, the evolution of smart home to a smart city is a congruent next step. Taking the same principles of a smart home that increased monitoring and data allows analysis to occur and efficiencies to be made, but then applying this to a larger scale to potentially have a relative increase in impact (Srivastava et al., 2005).
This could grow to cover smart parking, weather, water, traffic, transport, environmental, and surveillance systems (Rathore, Ahmad, Paul, & Rho, 2016). However, increased sensor networks only increase the number of “things” susceptible to attack therefore potentially putting vast amounts of networked data at risk. Providing security and privacy can be managed effectively, smart cities offer vast potential development of modern life on a global scale. As previously discussed, industry is only predicted to account for a small share in the overall development of the IoT. The current trends in the industry are based primarily in logistics and autonomy (Sheehy, Hogan, & Jayasuriya, 2015).
Efficiency of process will be improved with constant monitoring along all steps of the supply, manufacture, and distribution chain (INFSO, 2008). Savings in time, energy, and carbon footprint will reduce the cost for the consumer, business, and the environment (Mishra et al., 2016). Developments in electric vehicles and autonomy throughout industrial process provides vast opportunities for productivity and infrastructure. However, the societal circumstances of the increased autonomy that development in these systems could bring hold potentially devastating effects to workers in these sectors and society as a whole (Pankewitz, 2017).
The ability to monitor and manage almost anything in the IoT creates a vast quantity of data, which must be managed. Consumer’s perceived risk of personal data collection from IoT services poses a potential barrier to its integration (Medaglia & Serbanati, 2010). Big data and particularly its management and analysis has been well researched and documented in recent years. Security, privacy, use, and control are all important factors when collecting large amounts of data (Carminati, Colombo, Ferrari, & Sagirlar, 2016). Weaknesses of IoT security are attributed to the technology that makes it possible. Wireless communication and micro object computing power provides both the ability to make the IoT ubiquitous, but also lack complex security mechanisms to protect data, especially through authentication and data integrity (Atziori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010). Security mechanisms can be provided for an IP-based architecture through IPsec and Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a multilayered security protocol (Vasseur & Dunkels, 2010). However, there are still vulnerabilities with this method and others in current research potentially due to lack of universal standards. Additional considerations with the weakness of wireless security is that the security issues are multiplied with the exponential growth of the industry. Increased spread and number of connected “ things” only provide increased opportunity for compromise to the network in the form of hacking (Arabo & Pranggono, 2013).
Privacy and use of data pose a larger obstacle for consumers due to the inherently invasive nature of the IoT. Creating trust in consumers could be improved by providing control of what data can be accessed and the applications of that data (Carminati et al., 2016). Information and education for the consumer about data and its relationship to the experience of the IoT should be available to inform decision making, alongside appropriate legislation and standards to ensure correct application (INFSO, 2008).
A standard provides a minimum format to be followed that make products safer and ensures quality and usability, which benefits the end consumer. Businesses also benefit from standards which can provide an open market for more competition, but also innovation. Application of standards could provide a basis for market development and technological diffusion to aid integration of the IoT (ITU Internet Reports, 2005). Many different groups have been formed in an attempt to provide these standards, with still much deliberation over the optimal solution (Vasseur & Dunkels, 2010).
Despite various theories and frameworks what remains clear through the body of literature is the requirement of standards. Implementation of standards can ensure “interoperability, manageability, and innovation while continuing to lower the cost of these networks in contrast with proprietary solutions.” (Vasseur & Dunkels, 2010). However, application of standards could be bureaucratic and complex, which can put barriers up and prevent innovation (Dedrick & West, 2003). Standards should be appropriate and harmonised among industries due to the variety of applications, which the IoT is encompassing. Standards applied should be global and used to promote innovation and integration on a worldwide scale (ITU Internet Reports, 2005).
A mixed methodology approach using both quantitive and qualitative methods for research requires data from 2 mediums; a short, semi-structured, informal interview, and online questionnaire survey. These were used to provide both quantitive and qualitative data to answer all research questions. The short, informal interviews were performed and collected in person targeting the general population and everyday consumers in local, urban areas. Due to the nature of data collection, there is little control over target audience, which creates an unbiased, but potentially inaccurate result. To provide additional data from a further subset of participants, an online questionnaire survey was distributed via social media platforms. The advantage of this method is the access to a large population and relative quantifiable answering method providing simple collection and analysis of results. The disadvantages of this method are firstly the limited response from participants due to the format and structure of survey questions, however, the informal, inperson data collection does provide the opportunity for more qualitative, opinion based data collection.
To provide both quantitive and qualitative data, a series of short, semi-structured, informal interviews were collected from a random sample of 15 participants selected in a busy, pedestrian area. Interviews focused on current awareness and usage of the IoT as well as attitudes towards the future use of products and services. Interviews were recorded, with consent, to refer back to for analysis. The semi-structured nature of interviews provided both structured questions to collect (Dedrick & West, 2003) quantitive data whilst also allowing additional in-depth answers to provide supportive qualitative data. Interviews were advantageous for the improved validity due to person to person interaction whilst allowing in-depth responses that provided further insights to be gathered. However, disadvantages to the interviews are that the open responses from participants could result in opinions of individuals rather than providing a representative of a population.
Questionnaires were completed by social media users in order to collect additional quantitive and qualitative data. The structure of the questionnaire was identical to the short, semi-structured interviews and aimed to provide additional validity to the collected interview data. A random sample of 71 participants from various age groups was collected in an attempt to reflect a general populous. To achieve this sample size with efficiency, a link to an open online survey was posted to various social media platforms. Advantages of this method were the accessibility to perform the survey and thus access to a wide and varied audience with a level of digital literacy. To provide accuracy of collected data, a series of mandatory standardised questions were used among all participants with optional, open-ended text fields to provide additional qualitative data. Disadvantages to this method include lack of control over the participants in the sample as well as the validity of data collected. There is also a level researcher imposition due to the limited range of questions, however, this was minimised by offering further less restrictive answering options.
Due to the mix of both qualitative and quantitive data as a strategy to answer research questions, the method of triangulation through scaling will be used to analyse results. Although a simple design of triangulation, it allows the identification of key areas of research insight comparable across both research methods.
3.1.1 Sample Population
A total of 15 randomly selected participants completed a series of short interview questions. Of the sample population, the majority of participants selected existed in the 18-25 age group (9) with significantly fewer participants in the 25-25 (3), 35-50 (1), and 50+ (2) age groups. The data collected was therefore predominantly reflective of a millennial age group, which suggests and increased level of digital literacy.
3.1.2 Internet of Things Awareness
Current perception of the IoT and its related services was assessed through asking participants to define the term “Internet of Things”. Despite the distribution of age aligned to a digitally literate group, the awareness was overall poor with 93% of participants (14) incorrectly identifying the term. Common perceptions of the IoT included a search engine (1) and an alternative phrase for the world wide web (4), with the remaining participants responding with no knowledge of the term (9). Despite the poor awareness of the term “Internet of Things”, all participants were aware of the more common consumer term “Smart Devices”, which references the consumer based individual “things” that would be part of an IoT ecosystem.
3.1.3 Current Internet of Things Usage
Following a brief explanation of the term “Internet of Things”, participants were asked about their current ownership and usage of smart or connected products other than smartphones, tablets, and computers.
27% of participants (4) owned and used a smart or connected product, however, all participants did own a smartphone, tablet, or computer and therefore had some level of IoT usage. Of the participants who owned smart products, commonly owned products included smart TVs (2), wearables (1), and smart meters (2).
3.1.4 Interest in Smart Product Ownership
The results show that although current ownership of smart or connected objects is the minority in the sample at only 27%, when asked about future ownership 80% of participants (12) expressed interest. The difference in current and potential future smart product ownerships presents as two opposites, which suggests that there are currently significant barriers to consumers in the purchasing of these items.
3.1.5 Barriers to Smart Product Ownership
All participants were asked what barriers to ownership prevent them from purchasing smart products in the future. Reasons provided covered 5 general topic areas, ranging from cost, security, complexity, limited capability and finally to simple disinterest. High cost of smart products, especially in comparison to non-connected alternatives, presented as the most common barrier to ownership with 60% of participant (9) answers. Both security and limited capability ranked equally as providing a barrier to ownership receiving 13% of participants (2) answers respectively.
3.2.1 Sample Population
The questionnaire presented 71 participants randomly selected from a social media platform. The age of participants across the sample was more evenly distributed than the interview sample however, there remains a majority in the 50+ age group (29) compared to 18-25 (18), 25-35 (7), and 35-50 (17). This sample should, therefore, provide contrast and insight with additional data from previously poorly represented age groups.
3.2.2 Internet of Things Awareness
Like the interviews, participants were asked to provide a definition for the term “Internet of Things”. Responses to this question showed greater awareness than the answers during interview data collection. A total of 23% of participants (16) correctly identified and defined the term “Internet of Things”, which was 16% greater than the interview sample. This suggests the questionnaire sample had a higher level of IoT awareness, however, the overall awareness of the sample was still the minority.
Incorrect definitions of the term followed are analogous to those recorded during interviews. The most common incorrect definition was that of an alternative description of the world wide web by 21% of participants (15) with search engine following with 15% of participants (11) answers. The majority of participants responded with nonknowledge totalling 38%.
3.2.3 Current Internet of Things UsageA written description of the IoT was presented to participants to provide context for the remainder of the questionnaire. When asked about current usage of smart or connected products excluding smart phones, tablets, or computers, the response showed a more even distribution of answers in comparison to interviews. A total of 44% of participants (31) owned and used a smart or connected product with 56% of participants (40) not. There is a distinct increase in the proportion of smart product ownership compared to the results from interviews in which only 27% of participants owned smart products. This mirrors the same increase in IoT awareness observed in the difference between samples when defining the term “Internet of Things”. Participants who owned smart or connected products were asked to provide a brief description of the products owned. The number and variety of products were greater than those provided in interviews however, this would be expected due to the increase in IoT awareness.
Consistent with the results from interviews, smart TVs, wearables and smart meters represented the majority of devices owned with 35% (11), 39% (12), and 13% (4), respectively. However, there is a significant increase in popularity of wearables in the questionnaire sample compared to the interview sample. Wearables listed comprised of products such as the “Fitbit” (8) and “Apple Watch” (2). The “Other” category comprised of various IoT products and services including the Amazon Dash button and Phillips Hue lighting systems.
3.2.4 Interest in Smart Product Ownership
Participants were asked to provide levels of interest in future ownership of smart or connected products. A Likert scale was used to rank participants interest with 1 representing a not interested opinion and 5 a very interested opinion. The data shows that the overall sample was interested in future ownership with 78% of participants (56) answering a 3 or higher. The responses to this questions strongly correlate with the data received during interviews which, resulted in an 80% interest in future ownership. The most common answer provided was 4 with 30% (21) whilst the least popular answer was 1 or not interested with just 9% (6).
3.2.5 Barriers to Smart Product Ownership
Although the questionnaire sample showed a greater proportion of participants who currently owned smart or connected products, there still remains a significant difference between the number who currently own a product and those who expressed interest in ownership, concordant to the interview sample, suggesting there are barriers to ownership.
A clear majority of 46% of participants (33) saw cost as a significant barrier to ownership of smart products. This distribution is reflected by the answers given in interviews with 60% of participants responding with cost as a barrier to ownership. Security and limited capability received a similar proportion of answers in comparison to the interview sample with 11% and 13% of participant answers, respectively. However, complexity received a three-fold increase from 6% in the interview sample to 18% of participants (13) in the questionnaire sample. This increase is potentially correlated with the greater proportion of higher age bracket participants. A total of 11% of participants (8) responded with simple disinterest in investment into smart products, which correlates with data received for interest in future ownership.
The phrase “Internet of Things” whilst mature in origin is still continuously evolving and expanding into a whole host of applications, services, products, and definitions. The term encapsulates such an array that a definition is ambiguous and vague, even among industry. Although the term has seen increased mainstream media coverage, its awareness among the general populous has remained low, as reflected by both samples of data in this research. However, despite the low awareness of the term “Internet of Things”, the consumer facing term “smart” or “connected” showed to have a greater positive response with a far wider understanding. This creates a further issue when dealing with the difference between smart, connected products, and IoT products. This differentiation offers additional ambiguity to the already varied IoT definition. The possible differences between smart or connected and IoT products are comparable to the difference between a “things based” and “internet based” IoT. A smart, connected product is “things” based; it is about the tangible product. Current applications often involve taking a standardised product solutions and adhering additional connectivity to potentially provide additional benefit to the consumer. Although it attributes aspects of an IoT product, the term “smart” or “connected” have become marketing buzz words rather than a measurable standard of product. This is potentially why the term “smart” or “connected” had greater recognition, whilst its IoT counterpart remained poor. Moreover, what constitutes to a product being “smart” or “connected” is often simple and one-dimensional in comparison to the potential IoT product applications and is therefore an easier concept to communicate to consumers. In contrast, an IoT product is less about the tangible item and suggests a greater focus on the service or function. An example of an IoT product might include Hive's Wireless Thermostat or Amazon Alexa, which presents an application more respective to the potential capability of the IoT. These products aim to blend discretely and seamlessly into the lives of consumers creating delight through user experience of service rather than the tangible product. The possible applications and benefits of IoT products and services are often more complex and varied which, therefore requires additional consumer education to fully communicate the concept. This communication and education is currently lacking from individual companies and throughout the general IoT industry.
With the trend of IoT growth set to increase vastly in the near future, awareness will likewise have to increase proportionately and therefore consumer education is essential to further consummate the predicted growth of the IoT. As shown in this research, the complexity of use, as well as poor awareness, posed as a significant barriers to successful integration of IoT products and services, especially to older generations. It is the responsibility of innovators, companies, and alliances in the IoT industry to primarily encourage the creation of products and services that add value and provide genuine improvements to a consumer's life, but additionally to educate transparently about the context of products and services in the IoT. This education should not only be about applications, benefits, and use of the IoT, but also its potential adverse effects, such as security, hacking, and privacy. Alliances such as the Internet of Things Consortium are working to educate not only industry, but most importantly consumers with information about the IoT. However, it is important that the burden of education does not fall onto single entities, but is rather promoted by the collective members of the IoT industry. Without education and communication, it is unreasonable to think that consumers will fully understand, trust and invest into the IoT and its related services. Therefore, development of consumer knowledge and understanding is tantamount to technological development as, without the latter, consumer perception and adoption of the IoT will remain poor.
Market research shows significant increase of interest in ownership of consumer IoT products which is reflected by the data collected from both the interview and questionnaire samples. However, the current consumer adoption reported remains low. Due to the exponential growth of the IoT, as mentioned previously, adoption and usage is ubiquitous in developed countries and has become slowly ingrained into modern life and therefore often goes unnoticed. An important differentiation was made during the data collection of this study, which involved the separation of widely owned smartphones, tablets, and computers. Whilst all are core components, and often the touch points upon which consumers interact with IoT services, their ownership is often driven from a multitude of angles, and generally perceived as a necessity in this modern, digital world. The research aimed to assess consumer attitudes towards specific smart, connected, and IoT based products purely for the functions and services they provide independently. For this reason, the proportion of population that owned smart, connected products was lower as the majority of common smart devices were ignored.
Although ownership was low, interest in future ownership was high with 80% and 78% of the interview and questionnaire samples, respectively expressing interest in future ownership. This is likewise supported by literature with large potential growth predicted in various areas of application. However, the large proportion of those from the interview sample interested in ownership provided various caveats following further qualitative discussion, which was likewise reflected in responses to the questionnaire. Necessity of application and frequency of use proved the most common response provided. This was followed by applications being distinct from those possible with common smart products, such as smartphones, tablets, and computers. This qualitative data correlates with the quantitive data collected from both the interview and questionnaire samples of actual smart products owned. Results were grouped into generalised categories, which comprised of wearables, smart meters, smart TVs, and other IoT products. All these products provide a service or function that is perceived as necessary, frequently used, and distinct from those possible with just core smart products. The notable exception here is the smart TV often providing services of internet connectivity, browsing, and on demand media which are widely available for consumers on smartphones, tablets, and computers. However, smart TVs or smart TV connected devices, such as Amazon Fire or Google Chromecast, provide additional functionality of larger view port, communal viewing as well as a high frequency of use that consumers consider valuable. The remaining categories also share these same characteristics. Wearables have an extremely high frequency of use, often being worn almost continuously, as well as providing data and valuable insight into previously unknown physical condition. This service is additionally not possible simply through a smartphone. Smart meters provide specific data on energy usage, which prior consumers had little awareness of. It additionally provides the benefit of potentially saving the consumer ’s money and regaining proportions or completely offsetting the cost of purchase. Therefore, it is suggested from these research findings that current consumer adoption and interest in future ownership of smart, connected and IoT based products is driven from frequency of use, perceived necessity, and providing a service or function that is distinguishable from the capabilities of common core smart products. A successful product solution to this given criteria is narrow and challenging, but by applying this as the basis of future products and services alongside consumer education, as mentioned prior, it would likely encourage greater future adoption of the IoT.
As displayed in the data analysis, there is a large difference between current ownership and interest in future ownership, therefore indicating the existence of significant barriers preventing consumers adopting IoT products and services into their lives. Through both the interview and questionnaire samples a clear majority, 60% and 46% respectively, responded with cost as the main barrier to their adoption of IoT products. When referring to cost it should be noted that it is in reference to both total cost and also in respect to alternative product solutions. It appears that the barrier to adoption in respect to cost can come from several directions; benefit to cost ratio and limited information. Diffusion of technology is usually a slow and continuous process because it is dependent on a wide variety of individual reactions to products determining whether the incremental benefit that would be gained through new technology adoption is respective to the cost of change. Costs of new technology often begin high and predictably fall in proportion to the increase in adoption and as the technology ages. Therefore, due to the currently poor adoption and relatively new influx of IoT products, their prices remain high, especially in proportion to non-IoT, alternative product solutions. In addition to this high cost, current IoT solutions provide benefits rather small and unsubstantial in comparison to alternatives and therefore produce a poor perceived benefit to cost ratio for consumers. This lack of benefits in current IoT products reflective of qualitative data received during interviews revolving around frequency, necessity, and capabilities of use, which is currently under-utilised in the market. However, early adopters will often pay the price for being first to own and use new technologies which, importantly provides data for companies and future consumers. For future consumers, the decision of adoption is not a linear process of simply choosing to adopt or reject a new technology. Rejection is in reflection to the information available at the time and is not always a definitive answer, but often the differing of the decision to a later date. This appears to be reflective of the stage that IoT product adoption is currently experiencing, potentially due to the current forced technology push and focus on technology over consumers. The majority of smart and IoT product solutions are rooted in solution of technical problems rather than real user needs. Creating a market pull and approaching innovation in the IoT industry from a user centric rather than technology centric position would aid in creating more desirable product solutions. As previously mentioned, consumer interest in future adoption was dependant on frequency of use, necessity and distinguishable functions. Focusing on meeting these needs provide a greater challenge to product innovation, but ultimately will create greater product success due to the increased benefit to cost ratio.
Additional barriers observed during research regarded complexity and capability of use, both stemming from similar root causes. Firstly, communication and education with consumers are poor and therefore consumers lack awareness of potential benefits and applications the IoT can offer. This lack of education gives an overwhelming perception of these services and, especially for older age groups, proved a daunting challenge of adoption. As previously mentioned, improved consumer education could mitigate the perceived complexities of adoption. Moreover, connectivity among consumers, devices, and services are multifaceted and multidimensional with many different moving parts all having to collaborate to achieve the required common outcome. However, this element of seamless collaboration is currently disjointed and often brand specific. Frustration was expressed at the lack of uniformity across device interactions and restrictive use of product applications. This appears to be reflective of the difference between “smart” or “connected” products and IoT products. Smart products generally provide good connectivity for simplistic interaction, usually restricted to the user, however, they lack the additional machine to machine communication across a variety of platforms that is so vital for the full IoT user experience. Moreover, it is becoming more common place that IoT products also reflect these attributes of isolation over collaboration. The lack of common standardisation and governance in the IoT industry has given rise to this issue of compatibility, with many top companies favouring exclusivity and functionality within their own ecosystem of products, but poor compatibility in the global ecosystem of “things”. In order to reduce complexity and boost capabilities of IoT products, there is a requirement for an increase in global interoperability among “things” so to fully harness the potential consumer experience of the IoT. This collaboration could be aided by the introduction of standardisation across industries. By standardising core elements of IoT products, it would enable a more seamless experience for users across platforms, devices, and brands. Additionally, it could encourage further innovation and competition among companies with consumers being less restricted to a single brand or product ecosystem. Moreover, standardisation would greatly decrease the cost of adoption for consumers providing a more accessible price point. This shift would increase the benefit to cost ratio and aid to remove the major barrier currently facing consumers. However, the process and application of standards is highly political and must be considered on a global scale. It is important to provide standards that support the industry as a whole rather than favouring special interest groups so to encourage competition and innovation whilst avoiding stagnation from a few companies asserting market dominance. Correct application of standards could encourage growth and innovation therefore enabling seamless interoperability, which would unlock the true potential of IoT ecosystems and provide the best customer experience.
Several limitations of this research have been identified to potentially limiting quality of results. Firstly, there were limitations with sample variation during interviews due to specific times and locations used which restricted access to certain key demographics. This meant that data collected was possibly unable to accurately represent the wider population as a whole. Secondly, due to the nature of using a closed structure of questions and digital based medium to collect data for the questionnaire, it resulted in restrictive responses from participants, which could produce researcher bias as well as inability to verify the validity of data submitted. This data additionally only provides relevance to consumers within the United Kingdom rather than the global marketplace of the IoT. Furthermore, the data collected for this research only reflects consumer attitudes and opinions with little input from industry experts, which could provide further understanding to the issues identified.
This research provided meaningful results that correlated across samples in regards to current and future consumer attitudes to IoT adoption. A significant opportunity is evident among consumers for the adoption of IoT products, however several significant barriers were identified preventing this. Consumers showed a large majority interest in adopting IoT products and services into their lives, however the barriers to this adoption do not come with simple solutions. A shift in industry focus and attitude to a user centric position is required whilst additionally applying the discussed research findings in future product innovations. This should create the necessary market pull by products and services that meet genuine user needs to successfully increase IoT adoption. Moreover, there remains a wider requirement of collaboration to provide a seamless user experience. This could be attained through the introduction of global standards however, this requires cross industr y cooperation, and agreements, which provide their own equally challenging set of barriers.
Due to the limitations of this research in regards to sample control, depth of data and lack of expert input, further research is required to provide additional input to this topic area. In depth, qualitative research from industry professionals and experts would provide crucial insight into many points collected and discussed around industry approaches to improve successful consumer adoption.