Seminar Report On IOT
Uploaded by
Abhishek MaharanaSeminar Report On IOT
Uploaded by
Abhishek MaharanaINTERNET OF THINGS
A SEMINAR REPORT
MIET, BBSR
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the award of degree of
Bachelor of Technology
In
COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING
Submitted by
Hrithik Mahakud
University Regd. No: 2221259011
Under the guidance of
Prof. TARANUM ARA
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
ENGINEERING
BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA
ABSTRACT
Present day computer applications require the
representation of huge amount of complex knowledge and data in
programs and thus require tremendous amount of work. Our
ability to code the computers falls short of the demand for
applications. If the computers are endowed with the learning
ability, then our burden of coding the machine is eased (or at least
reduced). This is particularly true for developing expert systems
where the "bottleneck" is to extract the expert’s knowledge and
feed the knowledge to computers. The present-day computer
programs in general (with the exception of some Machine
Learning programs) cannot correct their own errors or improve
from past mistakes or learn to perform a new task by analogy to a
previously seen task. In contrast, human beings are capable of all
the above. Machine Learning will produce smarter computers
capable of all the above intelligent behaviour.
The area of Machine Learning deals with the design of
programs that can learn rules from data, adapt to changes, and
improve performance with experience. In addition to being one of
the initial dreams of Computer Science, Machine Learning has
become crucial as computers are expected to solve increasingly
complex problems and become more integrated into our daily
lives. This is a hard problem, since making a machine learn from
its computational tasks requires work at several levels, and
complexities and ambiguities arise at each of those levels.
So, here we study how the Machine learning take place, what are
the methods, remedies associated, applications, present
DECLARATION
I declare that this written submission represents my ideas with
my own words and where others ideas or words have been
included. I have adequately cited and referenced the original
sources. I also declare that i have adhered to all principles of
academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or
fabricated or falsified any idea/ data/ fact/ source in my
submission. I understand that any violation of the above will be
cause for disciplinary action by the institute and can also evoke
penal action from the sources which have thus not been properly
cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken when
needed.
Hrithik Mahakud
Regd. No. 2221259011
Table
of
Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.
State
of
the
Art ............................................................................................................................. 8
Academic
Perspective............................................................................................................... 9
Industry
Perspective.............................................................................................................. 10
Government
Perspective ...................................................................................................... 10
Standardization ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.
The
Finnish
View ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.
Our
Vision
and
Mission
for
2017........................................................................................ 12
5.
Breakthrough
Targets ........................................................................................................... 13
6.
Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 14
Technical
Challenges.............................................................................................................. 14
Security,
Privacy
and
Trust
Challenges ........................................................................... 15
Societal
Challenges ................................................................................................................. 17
Business
Challenges ............................................................................................................... 17
Challenges
in
Finland............................................................................................................. 18
7.
Research
Strategy.................................................................................................................... 18
8.
Research
Themes .................................................................................................................... 19
Theme
1:
Network,
communications................................................................................ 20
Scalability................................................................................................................................................. 21
Networks
integration
and
network
architecture ................................................................... 21
Security,
privacy
and
trust................................................................................................................ 23
Large-‐scale
simulation
and
testing
methodologies ............................................................... 24
Theme
2:
Management
infrastructure ............................................................................. 24
Energy
management ........................................................................................................................... 25
Self-‐*
properties .................................................................................................................................... 26
Configuration
interfaces
and
mechanisms................................................................................ 26
Identification
and
discovery ............................................................................................................ 27
Theme
3:
Services
and
applications
development....................................................... 28
Integration
with
Web.......................................................................................................................... 28
Service
Enablement
Platforms
and
APIs .................................................................................... 29
Data
processing
infrastructure....................................................................................................... 30
Interoperability ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Theme
4:
Human
interaction .............................................................................................. 31
Interaction
tools
for
IoT .................................................................................................................... 31
End-‐user
adaptation............................................................................................................................ 32
Theme
5:
IoT
ecosystem ....................................................................................................... 32
9.
Integrating
Applications
and
Verticals ............................................................................ 35
Automation
Systems............................................................................................................... 35
Maintenance
Systems............................................................................................................. 36
Environmental
Monitoring
Systems ................................................................................. 36
Smart
Grids................................................................................................................................ 36
Agricultural
Systems .............................................................................................................. 36
Security
Systems...................................................................................................................... 37
Wellbeing
Solutions................................................................................................................ 37
Automotive,
Transport
and
Logistics
Applications ..................................................... 37
Building
and
Home
Automation......................................................................................... 37
SRA
Focus
and
Approach ...................................................................................................... 38
10.
References............................................................................................................................... 38
1.
Introduction
We
are
standing
on
the
brink
of
a
new
ubiquitous
computing
and
communication
era,
one
that
will
radically
transform
our
corporate,
community,
and
personal
environments.
Over
a
decade
ago,
the
late
Mark
Weiser
developed
a
seminal
vision
of
future
technological
ubiquity
–
one
in
which
the
increasing
“availability”
of
processing
power
would
be
accompanied
by
its
decreasing
“visibility”.
As
he
observed,
“the
most
profound
technologies
are
those
that
disappear...
they
weave
themselves
into
the
fabric
of
everyday
life
until
they
are
indistinguishable
from
it”
(Weiser,
1991).
Early
forms
of
ubiquitous
information
and
communication
networks
are
evident
in
the
widespread
use
of
mobile
phones:
the
number
of
mobile
phones
worldwide
surpassed
2
billion
in
mid-‐2005.
These
little
gadgets
have
become
an
integral
and
intimate
part
of
everyday
life
for
many
millions
of
people,
even
more
so
than
the
Internet.
Today,
developments
are
rapidly
under
way
to
take
this
phenomenon
an
important
step
further,
as
the
Wireless
World
Research
Forum
(WWRF)
has
recently
predicted
7
trillion
wireless
devices
for
7
billion
people
by
2020,
which
would
amount
to
around
a
thousand
devices
for
every
human
(WWRF
2009).
This
will
add
a
new
dimension
to
the
world
of
information
and
communication
technologies
(ICTs):
from
anytime,
any-‐place
connectivity
for
anyone,
we
will
now
have
connectivity
for
anything.
In
these
new
environments,
connections
will
multiply
and
create
an
entirely
new
dynamic
network
of
networks
–
an
Internet
of
Things.
For
the
purpose
of
this
SRA,
we
will
rely
on
the
technical
definitions
of
IoT
given
by
the
International
Telecommunication
Union
(ITU,
2011)
that
define
IoT
as
a
communication
infrastructure,
although
with
some
minor
changes
based
on
the
vision
outlined
in
this
document.
These
definitions
are
given
below.
As
the
discussion
in
ITU
(2011)
notes,
however,
the
IoT
should
not
necessarily
be
seen
as
a
technical
term,
but
rather
as
a
philosophy
and
a
social
phenomenon.
IoT
can
be
seen
as
the
networked
interconnection
of
objects
per
se,
rather
than
an
infrastructure
for
that
(Conner,
2010),
or
as
a
technological
revolution
(ITU,
2005).
We
acknowledge
these
conceptual
definitions
as
they
stress
the
paramount
importance
of
the
IoT
as
a
research
area.
The
short
definition
of
IoT:
A
dynamic
global
network
and
service
infrastructure
of
variable
density
and
connectivity
enabling
services
by
interconnecting
things.
The
long
definition
of
IoT:
A
global
network
and
service
infrastructure
of
variable
density
and
connectivity
with
self-‐configuring
capabilities
based
on
standard
and
interoperable
protocols
and
formats.
IoT
consists
of
heterogeneous
things
that
have
identities,
physical
and
virtual
attributes,
and
are
seamlessly
and
securely
integrated
into
the
Internet.
The
Internet
of
Things
holds
many
promises:
it
will
create
a
plethora
of
innovative
applications
and
services,
which
enhance
quality
of
life
and
reduce
inequalities
whilst
providing
new
revenue
opportunities
for
a
host
of
enterprising
businesses.
However,
first
and
foremost
the
Internet
of
Things
is
a
technological
revolution,
the
nature
of
which
can
be
seen
from
three
different
perspectives:
telecommunications,
the
Web,
and
cyber-‐physical
interaction.
The
IoT
holds
the
premise
to
revolutionize
our
environment
through
global
machine-‐
to-‐machine
interactions
that
enable
both
global
as
well
as
local
applications
and
services
for
users:
• Global
connectivity
between
physical
objects:
IoT
will
revolutionize
the
telecommunications
sector
by
enabling
global
connectivity
between
physical
objects,
i.e.,
global
machine-to-machine
(M2M)
interactions.
Telecommunication
technology
was
born
as
wired
telegraphy
and
telephony,
as
Connecting
Places,
achieving
0.5
billion
communication
endpoints.
A
major
revolution
was
the
introduction
of
mobile
communications,
which
resulted
in
Connecting
People,
achieving
over
5
billion
communication
endpoints.
Now,
IoT
will
be
the
next
major
step,
resulting
in
Connecting
Things
and
achieving
at
least
50
billion
communication
endpoints.
Some
even
say
that
this
number
is
greatly
underestimated.
• Real-‐time
machine-‐published
information
for
the
Web:
IoT
will
revolutionize
the
World
Wide
Web
by
bringing
real-‐time
machine-‐
published
information
to
the
Web.
This
enables
new
global
applications
and
services
for
users.
The
Web
is
accessed
by
billions
and
is
vital
for
information
sharing,
entertainment,
education,
and
commerce.
It
is
widely
used
by
developers
as
the
main
platform
for
the
development
of
applications
and
services.
The
information
in
the
present
Web
is
mostly
published
by
people.
It
may
also
originate
from
databases,
data
which
is
automatically
collected
from
the
real
world
through
sensors
–
but
this
data
is
inherently
delayed
and
limited
to
specific
systems.
IoT
will
change
the
Web
by
extending
it
to
a
vast
amount
of
real-‐time
information
coming
directly
from
real-‐world
things,
enabling
new
applications
and
services.
As
a
simplest
example,
imagine
a
Web-‐based
mapping
system,
like
Google
Maps,
that
provides
a
view
on
things
located
and
events
occurring
right
here,
right
now.
• Embedded
Intelligence
on
the
edges
of
the
network:
IoT
will
be
a
revolution
in
cyber-‐physical
systems
(CPS),
which
combine
computational
and
physical
elements,
in
that
it
will,
finally,
meet
the
goals
set
by
Mark
Weiser
for
computing
in
the
21st
century
(Weiser,
1991).
Mark
Weiser’s
vision
has
two
goals:
(1)
better
interaction
of
people
with
the
physical
environment,
and
(2)
less
of
the
“personal
computing”
where
people
have
to
carry
the
processing
power
with
them.
Such
technology
would
enable
new
local
applications
and
services
for
the
users.
IoT
will
achieve
these
goals,
but
the
solution
is
going
to
be
different
from
the
one
proposed
by
Weiser
himself,
which
was
migrating
the
computing
power
from
personal
devices
into
the
environment
itself.
In
IoT,
the
physical
objects
are
extended
with
connectors
like
RFIDs,
sensors,
and
actuators,
but
the
computational
power
is
concentrated
to
the
servers,
not
ubiquitously
present
in
the
environment.
IoT
is
a
technology
that
will
enable
the
achievement
of
the
first
goal
above,
while
following
the
trend
of
cloud
computing,
which
appears
to
be
the
winning
solution
for
the
second
goal
above.
The
“things”
on
the
Internet
of
Things
are
various
physical
entities
that
present
some
interest
to
humans,
such
as
a
package
to
track,
an
industrial
machine
to
monitor,
an
electrical
current
to
measure,
the
temperature
in
an
engine,
etc.
Depending
on
the
nature
of
things,
different
ways
of
connecting
them
to
IoT
will
be
used.
The
three
major
options
for
this
come
from
the
three
major
technology
areas
related
to
IoT.
As
they
rely
on
different
technologies
and
are
prevailing
in
different
industry
sectors,
they
all
are
parts
of
the
IoT
vision
and
have
to
be
integrated:
• The
RFID
world.
It
is
about
Identifying
things.
Identifiers
such
as
RFIDs
are
attached
to
things,
e.g.
packages,
to
enable
their
automatic
identification
and
tracking.
Based
on
ID,
the
information
about
things
can
be
accessed
from
a
database
or
from
the
Web.
• The
sensors
world.
It
is
about
Sensing
things,
that
is,
“second-‐hand”
access
to
properties
of
things,
which
can
be
perceived
from
the
outside
using
a
variety
of
available
sensors.
• The
embedded
systems
world.
It
is
about
Reading
things,
that
is,
“first
hand”
access
to
data
possessed
by
things,
e.g.
industrial
machines
or
home
electronics,
already
embedded
with
some
processing
and
data
storage
capabilities.
As
a
result,
the
IoT
consists
of
heterogeneous
set
devices
and
heterogeneous
communication
strategies
between
the
devices.
Examples
include
personal
devices
such
as
wearable
wireless
sensors
or
wireless
sensors
integrated
in
homes,
cars,
or
home
appliances;
autonomic
devices
such
as
robots
with
communication
abilities;
medium-‐specific
devices
such
as
underwater
wireless
acoustic
sensors
or
in-‐body
sensors
for
health
monitoring;
location
or
position-‐
specific
devices
such
as
manned
and
unmanned
terrestrial
and
aerial
vehicles
for
surveillance
and
rescue
scenarios;
and
all
other
mixed-‐type
devices
forming
an
environment
possibly
with
unique
highly
dynamic
and
agile
requirements.
Therefore,
the
Internet
of
the
Things
(IoT)
needs
to
support
a
large
number
of
diversified
objects,
based
on
different
types
of
radio
interfaces
with
very
different
requirements
in
terms
of
available
resources.
Such
diversity
in
terms
of
connected
moving
objects
would
facilitate
a
variety
of
information
for
Internet
users,
resulting
in
new
applications
and
services.
It
is
clear
that
such
a
heterogeneous
system
should
evolve
into
a
more
structured
set
of
solutions.
It
can
be
expected
that
IoT
will
provide
a
set
of
solutions
at
different
levels
and
instances
where
things
(e.g.
everyday
objects,
locations,
vehicles,
meters,
etc.)
are
extended
with
sensors,
RFIDs,
actuators,
or
processors,
made
discoverable
and
enabled
to
communicate
with
other
entities,
and
are
closely
integrated
with
future
Internet
infrastructure
and
services.
Thus
one
of
the
key
challenges
for
IoT
research
and
development
is
to
realize
this
backbone
that
supports
the
different
deployment
scenarios
(verticals)
and
meets
the
functional
and
non-‐functional
requirements.
The
nature
of
the
IoT
environment
calls
for
protocols,
network
designs,
and
service
architectures
that
can
cope
with
billions
of
IoT
entities,
and
connects
the
suppliers
of
the
data
with
the
consumers.
2. State of the Art
In this section we briefly consider the state of the art in IoT from differing
viewpoints. In the subsequent sections, we first give a short history of IoT, and
then describe the Finnish background and position towards IoT, and finally
present the state of the art of IoT from the academic, industry, government, and
standardization perspective, respectively.
The phrase "Internet of Things" was coined some 10 years ago by the founders of
the original MIT Auto-‐ID Center, with special mention to Kevin Ashton in 1999
and David L. Brock in 2001. The term "Auto-‐ID" refers to any broad class of
identification technologies used in industry to automate, reduce errors, and
increase efficiency. These technologies include bar codes, smart cards, sensors,
voice recognition, and biometrics (Brock 2001).
A 2005 report from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
publicized the phrase further (ITU 2005). The ITU report adopted a
comprehensive and holistic approach by suggesting that the IoT would connect
the world's objects in both a sensory and intelligent manner through combining
technological developments in item identification ("tagging things"), sensors and
wireless sensor networks ("feeling things"), embedded systems ("thinking
things") and nanotechnology ("shrinking things"). In the last few years the
phrase has been used extensively. There are a large number of research
proposals, ongoing projects, and standardization efforts around the IoT. It is
important to emphasize that the industry and consumers have started deploying
IoT networks and products as well.
If we just look at what is already being deployed in real life, it becomes clear that
to a large extent, IoT technology is already in place. Cellular-‐based energy
metering has been a standard issue for new subscribers with many Finnish
utility companies for a decade. These and other applications of existing
technology are expected to bring the number of cellular connections to ten times
larger than it is, essentially without any technology changes. Going beyond the
national and cellular industry-‐related anecdotes, the industry at large is already
deploying this technology. In the current market, there exists tons of health
monitoring and sports-‐related devices, e-‐book readers, tablets, cameras, traffic
applications employing positioning technology, building automation and
surveillance solutions that run on top of IP, just to name a few.
Academic
Perspective
Academia
has
a
relatively
long
history
of
IoT
research.
As
mentioned
above,
the
phrase
“Internet
of
Things”
was
coined
in
MIT
Auto-‐ID
Center.
In
October
2003,
the
MIT
Auto-‐ID
Center
was
rechristened
Cambridge
Auto-‐ID
Lab
when
it
was
closed
and
split
into
a
research
arm
–
the
Auto-‐ID
Labs
–
and
a
commercial
arm
–
EPCglobal.
Today,
the
Auto-‐ID
Labs
comprise
seven
of
the
world's
most
renowned
research
laboratories
located
on
four
different
continents,
including
MIT
(US),
Cambridge
(UK),
St.
Gallen
(Switzerland),
Fudan
(China),
ICU
(Korea),
Adelaide
(Australia),
Keio
(Japan).
The
target
of
the
Auto-‐ID
Center
is
to
architect
the
IoT
together
with
EPCglobal
(http://www.autoidlabs.org/).
In
China,
the
academic
research
work
towards
IoT
was
initiated
later
than
in
the
US.
But
it
has
caught
up
with
the
rest
of
the
world
quickly
in
recent
years,
especially
with
the
strong
support
from
the
Chinese
government.
In
2011,
three
“973”
projects
(focusing
on
basic
infrastructure
research)
were
funded
by
the
Chinese
government,
the
leading
institutes
were
Beijing
University
of
Posts
and
Telecommunications
(BUPT),
Tongji
University,
and
Wuxi
SensingNet
Industrialisation
Research
Institute,
respectively.
Furthermore,
since
2006,
several
other
research
institutes
have
been
involved
in
far-‐reaching
projects,
including
Shanghai
Institute
of
Microsystem
and
Information
Technology
(SIMIT),
Chinese
Academy
of
Sciences
(CAS),
etc,
with
strong
backup
from
the
government.
In
Europe,
the
academic
research
work
in
IoT
was
mainly
performed
in
different
EU-‐funded
seventh
Programme
Framework
(FP7)
projects.
To
better
utilize
the
research
achievements
and
to
provide
a
place
to
share
the
lessons
and
experiences
from
different
projects,
in
2009,
European
Research
Cluster
on
the
Internet
of
Things
(IERC)
was
founded
and
funded
under
FP7,
the
goal
of
which
was
to
“bring
together
EU-‐funded
projects
with
the
aim
of
defining
a
common
vision
and
the
IoT
technology
and
development
research
challenges
at
the
European
level
in
the
view
of
global
development”.
Currently,
IERC
comprises
around
30
EU-‐funded
projects,
including
AMI-‐4-‐SME,
ASPIRE,
BRIDGE,
CASAGRAS,
DiYSE,
EPoSS,
IoT-‐i,
IoT-‐A,
etc.
(http://www.internet-‐of-‐things-‐
research.eu/about_ierc.htm)
Furthermore,
the
European
Union
realized
the
importance
of
sustainable
and
continuous
research
work
in
IoT
domain.
The
first
version
of
the
Future
Internet
research
roadmap
for
FP8
(v1.0
published
on
17
May
2011)
described
some
topics
related
to
IoT
and
Real-‐world
Internet.
For
IoT
technical
challenges,
the
roadmap
is
still
open
for
new
ideas
and
updates.
The
main
topics
on
the
IoT
side
considered
currently
are
integration
of
IoT
to
"generic"
Internet
architecture,
energy-‐awareness,
autonomic
and
distributed
control
and
management
issues.
Industry
Perspective
The
industrial
activities
in
IoT
started
at
around
the
same
time
as
the
academia,
though
the
corresponding
products
were
very
sparse
in
the
first
several
years.
The
first
industrial
product
of
IoT
can
be
traced
back
to
1998,
when
Presto
network
embedded
RFID
tags
into
objects.
In
the
subsequent
several
years,
IoT
was
more
a
concept
for
research
rather
than
for
industry.
In
the
year
2005,
Wal-‐
Mart
and
the
U.S.
Department
of
Defense
demanded
that
their
major
contractors
and
suppliers
mark
their
shipments
with
RFID
tags
for
inventory
control,
which
signified
the
dawn
of
large-‐scale
deployment
of
IoT
products
in
real
commercial
environments.
In
2008,
the
IPSO
Alliance
was
launched
to
act
as
a
global
non-‐profit
organization
serving
the
various
communities
seeking
to
establish
the
Internet
Protocol
(IP)
as
the
network
protocol
for
connecting
smart
objects
by
providing
coordinated
marketing
efforts
available
to
the
general
public.
Currently,
the
alliance
has
around
50
member
companies,
including
BOSCH,
Cisco,
Ericsson,
Sensinode
etc.
(http://ipso-‐alliance.org/)
In
Europe,
SAP
is
one
of
the
early
promoters
of
IoT.
It
combines
IoT
with
the
concept
of
Internet
of
Services,
and
highlights
the
convergence
of
physical
world
with
virtual
and
digital
world.
Other
well
known
examples
include
touchatag
and
Pachube.
In
2008,
Alcatel-‐Lucent
announced
touchatag,
which
enables
service
providers
and
enterprises
to
leverage
ubiquitous
identity
—
in
contactless
RFID
cards,
and
NFC
mobile
devices
—
for
wallet
services
such
as
mobile
payment,
fidelity
and
interactive
advertising
(http://www.touchatag.com/about).
In
the
same
year
(2008),
Pachube
was
published
as
an
open
real-‐time
data
infrastructure
platform
for
the
IoT,
which
manages
millions
of
data
points
per
day
from
thousands
of
individuals,
organizations
&
companies
around
the
world
(http://www.pachube.com/).
Furthermore,
IBM
and
Cisco
have
provided
their
respective
solutions
for
smart
cities,
which
covers
a
number
of
domains,
including
telecommunications,
government
and
health,
banking,
utilities,
supply
chain
and
food
traceability
etc.
Government
Perspective
A
number
of
countries
and
districts
have
realized
the
importance
of
IoT
in
the
recovery
of
economic
growth
and
sustainability.
Amongst
them,
the
European
Union,
the
United
States,
and
China
are
prominent
examples.
The
European
Union
adopted
the
concept
of
IoT
in
March
2007
in
its
Commission
Communication
on
RFID
(EC
2007).
In
April
2008,
the
U.S.
National
Intelligence
Council
(NIC)
published
a
conference
report
on
“Disruptive
Civil
Technologies
–
Six
Technologies
with
Potential
Impacts
on
U.S.
Interests
out
to
2025”,
and
one
of
the
technologies
was
IoT.
In
November
2009,
in
a
speech
on
the
topic
“Technology
leads
China
for
sustainable
development”,
Chinese
Premier
Wen
Jiabao
took
IoT
as
one
of
the
five
emerging
national
strategic
industries,
and
emphasized
putting
focus
on
breakthrough
core
technology
of
sensor
networks
and
IoT.
Standardization
Standardization
bodies
also
play
an
essential
role
in
promoting
the
prosperity
of
the
current
IoT
domain,
especially
from
the
interoperability
perspective.
Relevant
standardization
forums
for
IoT
include
IETF,
IEEE,
ETSI,
NFC
Forum,
W3C,
and
ZigBee
Alliance,
etc.
IETF
is
responsible
for
the
network-‐related
standards,
IEEE,
NFC
Forum,
and
ZigBee
Alliance
standardize
the
lower-‐layer
protocols,
ETSI
is
defining
the
IoT
concept
and
architecture,
and
W3C
is
starting
to
standardize
semantic
access
to
IoT
data.
Key
IETF
working
groups
include
6LowPAN
(IPv6
over
Low
power
WPAN),
CoRE
(Constrained
RESTful
Environments),
Routing
Over
Low
power
and
Lossy
Networks
(ROLL).
ETSI
has
established
the
Machine-‐to-‐Machine
(M2M)
Technical
Committee
that
is
defining
an
end-‐to-‐end
architecture
for
IoT.
3. The Finnish View
Finland is in an excellent position to become a leader in IoT technology given its
leadership in wireless communications technologies and the active role in many
standards bodies pertaining to Internet technologies. IoT essentially combines
the two domains, namely low-‐power wireless networking and Internet-‐based
resources, in which Finland is a pioneer. The rationale for Finland to focus on IoT
technology and applications includes the following points:
• The Finnish ICT companies and research organizations are very strong in
standardization, with a remarkable contribution to standardization
bodies such as IETF and 3GPP. Finland holds the 3rd place when counting
the absolute number of contributions to IETF. This presence in
standardization bodies will be required to drive the adoption of protocols
and solutions enabling IoT.
• Finnish universities and research organizations have a strong background
in sensor technology, Internet technology, HCI, security and device
technology, which forms a strong base to tackle the research challenges of
making IoT a global success.
• Finland is a forerunner in many areas of security, privacy and trust issues.
This competence is available for overcoming the security-‐related
challenges in IoT.
• Finnish companies have a very strong position in wireless technology,
especially in cellular technology. Many IoT devices are expected to
require wireless wide area connectivity and will in many cases use the
cellular technologies. Novel enhancements to cellular technologies will be
an important enabler for IoT globally and the Finnish industry is well
suited to play a leading role in that development.
• Finland has vertical industries that are advanced in their use of
technology (Energy, Forest, Retail, Education, etc). By combining the
expertise of the ICT companies with strong players in the vertical
industries, solutions can be created that can bring the vertical industries
to an international top level.
• The Finnish population is advanced in the use of ICT solutions, for
example with a very high penetration of computers and smartphones.
This makes Finland a suitable area for trials with consumer devices and
services in the IoT domain. Furthermore, the availability of town-‐wide
wireless access infra-‐structures, both for web usage and wireless sensors,
offers great possibilities for wide trials.
• The national regulation can give significant advantage for companies, cf.
the NMT and mobile sector, when applied in the right way and at the right
moment. For example, regulation concerning smart electricity metering
and demand-‐response-‐based utility pricing, eCall and other security and
safety regulations can also benefit the IoT industry.
• Environmentally conscious citizens (cf. eagerness for recycling) are an
advantage which can be used in initiating new applications in fields like
smart energy, environmental monitoring.
Given this background, Finnish companies, universities and research institutions
take an active part in IoT-‐related research projects in FP7, FP8, ARTEMIS, ITEA,
CELTIC, etc. programs. To give some examples, projects based on the IoT-‐SRA
can benefit from the eventual Finnish participation in the European IoT Forum
currently being formed. In addition, EU FP7 projects in the same area having
strong Finnish participation, e.g. the three-‐year integrated project iCORE, can
support the goals of this SRA. This SRA aims at contributing to the EU policies
and RD&I goals by including topics and goals considered important for the
partners and Finnish industry and society in general into future EU research
programmes, specifically into FP8 (CSF) and ARTEMIS. Also, ongoing national
activities in Tivit's Devices and Interoperability Ecosystem and Cloud Software
programs, as well as the Tekes Ubicom program, contribute various solutions
and technologies that lay a basis for the development of IoT.
4. Our Vision and Mission for 2017
Our vision for 2017:
By 2017 the Finnish ICT industry is a recognized leader in the IoT domain due to its
expertise in standards, software, devices, and business models integrating and
combining various IoT verticals for diverse industry segments. We live in a world
surrounded by tens of billions of devices that interoperate and integrate smoothly with
the conventional Internet, provide secure and reliable services, enhance the life of
people in healthcare, smart homes, industry automation, and environmental monitoring.
The IoT is self-‐organizing, easy to use, harvests energy from the environment and is able
to operate even in disaster scenarios where the network is partitioned.
In order to work towards and reach the vision, our mission is the following:
The Finnish industry will pioneer the development of new products, services, and
standards for IoT and will have a global competitive advantage due to its know-‐how and
active cross-‐industrial co-‐operation. Finnish industry is a key contributor to IoT
standards at IETF and other relevant forums, demonstrator of cutting-‐edge IoT
technology, and generator of IoT products and profits in the global competitive market.
The industry IPR portfolio covers the critical areas of IoT technology. The academic
partners are recognized as top-‐level institutions in IoT research. The SHOK is improving
the competitiveness of Finland when facing the challenges of an aging population, high
labor costs, environmental issues and increasing globalization.
5.
Breakthrough
Targets
The
future
potential
for
IoT
is
enormous.
A
large
number
of
innovative
services
and
applications
are
enabled
by
the
interconnection
of
billion
of
devices.
The
potential
can,
however,
only
be
realized
if
the
cost
for
deploying
various
solutions
is
low
enough
and
if
various
devices
are
interoperable
with
each
other.
An
interoperable
mass
deployment
of
devices
or
connected
things
requires
extensive
use
of
open,
standardized
interfaces,
protocols
and
APIs.
Moreover,
sufficient
support
needs
to
be
provided
for
service
and
application
developers
and
providers
in
the
form
of
infrastructure,
tools,
and
guidelines.
Near-‐term
commercialization
of
IoT
technology
is
expected
to
happen
in
specific
domain
areas,
such
as
medical
ICT
and
various
monitoring
tasks,
as
well
as
in
the
interoperability
enablers
such
as
gateway
and
bridge
solutions.
A
key
challenge
for
the
breakthrough
of
IoT
is,
therefore,
to
facilitate
generic
solutions
that
can
be
used
across
verticals,
i.e.
as
far
as
possible
avoid
industry-‐specific
technologies
–
and
at
the
same
time
consider
the
specific
requirements
that
exist
in
different
industry
use
cases.
Based
on
this,
the
following
main
breakthrough
targets
are
identified:
• Formation
of
a
sustainable
IoT
ecosystem
in
Finland
and
connecting
it
with
the
global
ecosystem.
o Development
of
generic
solutions
that
can
be
used
across
verticals.
o Applying
those
solutions
in
cases
relevant
to
Finnish
industry.
• Impact
to
standards
o Finnish
industry
is
a
key
contributor
to
IoT
standards
at
IETF,
IEEE,
W3C,
and
other
relevant
forums.
• Producing
IoT
enablers
o Finnish
industry
is
a
generator
of
IoT
products
and
profits
in
the
global
competitive
market.
o Finnish
industry
supplies
important
IoT
enablers,
such
as
a
gateway/border
router
to
connect
IoT
with
the
Internet.
o Finnish
industry
uses
its
internationally
recognized
strong
competence
in
security
to
develop
novel
security,
privacy
and
trust
solutions
and
business
for
IoT.
• Breakthrough
in
Finland’s
IoT
research
visibility
on
a
global
level
o Finnish
industry
is
a
demonstrator
of
cutting-‐edge
IoT
technology.
o The
academic
partners
are
recognized
as
top-‐level
institutions
in
IoT
research.
o International
prototypes,
showcases.
o Testbed
facilities,
both
national
and
international.
6.
Challenges
We
address
the
key
challenges
for
IoT
from
several
viewpoints,
namely:
technical,
security,
privacy,
and
trust,
societal,
business
challenges,
and
challenges
specifically
important
for
Finland.
Technical
Challenges
We
present
four
groups
of
technical
challenges
for
IoT.
The
first
group
relates
to
scalability
and
energy
constraints.
Scalability
refers
to
the
ability
of
networks
to
sustain
a
very
large
number
of
devices.
We
believe
that
one
order
of
magnitude
increase
in
the
size
of
the
current
networks
is
easily
achieved,
but
there
are
issues
for
going
beyond
this.
These
issues
relate
to
the
sheer
number
of
devices
to
address
and
hold
the
state
for,
but
also
for
simultaneous
events
such
as
devices
coming
online
simultaneously
after
a
large
power
or
network
outage.
The
sheer
number
of
objects
present
and
the
kinds
of
active/passive
wireless
technologies
used
would
create
substantial
challenges
for
routing/signaling,
naming,
collaboration,
information/data
processing
and
networking.
Therefore
traditional
methods
based
on
L2/L3
technologies
(addressing
and
discovery)
may
simply
not
be
feasible
for
information
retrieval
and
complex
computations,
and
become
structurally
too
inflexible
in
terms
of
scalability.
In
contrast,
from
the
point
of
view
of
an
individual
device
it
is
important
to
scale
down,
to
limit
the
complexity
of
a
device
and
its
power
usage.
Often
such
scaling
down
is
not
merely
important
to
keep
the
cost
of
the
device
down,
they
can
be
crucial
for
enabling
the
entire
application.
For
instance,
sufficient
battery
lifetime
for
an
application
with
hundreds
of
devices
can
be
surprisingly
large.
A
home
with
a
hundred
devices
with
ten-‐year
battery
lifetimes
will
result
in
a
battery
change
operation
every
month.
Or
the
size
of
the
sensor
may
be
very
important,
for
instance
to
make
devices
embedded
in
our
clothing
practical.
The
practical
challenge
is
to
increase
battery
lifetimes
of
small
devices
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
Another
class
of
challenges
relate
to
interoperability.
As
the
Internet
has
evolved,
interoperability
has
always
been
a
major
concern,
in
terms
of
protocol
design
and
extensibility,
building
products
that
in
practice
work
well
together
with
other
devices,
and
setting
standards.
Some
of
the
requirements
and
expected
usage
patterns
in
the
IoT
will
cause
interoperability
challenges.
Moreover,
like
the
present
day
Internet
has
evolved
significantly
over
the
past
decades,
we
expect
an
IoT
to
evolve
over
time,
with
new
uses
and
new
requirements
coming
up.
Evolution
incurs
another
interoperability
challenge:
of
different
versions
over
time.
One
further
element
of
interoperability
is
testing:
it
is
well-‐known
today
that
Internet-‐scale
testing
is
hard,
if
not
impossible;
the
increase
in
scale
toward
IoT
and
the
expected
limited
capabilities
of
IoT
devices
are
going
to
push
the
demands
on
testing
even
further.
Much
of
the
current
focus
in
the
IoT
is
also
on
the
lower
parts
of
the
stack:
designing
the
wireless
networks
and
running
IP
and
transport
protocols
over
them.
While
tremendously
useful,
an
IoT
transport
network
is
not
enough
for
true
interoperability.
For
instance,
it
would
not
be
enough
for
a
light
switch
from
one
vendor
to
control
lights
from
another.
For
true
interoperability
we
need
semantic
interoperability,
the
ability
of
the
devices
to
unambiguously
convey
the
meaning
of
data
they
communicate.
The
third
group
of
challenges
relates
to
shared
infrastructure.
The
success
of
the
IoT
and
the
feasibility
of
many
business
models
will
depend
heavily
on
architectures
that
utilize
horizontal
service
components
that
are
generic
across
different
vertical
industries.
High
efficiency
can
only
be
reached
if
multiple
vertical
applications
can
share
common
infrastructure,
data,
and
resources.
One
challenge
is
identifying
the
parts
of
the
IoT
middleware
platform
that
are
common
across
the
vertical
industries.
A
further
challenge
is
systems
integration
-‐
how
to
build
a
coherent
vertical
application
out
of
a
large
collection
of
software
modules
and
horizontal
components.
Yet
another
challenge
is
defining
generic
interfaces
that
are
attractive
to
application
developers,
meet
the
needs
of
diverse
vertical
applications,
and
abstract
away
the
specifics
of
heterogeneous
things,
resources,
and
networks.
The
fourth
group
of
challenges
relates
to
managing
large
numbers
of
devices.
Many
of
the
potential
applications
are
in
environments
where
active
management
or
even
substantial
installation
expertise
cannot
be
assumed,
for
instance,
homes.
In
addition,
in
many
applications
active,
human-‐run
management
or
any
per-‐device
manual
work
is
economically
infeasible.
This
calls
for
self-‐management
solutions.
While
this
has
been
an
active
research
area
for
some
time,
there
is
little
to
show
in
terms
of
solutions
that
have
actually
become
adopted
by
consumers
or
the
industry.
Self-‐management
is
particularly
challenging
with
regards
to
setting
up
security
and
application-‐relevant
data
such
as
locations
of
indoor
sensors
or
their
real-‐world
relevance.
Security, Privacy and Trust Challenges
Security, privacy and trust challenges have an impact on all other topics of IoT.
Moreover, smart solutions for these challenges are clearly strong business
enablers. The IoT will create a dynamic network of a large number of identifiable
things communicating with each other. Although the IoT will provide help in
many areas, it will create its own set of security, privacy and trust challenges. At
the heart of the IoT vision lays a contradiction: On the one hand, the
environment must be highly knowledgeable about a user to match his or her
needs without explicit interaction. On the other hand, a system that is truly
ubiquitous will encompass numerous users, and systems. However, perfect trust
among all parties is unattainable. The security, privacy and trust solutions for the
IoT need to consider devices with huge variation in their capabilities as well as
applications with different needs. For example, when utilizing sensors for
medical applications, security solutions must be triple-‐checked against the
stringent requirements; potential privacy issues must be addressed; protocol
messages and cryptographic mechanisms must be adopted to wireless sensor
standards. Although bearing high risks of provable security and patient faith,
remote monitoring of health appliances could create breakthroughs in
healthcare cost reduction and bring great benefits for individuals and society. A
further complication relevant to large networks such as IoT is that security and
privacy risks are often very dynamic in their nature. Obviously, there is plenty of
room for adequate effective, adaptive, risk-‐driven and evidence-‐based security,
privacy and trust solutions mitigating these challenges.
In IoT, sensors and small devices are embedded all around our environment;
inside buildings, under our skin, in wide-‐area environments, and even in highly
critical environments such as industrial automation. During an attack,
unplugging them from the network is often not an option. Shutting down the
network infrastructure might not be sufficient either, as many of these devices
will be able to form their own autonomous networks and via multihop routing
still be reachable from the Internet. In addition, one basic security problem is
that it is very hard to design systems that can be deployed securely without
requiring a manual action for setting up a key for the device. However, critical
applications must be secure enough. Examples are medical applications or
applications that control potentially dangerous processes. Existing problems of
the current Internet, such as unwanted traffic and different kinds of denial of
service attacks, are also amplified in the IoT. For instance, battery-‐powered
devices should avoid having to receive any unwanted messages for power saving
and also minimize the overhead created by overplaying security. Overplaying
security can be minimized by systematical trade-‐off analysis of security
effectiveness, usability, and performance dimensions. Feasible design
methodologies and tools for this are needed. Another basic problem is that by its
nature, the IoT produces information that can identify persons through the
devices that they carry, and collect sensitive information. The privacy problems
of the IoT are largely unsolved today in the general case, even if specific
solutions exist for applications that handle sensitive data. Better solutions are
needed in order to preserve the basic human right to privacy and to comply with
relevant legislation.
Security, privacy and trust considerations are crosscutting in IoT: they have an
impact on IoT at all levels from technical details to human behavior. For example,
IoT concepts might redefine the traditional view of end-‐to-‐end security as
intermediate devices play increasingly important roles for the essential
functioning of an application. They should be considered as early as possible
during the IoT architecture design, business analysis and should be adequately
managed and built-‐in in all activities. This horizontality is a remarkable
challenge in itself, and postulates contribution from security professionals as
well as security-‐oriented thinking from all developers, service providers and
end-‐users.
Societal
Challenges
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
IoT
is
not
just
about
networking
technology.
All
systems
involve
user
interaction,
and
finding
good
ways
to
deal
with
large
amount
of
possibly
conflicting
data
is
not
trivial.
Good
user
interfaces
for
managing
different
types
of
IoT
networks
are
still
being
researched.
Moreover,
IoT
enables
interacting
with
physical
objects
directly
(i.e.
tangible
user
interfaces)
in
addition
to
interacting
through
the
conventional
user
interface
devices
(i.e.
graphical
user
interfaces).
What
are
the
right
abstractions
to
present
information
to
human
users?
How
to
advertise
the
tangible
interaction
possibilities
to
users?
What
is
a
good
user
interaction
model
to
begin
with?
Much
of
our
current
interaction
with
technology
revolves
around
the
limitations
of
older
designs.
For
instance,
light
switches
were
born
out
of
the
way
electrical
wiring
needed
to
be
done.
If
there
were
no
wiring
limitations,
what
would
be
a
good
user
interface
from
the
user's
perspective?
Development
tools
should
be
revised
as
well
–
with
the
right
kind
of
tools
users
could
build
IoT
applications
themselves.
One
view
on
this
set
of
challenges
is
how
to
fully
exploit
new
physical
interaction
options
between
the
digital
and
physical
world
that
become
possible
with
IoT
technology?
What
is
more,
the
future
will
bring
a
Social
Internet
of
Things.
This
requires
a
new
perspective
of
device
and
system
interoperability.
Starting
from
User
interface
Designs
of
Social
Internet
to
Social
Internet
of
Things,
designs
must
be
interoperable
on
the
application
and
service
level
with
the
devices
that
provide
IoT
data.
When
the
research
work
is
ongoing
the
crossroads
of
both
of
these
aspects
provide
an
intriguing
new
field
of
study.
Business
Challenges
While
there
are
many
technical
challenges,
the
challenges
at
the
business
level
seem
even
bigger.
In
most
cases,
the
(businesses
and)
business
models
are
still
being
developed.
For
some
cases,
such
as
delivering
general-‐purpose
networking
solutions
the
IoT
is
just
additional
business
within
the
same
business
framework.
In
many
other
cases,
it
is
still
unclear
what
customers
are
being
targeted,
with
what
partners,
and
with
what
kind
of
economic
parameters.
There
is
a
large
number
of
perceived
and
real
obstacles
for
starting
an
IoT
business.
For
instance,
utility
companies
complain
about
undesirable
long-‐term
lock-‐ins
to
operators
providing
a
service,
enterprise
customers
complain
about
the
lack
of
interoperable
solutions
where
vendors
can
be
put
in
competition
against
each
other,
and
application
vendors
complain
about
the
lack
of
infrastructure
and
communications
solutions
that
can
be
readily
used.
Many
products
still
have
a
very
small
number
of
units
sold,
which
keeps
the
prices
high.
It
is
clear
that
today's
solutions
for
the
IoT
are
fragmented.
They
are
in
many
cases
running
in
silos
of
legacy
networks.
Even
if
some
applications
may
run
over
general-‐purpose
Internet
networks,
there's
little
or
no
interoperability
between
applications.
Middleware
solutions
exist,
but
no
appreciable
business
on
top
of
them.
Today's
applications
are
different
depending
on
the
specific
vertical
industry,
enterprise,
and
geographical
location,
among
other
things.
Existing
solutions
are
typically
dedicated
to
single
applications
such
as
fleet
management,
remote
meter
reading,
or
vending
machines.
In
the
future,
economies
of
scale
will
make
the
reduction
of
the
fragmentation
a
key
success
factor.
Similarly,
consumer
adoption
requires
standardization
in
many
cases.
Traditional
electrical
installations
in
homes
allowed
any
light
control
to
work
with
any
light
switch,
for
instance.
This
has
yet
to
be
replicated
for
the
IoT-‐based
lighting
controls.
Today
the
M2M
market
is
very
fragmented
with
different
protocols,
lots
of
device
vendors
and
products.
Interoperability
between
M2M
products
from
different
vendors
and
also
between
M2M
networks
is
a
challenge.
It
is
also
a
challenge
to
define
the
level
of
generalization
of
M2M
solutions
so
that
they
support
use
cases
from
various
industries
but
are
still
useful.
Challenges in Finland
The above issues are global. There are, however, specific local challenges within
our industry and society. As a country, Finland has some challenges that are not
unique in the Western world but are perhaps a bit more pronounced here than
elsewhere. An aging population and high labor costs are two examples. On the
other hand, there is also a high desire to invest in the school system, high quality
health care, and environmentally friendly solutions. Carbon emission
agreements are particularly difficult for a country with a cold climate, and
energy-‐saving applications are clearly a priority. All of these areas would benefit
from IoT applications, and in some cases technology developed elsewhere in the
world is not readily applicable for the specific Finnish setting in these areas.
7.
Research
Strategy
The
IoT-‐SRA
outlines
a
framework
for
projects
that
research,
design,
implement,
and
deploy
IoT
solutions
in
various
industry
segments
and
across
the
segments.
The
focus
of
the
SRA
is
in
the
key
enablers
and
business
models
that
are
needed
for
a
sustainable
IoT
ecosystem.
Projects
based
on
IoT-‐SRA
develop
the
enablers
and
models
toward
the
2017
vision.
The
research
and
development
will
consider
various
aspects
pertaining
to
IoT,
including
standardization,
protocols,
network
design,
non-‐functional
requirements,
applications,
service
enablement,
business
models,
and
deployment.
Standards,
enablers,
and
the
formation
of
the
ecosystem
are
crucial
parts
of
the
SRA.
The
research
in
IoT-‐SRA
is
driven
by
the
requirements
of
the
application
domains
and
industrial
needs,
and
characterized
by
significant
industry
involvement.
The
research
strives
for
solid
results
based
on
both
empirical
and
theoretical
work,
standardization
of
the
solutions,
and
deploying
these
solutions.
The
IoT-‐SRA
has
synergies
with
the
other
SHOK
activities
and
ICT-‐SHOK
SRAs,
and
it
can
be
seen
to
have
an
enabling
role
for
the
IoT.
The
recently
published
Future
Internet
research
roadmap
for
FP8
includes
topics
pertaining
to
IoT.
The
expectation
is
that
the
Finnish
IoT
research
and
development
links
with
new
FP8
projects
in
Europe
as
well
as
ongoing
FP7
projects.
The
European
Institute
of
Innovation
&
Technology
(EIT)
ICT
Labs
(http://eit.ictlabs.eu/)
unifies
research
and
innovation
activities
in
Europe
in
many
thematic
areas
including
smart
spaces
and
embedded
systems.
The
IoT-‐
SRA
projects
are
expected
to
establish
co-‐operation
with
the
EIT
ICT
Labs.
8.
Research
Themes
The
five
crucial
research
themes
defined
by
the
IoT-‐SRA
are:
1. Network,
communications
2. Management
infrastructure
3. Services
and
applications
development
4. Human
interaction
5. IoT
ecosystem
Figure
1
presents
the
five
key
research
themes.
The
first
four
are
depicted
by
the
lower
part
of
the
diagram.
They
support
the
requirements
and
various
application
domains
that
are
vertical
components
in
the
figure.
The
research
themes
target
generic
interfaces
and
enablers
that
support
various
application
domains
as
well
as
the
formation
of
a
sustainable
IoT
ecosystem.
In
the
following,
we
will
present
each
of
the
themes
in
more
detail.
Figure
1
Overview
of
the
research
themes,
requirements,
and
application
domains.
Theme
1:
Network,
communications
This
research
theme
focuses
on
the
networking
and
communication
solutions
needed
to
enable
the
global
connectivity
among
hundreds
of
billions
of
physical
objects
on
IoT.
The
communication
possibilities
enabled
by
connecting
different
things
lay
the
foundation
for
IoT.
However,
the
amount
of
connected
things,
their
varying
capabilities,
and
amount
of
generated
data
create
new
challenges
for
the
networks.
While
the
current
Internet
has
been
able
to
scale
to
some
billions
of
connected
devices,
IoT
will
push
the
scalability
requirements
orders
of
magnitude
higher.
Different
kinds
of
network
architectures
and
adapting
them
to
match
the
requirements
of
IoT
are
needed
and
all
this
needs
to
work
in
a
secure
way.
While
security,
privacy
and
trust
are
discussed
under
a
focus
area
of
Theme
1,
they
need
to
be
addressed
in
all
other
themes:
they
have
impact
at
all
levels
from
technical
details
to
human
behavior
and
business
analysis.
The
focus
areas
include
scalability,
networks
integration
and
network
architecture,
security,
privacy,
and
trust,
and
large-‐scale
simulation
and
testing
methodologies.
Scalability
One
of
the
defining
factors
of
IoT
is
the
unprecedented
scale
of
the
amount
of
devices,
or
Things,
connected
to
the
Internet.
Current
networks
and
technologies
are
often
designed
for
much
smaller
amounts
and
more
or
less
homogeneous
devices
and,
hence,
scaling
the
network
and
communication
for
a
large
amount
of
heterogeneous
things
needs
to
be
addressed
for
successful
IoT
deployments.
The
networks
need
to
scale
to
handle
the
connections,
data,
and
events
the
things
generate.
Connections
require
scalable
naming,
addressing,
and
routing
that
take
into
account
the
limitations
of
the
things.
The
things
can
also
potentially
generate
vast
amounts
of
data.
Since
they
usually
have
limited
storage
space,
if
the
data
is
needed
later,
it
needs
to
be
sent
over
the
network
for
storage
and
processing.
However,
when
and
what
data
to
send
is
always
a
tradeoff
and
when
(and
how)
it
is
appropriate
to
offload
work
needs
research.
Large
amounts
of
independent
things
can
also
cause
storms
of
simultaneous
events
in
a
network
when
power
is
restored
after
power
outage,
for
example,
or
if
a
sensor
network
detects
large-‐scale
events
in
the
observed
area.
The
rest
of
the
infrastructure
needs
to
be
able
to
handle
this
kind
of
storms
but
also
the
things
need
to
be
designed
in
a
way
that
such
events
do
not
burden
the
infrastructure
excessively.
The
majority
of
the
devices
will
be
connected
wirelessly
due
to
simple
deployment
and
the
wireless
medium
and
access
networks
need
to
scale
to
accommodate
this.
Short-‐range
radios
and
different
radio
technologies
can
be
used
for
communication
between
things
but
long-‐range
communication
using
cellular
networks
is
often
the
best
solution
for
connecting
the
(networks
of)
things
to
the
Internet.
3G/4G
wireless
technologies
will
become
a
key
player
in
M2M
services
and
3GPP
LTE
and
UMTS
already
have
several
work
items
defined
for
M2M
communications.
So
far
the
focus
has
been
on
the
overload
control
of
the
radio
and
core
network
when
a
huge
amount
of
devices
accesses
the
network
in
a
synchronized
manner.
Recently
additional
aspects
such
as
very
low
power
consumption
when
transmitting
a
small
amount
of
data,
as
well
as
adequacy
of
the
device
identifiers
have
been
studied.
Yet,
work
remains
to
be
done
for
seamless
integration
of
the
IoT
and
cellular
worlds.
Networks integration and network architecture
As it consists of functionally and non-‐functionally significantly diverse objects,
IoT calls for an open architecture to facilitate and maximize the interoperability
among the heterogeneous systems and distributed resources. The architecture
should consist of well-‐defined and granular elements – in traditional networking,
those elements were layers, but it is to be investigated if different compositions
could be more appropriate – to foster the competition among different vendors
and service providers and allow for modular system composition, without the
end users being locked in a monolithic solution from a single source. Meanwhile,
the architecture should take into account different network environments, bear
in mind intermittent connectivity and diverse communication protocols, and
take into consideration the macro-‐ and micro-‐mobility of objects. The
architecture should also support autonomous and peer networks formation by
the various things in a decentralized and distributed manner.
Autonomous and peer networks and a greater degree of decentralization are
likely to be beneficial for a number of reasons. First, the IoT is expected to host a
vast number of data objects. Therefore, managing/processing all of this data in
the center of the network (in central application servers or in the data centers
(i.e., the cloud)) may not always be feasible, especially if the context of the
interaction between the things is local in nature. Therefore, there is a need to
study mechanisms that allow moving intelligence and data-‐processing
capabilities to the edges of the networks. This distribution of intelligence across
the IoT will make the things and networks of things more autonomous, that is,
less dependent on central points of control and intelligence. Second,
decentralization will also result in improved scalability. There is also a need to
understand the tradeoff between having all the processing capability in the
center of the network (i.e., data centers) and having all or part of it at the edges,
that is, in the things themselves.
Given the massive number of data objects and information introduced by the
interconnected things, the architecture should provide for ways of instantiating
mechanisms to support information retrieval, filtering, aggregation, etc. This can
be achieved by pushing the intelligence towards the edge of the network, i.e.,
near the things, or by pushing the processing to some remotely located cloud
data center. Again, it should be possible to make the decision of where to move
the intelligence automatically without needing human intervention.
The requirements with the IoT network architecture include:
• Open, interoperable and distributed architecture with a clear
composition;
• Communication support for one-‐to-‐one, one-‐to-‐many, many-‐to-‐one, and
many-‐to-‐many communication;
• Flexible intelligence offloading;
• Wake-‐up mechanisms and interfaces, suitable network diagnostics;
• Protocol support for end-‐to-‐end and end-‐to-‐middle interaction as
appropriate (e.g., reliability, congestion control, robustness, security);
• Resiliency to intermittent connectivity, macro-‐ and micro-‐mobility, long
off-‐times, etc.;
• Appropriate routing models for multi-‐hop and intermittently connected
networks.
There will be a plethora of wireless communication options. Because of the
limited resources (radio spectrum, energy, etc.), many of the Things will have
their networking communication capabilities in a turned-‐off-‐state most of the
time. During a turned-‐on-‐state, the operation will commonly be opportunistic
(communication piggybacking/batching, cognitive radio operation, etc.) to save
resources. The basis of the current Internet is designed for wired
communication; assuming more or less homogeneous zero-‐cost access. Similarly,
many of the current wireless systems are based on assumptions that are not
compatible with the IoT concepts. Existing technologies often need optimizations
to allow ultra-‐low energy efficiency, a massive number of connections, and ease
of deployment. While a common communication substrate is desired to avoid
overlapping, per-‐application networks and to obtain economies of scale, also
different forms of gateways will sometimes be desired to interconnect different
access networks.
Security, privacy and trust
As the IoT creates a dynamic network of a large number of identifiable things
communicating with each other in a ubiquitous and trusted way, they effectively
create a challenging ubiquitous accessibility vs. a security trade-‐off problem,
where balanced, systematic and practical countermeasures for security, privacy
and trust threats are highly needed. The security, privacy and trust solutions for
the IoT need to consider devices with huge variation in their capabilities as well
as applications with different needs. Moreover, risk, and eventually security,
privacy and trust requirements of devices, applications, service providers and
end-‐users can change dynamically. The availability of localized power sources,
e.g., fuel cells, mini solar panels, wind turbines, is increasing, allowing increased
processing capabilities for small devices. Another trend is the continuous
miniaturization of devices, which sacrifice performance for size. These devices
need lightweight security protocols that are able to maintain confidentiality and
integrity at a sufficient level regardless of device capabilities, which are chosen
in a risk-‐driven and adaptive manner. Meanwhile, considering the large variety
of IoT applications and wide deployment, scalability and interoperability are two
important concerns of adopting standardized communication protocols.
Managing access to a plethora of devices is an impossible task unless the devices
can be grouped in networks and trusted domains. Most of these devices work
under no real supervision. By cooperating, the devices can monitor each other
for invalid behavior, communicate only with benign, trusted nodes, adapt to
external threats and quickly exclude misbehaving or malicious devices from the
network. Instead of traditional, hierarchical, rigid solutions, trust should be
based by weighing the risks, vulnerabilities and their economical and other
impacts. Adaptive security, privacy and trust management algorithms and
associated metrics offer a promising direction for the implementation of
adequate security controls for IoT. Monitoring based on suitable metrics can be
used in building a trusted environment for IoT applications. Security assurance
and provisioning of the management functions in multi-‐actor environments is
important. For instance, the traffic characteristics of the different applications
have unique features that can be utilized to monitor the behavior of the network
and detect faulty nodes and attacks. Secure naming has to be flexible enough to
allow both delegation and the possibility to offer adequate privacy protection.
However, complete anonymity is not desirable, but one should be able to point
out the party that is liable for actions (even though this might not be the edge
device).
The IoT will not be made from scratch, but will involve a number of legacy
systems that were never intended to be connected to the internet. Strong socio-‐
economical drivers are making that a reality, as in the area of industrial
automation, e.g., SCADA. Recent events have shown that this has been a painful
process for both security and safety.
Internet users, network equipment manufacturers, software vendors and service
providers have learned to live in a hostile environment and have gone through
an iterative process of "lessons learned" over the past twenty years. These
lessons should be considered and applied proactively as legacy systems are
migrated to be full members of the IoT.
Large-scale simulation and testing methodologies
Deployment of large-‐scale IoT networks is not only time-‐consuming, but also
costly. Simulations come into use in such scenarios because of its relative
simplicity, cost-‐saving, etc, characteristics. Computer simulations can be used to
conduct scalability research for IoT networks. In the state-‐of-‐the-‐art literature,
large scale simulations of sensor networks range from a thousand to ten
thousand nodes, with some claims of up to a million nodes. Existing generic
simulators include NS2, NS3, JavaSim, GlomoSIM, OMNeT++ and sensor-‐specific
simulators include SensorSIM, SENSE, ATEMU and TOSSIM. However,
experiments with these tools with node populations beyond a million are not
reported. One problem is to raise the bar and simulate larger networks.
The traffic generated by the things plays a critical role in the performance
evaluation. Traffic depends on the network topology as well as the utilized local
data processing algorithms. Hence, co-‐simulation of the sensed phenomena, data
fusion, communication networks and control is important. There is a need for
tools that allow co-‐simulation, and hardware in the loop emulation of the overall
system. The tools can also support automatic code generation for sensor and
actuator nodes.
Meanwhile, the fundamental research in networking and services in the IoT
domain has to be tested, at least as a proof-‐of-‐concept, in realistic environments
of sufficient scale, to assess the feasibility and usability of these new concepts.
There is need, therefore, for proof-‐of-‐concept testbed methodologies.
Theme 2: Management infrastructure
This research theme focuses on the dynamic operation principles of IoT.
The management of IoT is much more complex than the management of the
Internet or the management of its other precursors, e.g., the current M2M
cellular systems. Much of this complexity is due to the expected high number of
things and its continuous growth, their heterogeneity, and the limited resources
availability. Resource-‐wise, energy management is the most critical issue.
Because of the number of things in IoT, most of the management must be
autonomous. However, interfaces and mechanisms are required for configuring
the IoT and its numerous subsystems according to user and application needs.
Finding the proper interplay between the automated mechanisms and the
mechanisms of human intervention is essential.
The focus areas include energy management, self-‐* properties, configuration
interfaces and mechanisms, and identification and discovery.
Energy management
Energy
management
of
IoT
should
be
viewed
both
from
the
on-‐device
perspective
and
from
the
systems
perspective
(including
all
the
participants
in
the
system,
e.g.,
sensors,
gateways,
and
servers).
For
small
battery-‐powered
devices,
it
is
crucial
to
find
ways
to
implement
ultra-‐low
energy
consumption
to
reduce
maintenance
(replacing
batteries).
Operation
times
of
several
years
or
even
decades
without
external
power
supplies
are
needed.
In
some
cases,
alternative
power
supplies
can
be
considered
as
a
solution
(e.g.,
mechanical
energy
harvesting
or
solar
cells).
On
the
devices
with
direct
power
connection,
energy
efficiency
might
not
be
as
crucial
from
the
single-‐node
perspective,
but
it
affects
the
efficiency
of
the
whole
system.
Energy-‐efficient
operation
of
IoT
devices
can
typically
be
achieved
by
efficient
sleeping
modes
of
the
devices
as
well
as
sleeping
modes
of
the
network
to
which
they
are
connected.
In
addition
to
sleeping
modes,
low
energy
consumption
can
be
achieved
by
using
efficient
communication
models
and
short
wireless
transmission
distances.
However,
the
devices
should
still
be
reachable
and
they
should
satisfy
many
other
requirements.
In
many
cases
energy
minimization
is
constrained
by
the
application
requirements
(real-‐time
sensing,
constrained
response
time,
etc.).
Considering
the
on-‐device
perspective,
the
current
energy
and
power
management
(EPM)
methods
are
inadequate.
The
current
EPM
technology
is
very
much
bound
to
a
pure
hardware
view,
while
we
presume
that
IoT
is
driven
by
services
and
controlled
by
software.
Further,
current
EPM
technology
is
geared
towards
managing
energy
and
power
of
sustained
operation,
while
managing
operation
mode
changes
is
important
for
IoT.
Proper
operation
both
functionally
and
non-‐functionally
must
be
ensured.
Considering
the
systems
perspective,
concepts
supporting
layer
structures
and
subsystems
are
needed.
The
overall
goal
is
to
reduce
the
power
consumption
by
taking
a
holistic
view
of
IoT
systems.
In
practice,
it
important
that
the
different
protocol
layers
respect,
and
support,
the
power
saving
features
found
in
other
layers
(e.g.,
the
application
layer
supports
the
medium
access
layer
on
cellular
networks).
Self-* properties
Managing
up
to
billions
of
devices
requires
basic
management
operations
to
be
automated
and
devices
and
networks
self-‐monitored.
Human
intervention
must
be
minimized
to
lower
the
cost
of
operating
the
devices.
Self-‐*
properties
(self-‐
configuring,
self-‐protecting,
self-‐organizing,
self-‐optimizing,
self-‐reliant,
self-‐
healing,
self-‐aware,
self-‐learning,
self-‐adjusting,
etc.)
will
be
required.
This
also
applies
to
the
various
situations
where
the
subsystems
of
the
IoT
or
the
nodes
are
broken,
malfunctioning,
or
just
need
to
set
up
communication
paths
to
other
nodes.
Self-‐healing
systems
can
automatically
identify
failures,
diagnose
and
heal
faults.
More
specifically,
self-‐healing
systems
are
able
to
perceive
if
they
are
not
operating
correctly,
find
out
the
reason,
and
make
adjustments
to
their
operation
without
human
intervention.
Self-‐adaptive
software
is
a
closed-‐loop
system
with
a
feedback
loop
aiming
to
adjust
itself
to
changes
during
its
operation.
Semantic
service
descriptions
are
useful
in
open
pervasive
environments,
as
it
is
unreasonable
to
assume
that
service
developers
will
use
identical
terms
when
describing
services.
Self-‐management
requires
dynamic
and
adaptive
creation
of
sub-‐systems,
rather
than
fixed
hierarchies.
Sub-‐systems
can
be
formed
by
objects
based
on
various
properties,
for
instance
based
on
the
utilized
wireless
technology
(e.g.,
an
operator
reaching
mobile
phones
based
on
cell
tower
IDs),
based
on
spatial/terrestrial
proximity
(e.g.,
building
inspection
reaching
motion
sensors
on
each
floor),
based
on
roles
(e.g.,
all
objects
belonging
to
a
specific
human
that
partake
in
home
automation),
or
based
on
ownership
(e.g.,
discover
objects
currently
owned
by
me
and
in
my
vicinity).
Configuration interfaces and mechanisms
Even though minimization of human intervention is a fundamental enabler of IoT,
interfaces and mechanisms for operators and users are needed. The IoT must be
configured according to the multitude of tasks realized by it. This goes down to
various levels of subsystems and ultimately to the single devices.
Currently, most architectures use centralized elements for managements. The
goal is to reduce (or sometimes completely remove) the need for centralized
elements. The need for centralized elements is reduces by moving intelligence
from the centralized elements to sensors and actuators (i.e., to edge devices).
Another option is to distribute the management to the Cloud and use cloud-‐
based mass-‐device management. Independent of the actual mechanisms, the
systems must ultimately be controlled by the operators and users.
For the configuring of IoT, we need effective management interfaces helping to
cope with complexity. In addition to hardware, there will be software that also
needs to be configured. As IoT is inherently heterogeneous, a high level of
abstraction and flexibility is needed. Also, we need interfaces for configuring
both single nodes and collections of nodes.
In many current systems, the approach is a procedural one, where the system is
manually configured down to the smallest detail. In contrast, a declarative
approach to configuration is needed in IoT. In such an approach, the operator
expresses the configuration in a high-‐level declarative language. Then, the
network processes this description and configures itself accordingly, deciding on
low-‐level details using its self-‐management capabilities. The declarative
approach to configuration will also facilitate dealing with legacy and the
expected long lifecycle of IoT systems.
In addition, security issues should be part of the configuration solution. There is
a need for interfaces for both private users operating a home network as well as
for operators of networks with billions of nodes. The security and access rights
to these management interfaces must be built from the beginning. It should be
possible to delegate configuration tasks securely.
Identification and discovery
IoT will be a dynamic and evolving system. Discovery and search mechanisms
will be needed for small devices, their resources, servers, services, etc. The
search technologies will be used both by humans but also by the things
themselves. The search will need to be performed locally in smart environments
and globally over the Internet, e.g. to find URI of a temperature sensor serving a
certain room. The things will need to discover each other to form collaborative
groups. They should be able to negotiate about common goals. Thus, the
discovery technologies should support discovery based on capabilities, location,
context, etc.
Current Smart Homes and regular homes have devices that discover each other
using uPnP, Zeroconf, Bonjour, etc. After discovery, the protocol that they use for
communication may be proprietary or based on web-‐services. Full-‐blown web
services are too heavy for resource-‐constrained small devices, but there are
many options available. The development is towards abstraction, intermediaries,
and declarative models.
Network topologies, technologies and spatial coverage would significantly affect
how service discovery can be performed (active broadcast vs. passive lookup).
Discovery of objects and services, both static properties (i.e., capabilities,
location, etc.) and dynamic properties (i.e., state, intent, etc.) need to be
efficiently realized. Services to be discovered may not reside on just one object,
but may be a composite service based on aggregated or fragmented data from
several smaller objects. Automated discovery is important to network
management and interaction, considering various degrees of object autonomy
(movement as well as additions and removals).
Challenges in discovering things and resources create a need for efficient search
and discovery technologies that discover data and things from the edges of IoT.
Thus, technologies like a distributed search engine for things will be needed. The
research challenge is to find out what kind of search and discovery mechanisms
are needed for the trillions of devices on the edge of the network.
Theme 3: Services and applications development
This research theme focuses on solutions enabling and facilitating service and
application development in IoT.
The success of the IoT and the feasibility of many business models will depend
heavily on architectures that utilize horizontal service components that are
generic across different vertical industries. High efficiency can only be reached if
multiple vertical applications can share common infrastructures and resources.
The services and application development support can be provided in a variety
of ways: by IoT infrastructure elements, by stand-‐alone platforms, or by
programming libraries and Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).
Regardless of the placement, the goals are to help with building a coherent
vertical application out of a large collection of software modules and horizontal
components, provide generic interfaces that are attractive to application
developers, to meet the needs of diverse vertical applications, and to abstract
away the specifics of heterogeneous things, resources, and networks.
The focus areas include integration with the Web, service enablement platforms
and APIs, data processing infrastructure, and interoperability.
Integration with Web
Instead of using the Internet as just a transport infrastructure, IoT has to make
things an integral part of the Internet’s dominant information-‐level
infrastructure, i.e. the Web. The data, events, and functionalities of things should
be exposed to Web software to make the IoT accessible through a huge number
of existing Web development tools and to easily combine things with services
existing in the Web.
On the protocol level, mapping mechanisms between intra-‐domain protocols (e.g.
CoAP) and the dominant inter-‐domain protocol, i.e. HTTP, has to be studied from
both the functionality and performance perspective. According to the concept of
Web of Things, IoT devices will offer their functionality, directly or through
gateways (in the latter case, connection between things and gateways does not
have to be based on Web technologies), as Web services, with REST
(Representational State Transfer) interfaces appearing as most natural solutions.
The things will be queried (through HTTP Get) or controlled (through HTTP Post
and Put) using standard Web tools. For instance the CoRE working group of the
IETF is currently looking into developing a RESTful protocol for constrained
networks of things. There is also the need to study the mapping between RESTful
protocols for constrained things and protocols used in the Web. Also the trade-‐
off between developing new customized solutions for constrained environments
and utilizing existing standards directly in the constrained networks needs to be
studied.
For data describing things, there are different Web-‐friendly formats available:
JSON, XML, or RDF. Of these, RDF (Resource Description Framework) is the most
powerful one as it provides possibilities to merge data from different sources, it
is extensible with new vocabularies, and it is easy to represent relations between
objects. Also the Linked Data initiative provides conventions for representing
links between RDF data provided by different parties.
Service Enablement Platforms and APIs
IoT requires software platforms that can act as enablers for various applications
and services across the vertical areas. They need to be able to abstract away the
details of underlying heterogeneous hardware, sensor networking technologies,
and data formats. A further challenge is to allow software from different
environments to be combined to function as a composite system. Such
middleware platforms (or service enablement architectures, service delivery
platforms, or IoT service capabilities, as they are also known) will be a key
success factor for the IoT, especially in making it attractive to end users and
enterprises. The data from various applications and things will go through the
middleware layer, which can be used, among other things, by specific business-‐
processing engines. Operators, systems integrators, and equipment vendors have
expressed strong interest in standardized end-‐to-‐end IoT service platforms.
IoT service platforms provide a common interface to the vertical IoT applications
towards the IoT network domain. As an example, a smart metering application
(and any other vertical application) can utilize the common interface provided
by the IoT service middleware to access the resources hosted by a smart meter
in the IoT device domain through the IoT network domain. The service platforms
will also provide additional support services such as high-‐level actuation, control
loops, data processing, event processing, scheduling, resource directories, etc.
Platforms and APIs solutions will have to support the developers with respect to
a variety of issues, including scalability, connectivity, heterogeneity,
interoperability of data and protocols, security and privacy, and deployment.
They will have to provide answers to a set of questions including:
• How do we make the applications scale transparently with growing
number of things?
• How do we make a lack of continuous connectivity transparent to
programmer?
• How do we partition and deploy the application into the IoT?
• How do we support the application developer to ensure security and
privacy?
In particular, resource-‐aware application development support is needed. The
current development tools for web applications are not fit for the purpose.
Data processing infrastructure
IoT is essentially about real-‐world data supply and demand, and one of the key
goals is to ensure that relevant data is delivered in an efficient and timely
manner while meeting various requirements. Therefore, one of the specific and
central areas in which service enablement platforms should support application
developers is data processing.
One specific problem is complex event detection. The world of things is
characterized by a flood of independent, concurrent events. Any applications
interacting with this world or existing inside the world, needs to be able to detect
the events relevant to its functions. The interesting events are seldom individual
state changes of single things, but rather complex patterns consisting of context
information and possibly multiple closely related changes. There is thus a need
to detect complex events, such as a simple event taking place in a complex
situation, the absence of a predicted event (non-‐event), aggregate events with
count limits or thresholds, events having location relations or exhibiting complex
temporal patterns, and so on. In the IoT context, a scalable event detection
solution cannot be centralized but must be distributed to smart things, gateways,
and other intermediaries in the network. To provide timely notifications of
events, the event detection needs to be carried out in an incremental fashion.
Data processing in the Cloud can also be part of events recognition support. For
example: a coffee mug moved and now stopped, a neighboring table's
microphone recorded a noise like placing a mug at the table, so if both events are
posted to the cloud, a rule engine can conclude that mug X was placed on the
table.
Another problem is distributed processing of IoT data in the Cloud. Different
kinds of data-‐processing algorithms can be applied to things’ events and data,
and the infrastructure can facilitate appropriate algorithms discovery and data
adaptation. Another challenge is efficient integration of relatively static data
found on the Web with highly dynamic data coming from IoT devices. One more
challenge is posed by connecting events from the IoT world with the events from
the digital world, for example in social networks.
Interoperability
The
IoT
will
require
interoperability
in
multiple
layers.
On
the
hardware
side,
such
problems
have
to
be
addressed
as
handling
a
capability
mismatch
between
traditional
Internet
hosts
and
small
devices,
as
well
as
handling
widely
differing
communication
and
processing
capabilities
in
different
devices.
In
the
interface
between
the
device
and
network
domains,
IoT
gateways
will
provide
a
common
interface
towards
many
heterogeneous
devices
(e.g.,
sensors
and
actuators,
RFIDs)
and
networks
(e.g.,
different
Wireless
Sensor
Network
technologies).
Some
IoT
devices,
e.g.
home
electronic
appliances,
will,
however,
be
connected
directly
to
the
Internet
without
such
middle-‐boxes.
Supporting
both
scenarios
uniformly
is
another
important
interoperability
problem.
For
true
interoperability
we
need
semantic
interoperability,
the
ability
of
the
devices
to
unambiguously
convey
the
meaning
of
data
they
communicate.
The
semantic
approach
to
interoperability
supports
distribution
of
data
and
functionality
in
a
similar
manner
to
the
Web
of
Data
–
also
known
as
Semantic
Web
and
Linked
Data.
The
goal
is
rather
loosely-‐coupled
interoperability
than
any
form
of
tighter
integration
such
as
standardization.
There
is
a
trade-‐off,
however,
between
shared
information
models
and
the
need
for
translation
at
each
player’s
end
systems
that
needs
to
be
investigated.
Another
important
aspect
of
interoperability
is
canonization
of
the
APIs
related
to
IoT.
Common
APIs
should
be
unified
to
facilitate
IoT
application
development
and
deployment.
Also,
offloading
of
sensory
data
for
Cloud
processing
requires
harmonized
APIs
instead
of
the
vendor-‐specific
ones
offered
today.
Theme 4: Human interaction
This research theme focuses on end-‐user aspects. IoT enables tangible and
ubiquitous interaction between people, objects, locations and services. The focus
is transferring from graphical user interfaces to direct interaction with the real
physical environment and its everyday objects. This kind of interaction has a
significant potential in enabling easy-‐to-‐use services that intertwine into our
everyday life. To fully exploit this potential, we need to study the implications of
IoT for user activities. Understanding user needs and behavior and the factors
affecting user experience is a prerequisite for successful business as well.
We have identified two focus areas for advancing fluent human interaction with
IoT. The first focus area, Interaction tools for IoT, concentrates on studying and
developing such ways to interact with IoT services that are accepted by users
and provide pleasant user experiences. The second focus area, End-‐user
adaptation, studies solutions for harnessing end-‐users to create and adapt IoT
applications.
Interaction tools for IoT
When users start to interact with services through handling everyday objects,
user interfaces are no longer designed for a display, a mouse and keyboard, but
directly to the environment – for different interaction tools embedded in the
environment. This kind of interaction has potential to fulfill Weiser's vision of
calm computing (Weiser 1999): computers disappear in the background and
support us in our everyday activities without demanding too much focus or
disrupting our activities. However, designing such interaction is a challenging
task, as the user interface is not in a clearly constrained region of the
environment (i.e. on a display) any more, and user actions for interacting with
services change as well. Furthermore, components of the user interface are no
longer used only as user interface but they are also part of the everyday
environment and can also have other functionalities.
This new interaction approach raises many research questions. Research is
needed on the basic interaction: How to communicate clearly what
functionalities the objects provide and how to utilize those functions? What
actions are easy to perform and associate to the corresponding commands?
What feedback is easy to understand and associate to the intended message?
Generally, IoT requires considering the affordances in the environment. We need
to consider human literacy of IoT; people need to be supported in learning little
by little to "read" IoT cues in the environment, and in learning to understand
how to utilize the provided affordances. Research is needed on the general
interaction conventions that users can use in several application domains. The
requirements, which this new type of interaction imposes on the IoT
infrastructure, need to be studied as well. Finally, long-‐term user experience,
technology acceptance, and adoption are important topics when aiming for
commercial success.
End-user adaptation
IoT
ecosystems
cannot
be
designed
wholly
at
once,
but
they
have
to
support
service
creation,
configuration,
and
adaptation
by
their
users
and
during
use.
An
object
can
be
used
by
many
services
and
when
users
are
given
the
tools,
they
can
design
services
using
innovative
sets
of
objects.
Even
then,
configuring
services
a
priori
is
too
constraining
and
adapting
services
during
usage
is
hence
needed.
Some
configuration
and
adaptation
can
be
done
based
on
the
situation
automatically
by
the
system
as
well.
In
IoT
service
creation
and
adaptation,
end-‐
user
participation
and
good
interaction
tools
are
the
keys
to
services
matching
the
real
needs
and
to
exploiting
the
potential
of
IoT
fully.
The
current
tools,
such
as
web
interfaces
or
separate
computer
applications,
are
usually
conventional
graphical
applications,
separate
from
the
actual
environment,
and
somewhat
clumsy
to
use.
Research
is
needed
to
develop
more
natural
ways,
better
interaction
tools,
to
configure
and
adapt
the
system
while
it
is
in
use.
Also
the
balance
between
interaction
and
autonomous
situational
adaptation
needs
to
be
considered.
More
specific
questions
(as
in
the
first
focus
area)
are
related
to
user
experience,
acceptance,
adoption,
and
IoT
infrastructure.
Theme 5: IoT ecosystem
This research theme focuses on the ecosystem and business model creation of
IoT. There is a clearly indicated business potential in the area of IoT. The
challenge of enhancing an IoT ecosystem depends on numerous vertical
businesses. The development of a vertical business area will create economy of
scale and critical mass on the markets, allow consumer choice of providers, and
lead to a virtual cycle of adoption in the IoT ecosystem. Research has already
been conducted in business models and ecosystems in the area of IoT (e.g. in
Banniza et al. 2010, Nashira et. al 2010).
The success of IoT depends on the right technology, business models, and
acceptability to users. This justifies techno-‐economic and human centric studies
of adoption, value networks and ecosystems creation. IoT is about a large
number of ever smaller and more specialized things, i.e. devices and sensors
connected (often wirelessly) to each other and to the Internet. These things
expand existing Internet applications and services and enable new ones. This
new functionality creates and requires new roles and technical components and
enables the configuration of new business models in ecosystems. IoT increases
the complexity of communications and encourages designers to prepare for
increasingly adaptive technical solutions. Successful IoT services provide clear
value to users and create meaningful business for the actors in the ecosystem.
User adoption of the first services will ease the adoption path for other services
as user “literacy” of IoT services improves, i.e. users learn to know where to look
for these services and what to expect from them.
Talvitie (2011) defines that a business ecosystem “is a collection of business and
companies collaborating or competing by utilizing a common shared set of
assets”. The central elements of an IoT ecosystem are an ecosystem concept, an
ecosystem core and business concept. In other words, platforms, technologies,
processes, and standards form the ecosystem core, while members of an
ecosystem utilize business models and value networks in their businesses.
Members of the ecosystem are companies and public institutions, and
individuals. There are several benefits for companies to join business ecosystems.
(Talvitie 2011)
• Market creation
• Market expansion
• Market access
• Access to complementary competences and business models
More comprehensive description of digital business ecosystems can be found e.g.
in Nachira et al. (2010). Despite the wide use of the term business model, no
widely accepted definition has emerged (e.g. in Magretta 2002; Osterwalder et al.
2005, Leminen et al. 2006). Basically a business model defines how the
organization operates in the market and the basis of its value creation.
Osterwalder et al. (2005) depicts the evolution of the business model concept
and suggest that business model studies are in the path of applying these models
in practice. In their latest study, Westerlund et al. (2011) stress that
management issues of business models are especially important, aiming for
more robust and profitable business models.
The platforms are the basis of the leading global businesses. To simplify this,
there are one-‐sided platforms and two-‐sided platforms, in which the
competitions take place, i.e. how to substitute and charge parties on different
sides of the platforms. (Rochet and Tirole 2003). It is possible to reduce the
complexity and to increase the flexibility of a system with modules (Schilling and
Steensma 2000). A complex product or service from smaller subsystems can he
designed and built independently. Emerging research applies modularity
principles in the service context. Combining the approaches of business models
and modularity will lead to useful insights into the IoT ecosystem.
Large commercial players drive the development of the IoT. However, user-‐
centered or even user-‐driven approaches, which are open for innovation
ecosystems, should be combined when creating business models and ecosystems
for IoT. This means that users share their own expertise and knowhow and
become producing actors in the emerging ecosystem. (Kortuem and Kawsar
2010)
The IoT ecosystems and business model analysis can be divided into two
research themes: (1) ecosystem, and (2) business models. Theme (1) supports
the horizontal or generic technical capabilities by describing industry structure
and interactions between industries in IoT. Theme (2), the parallel business
model research avenue is based on case studies in application areas, which
supports the development of the chosen application areas and testing the generic
component on it.
IoT ecosystem: research questions
• What is an IoT ecosystem, and who are the relevant players of it, and
what are the roles of the players in the IoT ecosystems?
• How do we enhance the development of a broader IoT ecosystem?
• How do we identify, describe and evaluate the alternative technical
architectures and corresponding value networks of the IoT services?
• How do we describe and quantify the forces affecting the adoption of new
IoT applications, services and protocols?
• How do we measure and analyze the initial usage of early IoT services in
order to provide feedback to designers?
IoT business models: research questions
• What are business models for an IoT ecosystem?
• How do we design business models for an IoT ecosystem?
• What are the roles of platforms in an IoT ecosystem?
• How will an IoT ecosystem emerge?
• How do we depict modularity of business models in an IoT ecosystem?
IoT ecosystem and business models: research methods
• IoT value network configurations can be used as one method and notation
for a combined analysis of technical and market architectures.
• IoT service adoption can be studied using system dynamics, both
qualitatively and quantitatively.
• IoT service usage can be analyzed via network traffic measurements, for
example, and server-‐based measurements.
• IoT business model development can be facilitated using the existing
business model frameworks
Creation of IoT ecosystems and business models
The results of ecosystem and business model research can support the
bootstrapping of new IoT services. The emerging ecosystem creation
instruments of Tivit are assumed to be the main vehicles of an IoT ecosystem
creation. The IoT research program should include projects where the core
business partners of the forthcoming IoT ecosystem, are simultaneously
developed from the perspective of business, technology, and users, thus
increasing the trust necessary for creating a collaborative IoT ecosystem.
9. Integrating Applications and Verticals
The CERPT-‐IoT (Sundmaeker et al., 2010) classifies the application domains of
the IoT into three classes: Industrial, Environment and Society domains. The
table below describes the application domains and gives indicative examples.
Domain Description Indicative examples
Industry Activities involving financial Activities regarding to
or commercial transactions development and inclusion of
between companies, societies, cities, and people.
organizations and other
entities.
Environment Activities regarding the Agriculture & breeding,
protection, monitoring and recycling, environmental
development of all natural management services, energy
resources. management etc.
Society Activities regarding to Governmental services toward
development and inclusion of citizens and other society
societies, cities, and people. structures.
In practice, the IoT applications seldom belong to single application domains but
rather span many at the same time. An alternative classification for IoT
applications could be “intranet of things” (ioT) – a network of things belonging
to a single entity or close set of users versus “Internet of Things” (IoT) where the
Things or at least the data produced by them is shared by multiple entities. Even
this classification is not very clear, since there exist many applications where
some of the data related to the things can be publicly available while the rest is
available only for specific user groups. In what follows, we briefly describe some
of the application domains in more detail.
Automation
Systems
Industrial
automation
applications
include
various
monitoring
and
control
applications
that
are
typically
related
to
single
industrial
plant
or
wider
logistic
demand-‐delivery
chains.
The
things
in
this
application
area
refer
to
various
sensors,
actuators
and
other
machinery.
In
manufacturing
plants
and
logistics
the
things
could
also
refer
to
various
digitally
identifiable
components
or
items
related
to
the
product
or
the
end
product
itself.
There
are
several
field-‐specific
standards
(ISO,
ISA,
IEC,
IEEE)
and
de
facto
standards
that
specify
the
communication
requirements
in
terms
of
latency
and
reliability,
data
formats,
and
security
requirements.
A
general
presentation
on
wireless
networked
automation
systems
can
be
found
e.g.
in
(Elmusrati
et
al.
2007)
and
(Björkbom
et
al.
2010).
Maintenance
Systems
In
order
to
maximize
the
lifetime
of
the
equipment
and
to
minimize
the
maintenance
breaks,
it
is
necessary
to
have
access
to
detailed
sensor
information
describing
the
current
state
of
the
equipment.
The
same
sensor
data
may
also
be
utilized
by
automation
systems.
One
practical
example
of
a
monitoring
system
is
the
structural
health
monitoring
system
for
bridges
and
cranes
being
developed
in
the
Aalto
MIDE
program
project
ISMO
http://mide.aalto.fi/ISMO).
Environmental Monitoring Systems
A good example of an IoT environmental monitoring system is the Helsinki
Testbed (http://testbed.fmi.fi/). It consists of a dense grid of weather stations
that are connected to the Internet through a cellular radio network. The testbed
demonstrates integration of modern technologies with complete weather
observation systems, end-‐user product development and data distribution for
the public and research community.
Environmental monitoring systems could be combined with warning systems for
safety applications.
Smart
Grids
A
smart
grid
consists
of
distributed
and
diverse
energy
production
systems,
transmission
systems
and
energy
consumers.
IoT
enables
efficient
coordination
and
control
of
all
these
elements.
It
is
noteworthy
that
the
different
stakeholders
have
very
different
access
requirements
to
the
things
of
the
smart
grid.
The
transmission
system
is
concerned
with
the
real-‐time
control
and
stabilization
of
the
grid.
Naturally
the
communication,
security
and
usability
requirements
of
the
various
stakeholders
in
a
smart
grid
are
very
different.
They
still
need
to
share
some
of
the
data
with
each
other
in
order
to
optimize
their
behavior.
Agricultural
Systems
Agricultural
IoT
applications
include
environmental
monitoring
as
well
as
automation
aspects.
One
example
is
greenhouse
automation
where
the
things
are
the
plants
and
humidity,
Co2
and
temperature
sensors
as
well
as
control
systems
for
ventilation
and
heating.
Another
example
is
monitoring
the
behavior
of
livestock
and
controlling
their
feeding.
Security
Systems
IoT
enables
many
safety
and
security-‐related
applications.
The
things
can
be
various
sensors,
cameras
and
microphones
that
provide
good
situation
awareness
in
case
of
emergency.
The
information
needs
to
be
shared
among
various
governmental
organizations
and
possibly
with
private
security
companies.
Situation-‐awareness
solutions
for
police
and
military
applications
have
been
developed
e.g.
in
the
TEKES
Security
program
project
WISM
(http://teg.uwasa.fi/projects/wism).
Wellbeing
Solutions
Wellbeing
is
a
large
application
domain.
The
simplest
case
is
sporting
applications
that
allow
the
sportsman
to
share
sensor
information
such
as
time,
speed,
and
heart
rate
with
some
Internet
community.
More
complex
applications
are
the
assisted-‐living
and
homecare
applications
where
multiple
sensors
and
possibly
medical
devices
are
needed
to
support
the
patient’s
everyday
life
at
home.
For
elderly
and
disabled
this
can
provide
increased
quality
of
life
for
persons
who
might
otherwise
require
caregivers
or
institutional
care.
Information
needs
to
be
shared
with
various
healthcare
organizations
and
possibly
also
with
relatives
or
security
companies.
Examples
of
such
applications
are
sensors
utilized
to
track
persons
suffering
of
dementia.
Many
commercial
applications
exist
for
these
applications
and
they
mainly
rely
on
DSL
or
cellular
access
for
connecting
the
things
to
the
various
intranets.
This
also
includes
health-‐related
applications
such
as
electronic
health
records,
health
information
systems,
e.g.,
for
patient
data
management.
Automotive, Transport and Logistics Applications
This is a wide area of applications dealing with transport of cargo and
individuals. It spans several industries including automotive and logistics.
Particular applications include efficient traffic management, safety and driver
assistance, sustainable driving, monitoring of a fleet of vehicles (airplanes, taxis,
buses, trucks), car infotainment, and similar applications.
Building and Home Automation
A building or home automation system integrates electrical devices in a building
or a house with each other. The techniques employed in home automation
include those in building automation as well as the control of domestic activities,
such as home entertainment systems, houseplant and yard watering, pet feeding,
changing the ambiance scenes for different events (such as dinners or parties),
and the use of domestic robots. Devices may be connected through a computer
network to allow control by a personal computer, and may allow remote access
from the Internet.
SRA Focus and Approach
In IoT SRA, vertical applications are considered from two different points of
view: analysis of existing vertical applications to develop horizontal service
enablement architecture and investigation of potential novel applications
enabled by this architecture:
• Even though there is overwhelming diversity in IoT applications, the
various applications are still likely to have some significant
commonalities. Common functionality could include areas such as
security, data storage, data processing, event processing, and resource
directories. What exactly is common in existing vertical applications from
different industries and how to manage the common part needs further
investigation. For this investigation, a set of vertical application areas are
selected as use scenarios/use cases that are studied in detail to
understand the commonalities in different vertical applications and to
identify horizontal components for the architecture. The selected
application areas include Smart Grid, eHealth and Intelligent Transport
Systems.
• In addition, the SRA will also look into new services and applications
enabled by IoT. These new services and applications will be supported by
underlying horizontal components. Novel services and applications
should be investigated in collaboration with multiple partners in the
value chain including equipment vendors, providers of software, system
integrators, and players in selected vertical industry segments.
Vertical applications also play a key role in demonstrators. It is expected that
some application areas will be selected to demonstrate the solution in horizontal
architecture. Finally, vertical applications can also provide a connection to other
SHOK thus potentially enabling fruitful cross-‐SHOK co-‐operation.
10.
References
Banniza
TR,
Biraghi
AM,
Correia
LM,
Goncalves
J,
Kind
M,
Monath
T,
Salo
J,
Sebastiao
D,
and
Wuenstal
K
(2010)
Project-‐wide
Evaluation
of
Business
Use
Cases.
Project
report.
FP7-‐ICT-‐2007-‐1-‐216041-‐4WARD/D1.2.
Björkbom
M,
Eriksson
LM,
Silvo
J.
(2010)"Technologies
and
methodologies
enabling
reliable
real-‐time
wireless
automation",
book
chapter
in
"New
Trends
in
Technologies",
Sciyo,
Nov.
2010.
Brock
DL
(2001)
MIT
Auto-‐ID
Center,
MIT-‐AUTOID-‐WH-‐002,
"The
Electronic
Product
Code",
January
2001.
Conner,
Margery
(2010)
Sensors
empower
the
‘Internet
of
Things’”,
EDN
Magazine,
May
2010,
online:
http://www.edn.com/article/509123-‐
Sensors_empower_the_Internet_of_Things_.php
DASH7
(2009)
U.S.
Department
of
Defense
Places
First
Orders
for
DASH7
Wireless
Sensor
Products.
Oct.
21,
2009,
online:
http://www.dash7.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99%3
Aus-‐department-‐of-‐defense-‐places-‐first-‐orders-‐for-‐dash7tm-‐wireless-‐sensor-‐
products-‐&catid=14%3Apress-‐releases&Itemid=21.
EC
(2007)
Radio
Frequency
Identification
(RFID)
in
Europe:
Steps
towards
a
policy
framework,
Communication
96
final,
Brussels,
15.3.2007,
online:
http://eur-‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/
com2007_0096en01.pdf
Elmusrati
M,
Eriksson
L,
Gribanova
K,
Pohjola
M,
Jäntti
R,
Koivo
H,
Johansson
M,
Zander
J
(2007)
"Wireless
Automation:
Opportunities
and
Challenges,"
In
Proc.
Automaatio
Seminaaripäivät
2007,
March
27-‐28,
2007,
Helsinki,
Finland.
FIA
(2011)
Future
Internet
Assembly
Research
Roadmap,
version
1.0
FinNode-‐DuO
(2011)
i-‐Japan,
toward
Digital
Inclusion
&
Digital
Innovation:
Outlook
of
new
ICT
policies
&
projects
in
Japan,
Tekes
Ubicom
Programme
Report,
January,
1,
2011.
IERC
(2010)
Vision
and
Challenges
for
Realising
the
Internet
of
Things.
IERC
cluster
book.
March
2010.
IoT-‐A
(2010)
FP7
IP
Internet
of
the
Things
Architecture,
online:
http://www.iot-‐a.eu/
ITU
(2005)
ITU
Internet
Reports
2005:
The
Internet
of
Things,
Executive
Summary,
online:
http://www.itu.int/pub/S-‐POL-‐IR.IT-‐2005/e
ITU
(2011)
TD
27:
Candidate
definitions
for
IoT.
Kortuem
G,
and
Kawsar
F
(2010)
Market-‐based
user
innovation
in
the
Internet
of
Things.
Internet
of
Things
(IOT),
IEEE
Xplore
Digital
Library.
Leminen
S,
Anttila
M,
Tinnilä
M,
and
Miikkulainen
K
(2006)
Strategic
Pricing
in
Business
Relationships,
-‐
Do
Not
Miss
the
Opportunity
to
Create
Value
for
the
Customers.
The
Proceedings
of
the
annual
ANZMAC
conference,
Brisbane
,
December
2006,
online:
http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2006/program.html.
Magretta
J
(2002)
Why
Business
Models
Matter.
Harvard
Business
Review,
Vol.80,
No.5,
Pp.
86-‐92.
Nashira
F,
Nicolai
A,
Dini
P,
Louarn
ML,
and
Leon
LR
(2010).
Digital
Business
Ecosystem.
214
p.
online:
http://www.digital-‐ecosystems.org/book/de-‐
book2007.html
NIC
(2008)
Disruptive
Civil
Technologies
–
Six
Technologies
with
Potential
Impacts
on
U.S.
Interests
out
to
2025.
NIC
conference
report,
April
2008.
Osterwalder
A,
Pigneur
Y
and
Tucci
CL
(2005)
Clarifying
business
models:
origins,
present
and
future
of
the
concept.
Communications
for
AIS,
Vol.
16,
article
1.
Rochet
C,
and
Tirole
J
(2003)
Platform
competition
in
two-‐sided
markets.
Journal
of
the
European
Economic
Association.
Schilling
MA,
and
Steensma
HK
(2001)
The
use
of
modular
organizational
forms:
An
industry-‐level
analysis.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
44
(6):
1149-‐1168.
Sundmaeker
H,
Guillemin
P,
Friess
P,
Woelffle
S
(eds.)
(2010)
Vision
and
Challenges
for
Realizing
the
Internet
of
Things,
European
Commission,
2010.
Talvitie
J
(
2011)
Business
ecosystem
creation,
supporting
collaborative
business
concept
development.
Tivit
Business
Forum,
12
April
2011.
Tekes
(2011)
Ubiquitous
City
in
Korea:
Services
and
Enabling
Technologies.
Tekes
Ubicom
Programme
Report,
January,
1,
2011.
Tmcnet
(2001)
Haier
Unveiled
IOT
Refrigerator,
January
27,
2010,
online:
http://financial.tmcnet.com//news/2010/01/27/4592428.htm
Weiser
M
(1991)The
computer
for
the
21st
century.
Scientific
American,
September,
94-‐104.
Westerlund
M,
Rajala
R,
and
Leminen
S
(2011)
Insights
into
the
dynamics
of
business
models
in
the
media
industry.
ISBN
978-‐951-‐799-‐228-‐2
Laurea
Publications.
WWRF
(2009)
Visions
and
research
directions
for
the
wireless
world.
WWRF
Outlook,
July
2009,
no.
4.
online:
http://www.wireless-‐world-‐
research.org/fileadmin/sites/default/files/publications/Outlook/Outlook4.pdf
You might also like
- Ping Us On Business@irctc - Co.in (Mailto:business@irctc - Co.in) To Advertise With IRCTCNo ratings yetPing Us On Business@irctc - Co.in (Mailto:business@irctc - Co.in) To Advertise With IRCTC3 pages
- Unveiling The Frontiers: Exploring Emerging Fields in Computer Science and Artificial IntelligenceNo ratings yetUnveiling The Frontiers: Exploring Emerging Fields in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence4 pages
- Dokumen - Pub - Applied Machine Learning For Smart Data Analysis 9780429440953 0429440952 97811383397980% (1)Dokumen - Pub - Applied Machine Learning For Smart Data Analysis 9780429440953 0429440952 9781138339798245 pages
- Blog Smarter, Not Harder: SEO, Blogging, and AI Strategies to Skyrocket Your TrafficFrom EverandBlog Smarter, Not Harder: SEO, Blogging, and AI Strategies to Skyrocket Your TrafficNo ratings yet
- Selvi G. IoT and Machine Learning for Smart Applications 2025No ratings yetSelvi G. IoT and Machine Learning for Smart Applications 2025211 pages
- Python and Machine Learning: A Practical Training Report OnNo ratings yetPython and Machine Learning: A Practical Training Report On65 pages
- Applied Deep Learning Book (Tools, Techniques & Implementation)No ratings yetApplied Deep Learning Book (Tools, Techniques & Implementation)355 pages
- Understanding Machine Learning - A Gateway To Intelligent SystemsNo ratings yetUnderstanding Machine Learning - A Gateway To Intelligent Systems2 pages
- BeyondtheAlgorithm OmarSantos, PetarRadanliev100% (1)BeyondtheAlgorithm OmarSantos, PetarRadanliev337 pages
- Machine Learning and Its Applications Reaction Paper - SionilloNo ratings yetMachine Learning and Its Applications Reaction Paper - Sionillo1 page
- Industrial Applications of Machine Learning Pedro Larrañaga - The full ebook version is just one click away100% (3)Industrial Applications of Machine Learning Pedro Larrañaga - The full ebook version is just one click away65 pages
- CAN Bus for Beginners: A Practical Guide to Automotive NetworkingFrom EverandCAN Bus for Beginners: A Practical Guide to Automotive NetworkingNo ratings yet
- Lec 1-2 Notes Introduction To Machine LearningNo ratings yetLec 1-2 Notes Introduction To Machine Learning7 pages
- ExtractedpagesfromJSE-Book_978-81-973428-9-9AIMLNo ratings yetExtractedpagesfromJSE-Book_978-81-973428-9-9AIML31 pages
- Indian Institute of Management Bangalore: PGP 4 Term 2019-20No ratings yetIndian Institute of Management Bangalore: PGP 4 Term 2019-206 pages
- Industrial Applications of Machine Learning Pedro Larrañaga 2024 scribd download100% (2)Industrial Applications of Machine Learning Pedro Larrañaga 2024 scribd download65 pages
- Machine Learning &deep Learning in Python &RNo ratings yetMachine Learning &deep Learning in Python &R48 pages
- Government Polytechnic College: Machine LearningNo ratings yetGovernment Polytechnic College: Machine Learning22 pages
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) by CHATGPTNo ratings yetArtificial Intelligence (AI) by CHATGPT39 pages
- Chromateq: Professional Lighting ControlNo ratings yetChromateq: Professional Lighting Control4 pages
- 2V0-21.20 Exam - Free Actual Q&As, Page 9 ExamTopicsNo ratings yet2V0-21.20 Exam - Free Actual Q&As, Page 9 ExamTopics2 pages
- HSUPA Downlink Physical Channel Power Control: BenefitsNo ratings yetHSUPA Downlink Physical Channel Power Control: Benefits8 pages
- Wireless Networks - CS718 Power Point Slides Lecture 14No ratings yetWireless Networks - CS718 Power Point Slides Lecture 1427 pages
- McAfee KnowledgeBase - Ports Needed by ePO 4.0 and 4No ratings yetMcAfee KnowledgeBase - Ports Needed by ePO 4.0 and 44 pages
- Effect of Social Media Network On Performance of Computer Accessories Business in IlorinNo ratings yetEffect of Social Media Network On Performance of Computer Accessories Business in Ilorin39 pages
- IT Security - 2 Exercise 4 (Access Controls, Firewalls)No ratings yetIT Security - 2 Exercise 4 (Access Controls, Firewalls)7 pages
- Introduction To The Tmslf2407 DSP Controller: By: Dr. Dheeraj Joshi Associate ProfessorNo ratings yetIntroduction To The Tmslf2407 DSP Controller: By: Dr. Dheeraj Joshi Associate Professor17 pages
- HUAWEI WiFi Mesh 7 Quick Start Guide - (WS8800,02, En-Us)No ratings yetHUAWEI WiFi Mesh 7 Quick Start Guide - (WS8800,02, En-Us)94 pages
- Cloud Architect Masters Program BrochureNo ratings yetCloud Architect Masters Program Brochure26 pages
- Intelligent Distributed Intrusion Detection Systems: A White Paper by Nakul.S & Arvind.GNo ratings yetIntelligent Distributed Intrusion Detection Systems: A White Paper by Nakul.S & Arvind.G10 pages
- SIP5 APN 022 - Time Synchronization Settings - enNo ratings yetSIP5 APN 022 - Time Synchronization Settings - en8 pages
