1. No category

SC78DI07171
D4 Final study report
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
Document control information
Document Title:
Final study report
Project Title:
Benchmark study for Large Scale Pilots in the area of the
Internet of Things
Document
Authors:
Steven Ackx – PwC EU Services
Kristina Dervojeda – PwC EU Services
Jens Devloo – PwC EU Services
Stijn Goedertier – PwC EU Services
Laurent-David Hostyn – PwC EU Services
Elco Rouwmaat – PwC EU Services
Gérard Vanhaver – PwC EU Services
Olivier Verack – PwC EU Services
Ada Ziemyte – PwC EU Services
Project Owner:
Peter Friess – European Commission
Eric Gaudillat – European Commission
Thibaut Kleiner – European Commission
Project
Manager:
Stijn Goedertier – PwC EU Services
Status:
Accepted
Doc version:
v1.02
Date:
03/04/2015
Document approver(s) and reviewer(s):
Name
Role
Action
Date
Pieter Breyne
Quality Assurance
Manager
Review
15/12/2014
Peter Friess
Project Owner
Approve / Review
11/03/2014
Configuration management: document location
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/CITnet/confluence/x/zQeCFQ
Page ii
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
This report was prepared for DG CONNECT by
PwC EU Services
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this report are purely those of the authors and may not, in
any circumstances, be interpreted as stating an official position of the European
Commission.
The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the information
included in this study, nor does it accept any responsibility for any use thereof.
Reference herein to any specific products, specifications, process, or service by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or
imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by the European Commission.
All care has been taken by the author to ensure that s/he has obtained, where
necessary, permission to use any parts of manuscripts including illustrations, maps,
and graphs, on which intellectual property rights already exist from the titular
holder(s) of such rights or from her/his or their legal representative.
Page iii
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report identifies and benchmarks possible use cases for future Large-Scale Pilots
(LSPs) in the domain of the Internet of Things (IoT) to be included in the next Horizon
2020 work programme. The study reports on valuable use cases for potential LSPs,
identifies the key players in the value chain that could team up for deployment and
makes recommendations for an LSP deployment strategy to ensure maximum impact.
Study methodology
In the first phase, the study team identified 500 organisations that are developing or
have already commercialised solutions in the area of the IoT and defined a long list of
19 use cases based on the analysis of use cases in research projects and commercial
solutions. Additionally, an analysis framework was designed consisting of 18
benchmark criteria grouped by 3 dimensions: European value, attractiveness to users
and potential for an LSP.
In the second phase, the identified use cases were shortlisted according to a number
of selection criteria. Subsequently, 28 interviews were conducted with relevant IoT
experts from the industry and consumer organisations. Interviews together with
additional desk research allowed benchmarking and ranking the identified use cases.
In a last phase, the results were presented and discussed with external experts in a
validation workshop, in which 14 experts across different vertical and horizontal
domains – including also standardisation, industry and consumer organisations – were
invited to validate the findings of this study.
Selection and benchmark criteria
The benchmark framework includes 18 criteria, grouped according to 3 dimensions:

European value:
o
o
o

Attractiveness:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Link with European societal challenges;
Industry coverage (suppliers);
Market coverage (consumers);
Technical maturity;
Usability;
Benefits for the users;
Barriers to entry;
Investment risks;
Information security risks;
Openness;
Legal and/or ethical barriers;
LSP Potential:
o
o
o
o
o
Value chain coverage;
Interoperability;
Replication;
Scale;
User engagement;
Page iv
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
o
o
New business models; and
Cross-border potential.
Proposed use cases
Based on the benchmarking results, the following top-5 use cases are proposed for
the Large-Scale Pilots:
1. Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure;
2. Smart agriculture and food traceability;
3. Energy savings at home and in buildings;
4. Smart assisted living and wellbeing; and
5. Worker safety.
Expected benefits
It is expected that the deployment of Large-Scale Pilots in the area of the Internet of
Things will bring among others the following benefits:



The LSPs will build a critical mass for standards and specifications stemming
from standards bodies and industry consortia such as oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS,
IETF, the Open Group, etc. via the implementation of open IoT hardware and
platforms;
The LSPs will allow organisations to work together to validate new ecosystems
and business models and create new market opportunities via direct interaction
with consumers; and
The LSPs will broaden the perspective of organisations to a European context
and market situation.
Accompanying measures
The following accompanying measures are proposed for the Large-Scale Pilots:








Set up an architecture office to ensure a minimum level of cross-LSP
coordination and alignment;
Set up a stakeholder management office to ensure effective dissemination and
engagement activities across LSPs;
Perform continuous monitoring and evaluation at programme level;
Require LSPs to analyse information security risks and build-in sufficient
guarantees for personal data protection;
Require LSPs to foster replicability via training and dissemination activities;
Require LSPs to elaborate on guarantees for sustainability;
Set up a cross-pilot Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy; and
Require LSPs to assess the environmental impact of IoT.
Page v
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
SYNTHESE DE L’ETUDE
Ce rapport identifie, compare et évalue des projets de Pilotes à Grande Echelle (PGEs)
dans le domaine de l’Internet des Objets (IdO) qui pourraient être développés dans le
cadre du programme européen Horizon 2020. La présente étude met non seulement
en avant des projets à fort potentiel mais elle identifie également les acteurs clés de
la chaîne de valeur qui pourraient porter le déploiement de ces pilotes. Enfin, afin de
maximiser l’impact, ce rapport fournit
également des recommandations sur la
stratégie à adopter pour ledit déploiement des pilotes.
Méthodologie de l’étude
La première phase a permis d’identifier 500 organisations européennes actives dans le
domaine de l’IdO, que ce soit au stade de développement ou de la commercialisation
de solutions tout en permettant la construction d’une première liste de 19 cas
d’utilisation. En parallèle, afin d’évaluer ces cas, une méthode de comparaison a été
développée sous la forme de 18 critères couvrant 3 dimensions : le respect des
valeurs européennes, l’appétence du marché et le potentiel pour un déploiement à
grande échelle.
Durant la deuxième phase, la liste préliminaire a pu être réduite à 10 cas d’utilisation
après l’application d’un premier ensemble de critères de sélection. 28 entretiens ont
dès lors été effectués auprès d’experts et d’acteurs des différentes industries
concernées tandis que le travail d’analyse du marché était approfondi. La combinaison
de ces entretiens et du travail de recherche a permis l’obtention d’un classement de
ces 10 cas d’utilisation sur base des critères de comparaison définis.
La dernière phase consistait à partager et à faire valider le travail par un comité
d’experts provenant d’industries variées (au positionnement tant vertical qu’horizontal
dans le domaine de l’IdO) et représentant aussi bien les organisations de
standardisation que les organisations d’entreprises et de consommateurs.
Critères de sélection et de comparaison
La méthode de sélection et de comparaison se base sur 18 critères répartis comme
suit selon les 3 dimensions précitées :

Les valeurs européennes :
o
o
o

Les liens avec les défis sociétaux européens ;
La couverture des industries (point de vue fournisseurs) ;
La couverture du marché (point de vue consommateurs) ;
L’appétence du marché :
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
La maturité technologique ;
La facilité d’utilisation ;
Les bénéfices pour les utilisateurs ;
Les barrières à l’entrée ;
Les risques d’investissement ;
Les risques sur la sécurité de l’information ;
Les technologies ouvertes ;
Les barrières légales et éthiques ;
Page vi
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report

Le potentiel pour un développement à grande échelle :
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
La couverture de la chaine de valeur ;
L’interopérabilité des technologies ;
La reproductibilité du pilote ;
La taille du pilote ;
L’engagement des utilisateurs ;
Les nouveaux business modèles ;
L’aspect international.
Projets de Pilotes à Grande Echelle proposés
Sur base du travail de comparaison, les 5 cas d’utilisation suivants de l’IdO ont pu
être mis en avant pour le développement de Pilotes à Grande Echelle :
1. La mobilité multimodale et les infrastructures routières intelligentes ;
2. L’agriculture intelligente et la traçabilité dans la chaine alimentaire ;
3. Les économies d’énergie dans les habitations et dans les bâtiments ;
4. L’assistance intelligente à domicile et le bien-être ; et
5. La sûreté des travailleurs.
Bénéfices attendus
A terme, le déploiement de Pilotes à Grande Echelle dans le domaine de l’IdO devrait
apporter les bénéfices suivants :



Les PGEs constitueront une masse critique favorable aux standards et
spécifications qui résulteront d’organisations de standardisation et de
consortiums tels que oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS, IETF, the Open Group, etc. ;
Les PGEs permettront aux différents acteurs de travailler ensemble de manière
efficace et valider des nouveaux écosystèmes et business modèles. De
nouvelles opportunités pourront également être créées de par l’interaction
directe avec les consommateurs ; et
Les PGEs permettront aux entreprises et organisations d’élargir leurs
perspectives au niveau européen et d’avoir une plus large couverture du
marché.
Mesures d’accompagnement
Les mesures d’accompagnement suivantes sont préconisées pour les Pilotes à Grande
Echelle :




Mettre en place un bureau de coordination qui assurerait une cohérence entre
les PGEs ;
Mettre en place un bureau de gestion des parties prenantes afin d’assurer une
dissémination effective et un engagement des activités à travers les différents
PGEs ;
Continuellement assurer le suivi et l’évaluation du programme dans son
ensemble ;
Exiger des PGEs qu’ils analysent les risques liés à la sécurité de l’information et
construire des garanties suffisantes pour la protection des données
personnelles ;
Page vii
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report




Exiger des PGEs d’assurer la reproductibilité au travers de formations et par
Exiger des PGEs d’assurer une viabilité et une pérennité ;
Mettre en place une politique de partage de la propriété intellectuelle ; et
Exiger des PGEs d’évaluer l’impact environnemental de leur développement.
Page viii
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
Table of Contents
1
2
3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT) ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2
LARGE-SCALE PILOTS (LSPS)............................................................................................................... 2
1.3
STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.4
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.1
HORIZONTAL SECTOR ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.2
VERTICAL SECTOR .............................................................................................................................. 8
BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................ 10
3.1
DIMENSION 1: EUROPEAN VALUE ................................................................................................... 11
3.2
DIMENSION 2: ATTRACTIVENESS TO USERS AND PROVIDERS........................................................ 12
3.3
DIMENSION 3: LSP POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................ 15
4
SELECTION OF USE CASES ............................................................................................................... 18
5
SCORING USE CASES ...................................................................................................................... 19
6
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 20
6.1
PROPOSED USE CASES ..................................................................................................................... 20
6.2
EXPECTED BENEFITS ........................................................................................................................ 20
6.3
ACCOMPANYING MEASURES........................................................................................................... 21
6.4
FUTURE WORK ................................................................................................................................. 23
ANNEX I.
SELECTING AND SCORING USE CASES .................................................................................. 24
I.1.
MULTI-MODAL MOBILITY AND SMART ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................... 24
I.2.
SMART AGRICULTURE AND FOOD TRACEABILITY............................................................................ 30
I.3.
ENERGY SAVINGS AT HOME AND IN BUILDINGS ............................................................................. 36
I.4.
SMART ASSISTED LIVING AND WELLBEING ..................................................................................... 42
I.5.
WORKER SAFETY .............................................................................................................................. 49
I.6.
SMART LIVING ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................ 54
I.7.
SMART MANUFACTURING: CUSTOMISATION ................................................................................. 58
I.8.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ..................................................................................................... 62
I.9.
BALANCING THE ELECTRICITY GRID ................................................................................................. 67
I.10.
SMART PUBLIC SAFETY .................................................................................................................... 72
I.11.
ENERGY SAVINGS IN PRODUCTION PROCESSES .............................................................................. 76
Page ix
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
I.12.
SMART WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS ..................................................................................... 76
I.13.
AUTOMATED MANUFACTURING ..................................................................................................... 76
I.14.
SMART DESIGN (MAKER MOVEMENT) ............................................................................................ 77
I.15.
SMART FACTORY ............................................................................................................................. 77
I.16.
SMART MANUFACTURING: SUPPLY CHAIN ..................................................................................... 78
I.17.
COMFORT AND SECURITY AT HOME ............................................................................................... 78
I.18.
OPEN PLATFORMS FOR THE AUDIO-VISUAL INDUSTRY .................................................................. 79
I.19.
CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................. 79
ANNEX II.
INTERVIEWS.................................................................................................................... 81
II.1.
SELECTION OF INTERVIEW CANDIDATES ......................................................................................... 81
II.2.
INTERVIEW STRUCTURE................................................................................................................... 81
II.3.
INTERVIEWED ORGANISATIONS ...................................................................................................... 82
ANNEX III.
VALIDATION WOKSHOP .................................................................................................. 84
III.1.
VALIDATION WORKSHOP PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS ........................................................... 84
III.2.
VALIDATION WORKSHOP FEEDBACK ............................................................................................... 85
List of Tables
TABLE 1: HORIZONTAL SECTORS ................................................................................................................................ 6
TABLE 2: TYPES OF SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS .............................................................................................................. 7
TABLE 3: OVERVIEW OF VERTICALLY ORIENTED ORGANISATIONS....................................................................................... 9
TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF BENCHMARK CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 5: SELECTION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................. 11
TABLE 6: ATTRACTIVENESS ..................................................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 7: LSP POTENTIAL ....................................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE 8: LONG LIST OF USE CASES ........................................................................................................................... 18
TABLE 9: SCORING THE SELECTED USE CASES .............................................................................................................. 19
TABLE 10: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................... 81
TABLE 11: INTERVIEWED EXPERTS ............................................................................................................................ 82
TABLE 12: VALIDATION WORKSHOP EXPERTS ............................................................................................................. 84
TABLE 13: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK .......................... 85
TABLE 14: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE CASES ................................. 86
TABLE 15: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE SHORTLISTED USE CASES .............................. 87
TABLE 16: ISSUES RAISED DURING THE VALIDATION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACCOMPANYING MEASURES .......... 90
TABLE 17: GENERAL ISSUES ON THE REPORT .............................................................................................................. 90
Page x
IoT Benchmark Study - Final Report
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: ELEMENTS THAT COMPRISE THE INTERNET OF THINGS ..................................................................................... 1
FIGURE 2: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 3: HORIZONTAL SECTORS .............................................................................................................................. 6
FIGURE 4: SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 5: VERTICAL SECTORS ................................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 6: PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE LARGE-SCALE PILOTS .......................................................................................... 23
Page xi
1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the context of the study, and provides an overview of the
study methodology.
1.1 Internet of Things (IoT)
The Internet of Things (IoT) is defined by ITU (International Telecommunication
Union) and IERC (Internet of Things European Research Cluster) as a dynamic global
network infrastructure with self-configuring capabilities based on standard and
interoperable communication protocols, where physical and virtual "things" have
identities, physical attributes and virtual personalities and use intelligent interfaces
and are seamlessly integrated into the information network. Figure 1 lists the
elements that comprise the Internet of Things in relationship to the definition:

Network infrastructure: “A dynamic global network infrastructure with selfconfiguring capabilities based on standard and interoperable communication
protocols […]”;

Things, sensors, and actuators: “[…] where physical and virtual ‘things’
[…]”;

Data: “[…] have identities and physical attributes (sensors and actuators) and
virtual personalities […]”;

Service platform: “[…] and use intelligent interfaces and are seamlessly
integrated into the information network.”
Figure 1: Elements that comprise the Internet of Things
Over the last years, IoT has moved from being a futuristic vision - sometimes a hype to an increasing market reality. Nonetheless, aspects such as a large number of
competing technology standards, lack of understanding of new business models, and
social questions are inhibitors to the “cognitive wave” of the IoT, expected to
“facilitate object and data reuse across application domains, leveraging on hyperconnectivity, interoperability solutions and semantic enriched information distribution,
incorporating intelligence at different levels, in the objects, devices, network(s),
systems and in the applications for evidence-based decision making and priority
setting1.”
1
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/internet-things
Page 1 of 94
The Digital Agenda for Europe2 sets out several goals which are related to Internet
of Things and in particular addresses the potential benefits through dedicated
research, as referred in Pillar V: Research and innovation.
The European Commission has been supporting research and innovation in the
field of IoT through several European Union (EU) research and innovation framework
programmes in the last decades:


Several Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)3 projects have contributed in
Europe to the spread of IoT and its advantages. There is a coordination by the
IERC4 which brings together experiences of EU financed IoT projects and
national initiatives towards visions and implementation.
HORIZON 20205, the most recent Research and Innovation Programme
offers opportunities for Europe to facilitate the creation and success of
“European champions” which can support the eco-system and respond to real
needs using innovative technological solutions for public interest. In these ecosystems both the industry and user perspective need to be brought together.
The Work Programme 2014-2015 covers Internet of Things in several sections
and in particular addresses the matter Leadership in enabling and industrial
technologies and more specifically Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT), in the call ICT 30 – 2015: Internet of Things and
Platforms for Connected Smart Objects6.
A series of results are now available, which could usefully be exploited and enhanced
by the market.
1.2 Large-Scale Pilots (LSPs)
While interest in the topic is growing in the business world and users are getting more
familiar with IoT applications, the European Commission needs to make sure that
innovation and research in Europe is focusing on the right objectives and generates
real value for the European market and its citizens. The main focus is now on how IoT
can enable ecosystems of smart solutions, application and services in the area
of, for instance, Smart Homes, Smart Grid and Smart Mobility.
The scope of the study is on how the EU can best support the deployment of IoT
solutions, in order to enhance their acceptability and adoption by users, citizens and
foster new market opportunities for EU suppliers. In particular, emphasis should be
given to areas that need intervention due to among others:


2
3
4
5
6
Lack of market interest, while scoring high on social, environmental or
economic benefits;
Fragmentation of vertically oriented closed systems where the
incumbents do not see a strategic interest to cooperate and to
bundle/integrate solutions; or
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/our-goals
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/enet/projects_en.html
http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020wp1415-leit-ict_en.pdf
Page 2 of 94

Lack of trust, security, privacy or user-friendliness.
Large-scale pilots could play an important role in tackling specific challenges for IoT,
relating to deployment, technological and business model validation and acceptability.
The concept of large-scale pilots is not new; however, many of the pilots have been
typically designed with a reduced scope or been used to showcase solutions with less
strong emphasis on replication. Large-scale pilots should provide the opportunity to
demonstrate actual IoT solutions in real-life settings and should make it possible for
providers to test business models and integration modalities through direct
experimentation with users. This could also help clarify the need for complementary
actions around notably standardisation, interoperability and other policies concerning
trust and security, as well as provide an environment where to test data analytics
tools at scale.
In terms of design, the following non-exhaustive list indicates elements to be covered
by IoT Large Scale Pilots:









Need to cover the full value chain and to demonstrate integration capabilities;
Requirement to deliver open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) /
interoperability;
Requirement to duplicate the pilot (several locations, re-use of components);
Requirement to deliver a certain scale for the pilot to be considered large
enough;
Involvement of European Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) capable
of working together to deploy the LSPs;
Physical display of the solution proposed;
Capability in changing the perception of the actors involved (lighthouse
effect);
Clear and auditable rules for privacy management and handling of personal
data; and
Involvement of social scientists and multiple user groups, in order to design
systems that are useful and acceptable for people.
1.3 Study objectives
The study is designed to gather relevant data concerning IoT Large Scale Pilots and to
further prospect EU wide interest.
Main objectives of the study are:



Identification of the use cases, for which LPSs in the IoT domain in the time
frame 2016-18 would be most valuable, on the basis of a number of empirical
criteria (for example, the most advanced sectors in terms of IoT deployment,
highest economic / innovation impact, highest EU value-added);
Identification of key players of the IoT value chain (with emphasis on SMEs in
Europe) that could team up for the delivery of such LSPs; and
Definition of an LSP deployment strategy and of the required accompanying
measures to ensure maximum impact.
The benchmark study should answer the following questions regarding the feasibility
of IoT use cases for LSPs:
Page 3 of 94





How is success defined for the LSP?
Which Benchmark Framework that will be used to score use
industry and user perspective)?
Which industries and vertical sectors are the most relevant for
cases are most relevant for these vertical sectors?
What are the results when the use cases are scored against
Framework criteria?
Which are the best ranked use cases for IoT LSP in the time
2018, contributing most to the EU’s interest?
cases (from an
IoT? Which use
the Benchmark
frame of 2016-
The criteria of the benchmark framework need to be consistent with the objectives of
the LSPs:
1) Create value across the IoT value chain, with a focus on European SMEs;
2) Deliver open APIs to promote interoperability and creation of standards;
3) Enable the involvement of multiple user groups across different geographical
locations, thus enabling:
a) Multiplication and re-use of the pilot’s components
b) Identify legal and cultural barriers;
4) Allow the service providers to test business models and integration modalities
through direct experimentation with users;
5) Focus on the areas that lack market interest, but otherwise score high in
potential social and economic benefits;
6) Address the areas of trust, security, privacy and user-friendliness to increase
user adoption rate;
7) Deliver capability in changing the perception of the actors involved, by
involving actors across multiple vertical and horizontal sectors and multiple
user groups; and
8) Foster innovation across multiple IoT technological components, such as
devices, networks and applications.
1.4 Methodology
This study was conducted following a methodology consisting of three phases, as
depicted in Figure 2. The first phase focused on the development of selection and
benchmark criteria. Via desk research a long list of use cases was identified. In
addition, more than 500 organisations were identified across the IoT value chain in
various horizontal and vertical sectors. In the second phase, the selection criteria
were applied to obtain a shortlist of valuable use cases. This shortlist was analysed in
detail according to the benchmark criteria, in order to obtain a ranking of potential use
cases for large scale pilots. This shortlist was, in the third phase of the study,
validated during a validation workshop with experts, covering various organisations
active in the IoT domain in horizontal and vertical sectors.
Page 4 of 94
Figure 2: Overview of the study methodology
Page 5 of 94
2
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a summary of the European organisations and sectors active in
the IoT domain that have been identified in the context of this study. During desk
research, nearly 500 organisations active in the IoT domain have been included in the
data set that has been made available together with this study.
2.1 Horizontal sector
Horizontally oriented organisations provide specific IoT components, such as
enablement hardware and software, platforms and services or networking solutions.
They are usually not targeting a specific industry, but aim at providing solutions for
as many industry types as possible with limited adaptations to the product/service
that they offer. In the context of our analysis, they are structured according to the
categories listed in
Table 1. A more refined segmentation could be obtained by considering the building
blocks in the IoT-A Architecture Reference Model (ARM).
Table 1: Horizontal sectors
Category
Description
Examples
These organizations create the embedded processing
solutions (micro-processors, sensors, actuators) that
are attached to a device or a gateway.
ARM
Intel
Siemens
Libelium
Bosch
ST
Enablement
software
These companies design and develop operating
systems, protocols and software used in IoT
solutions.
Sensolus
Evrythng
Enablement
networks
Telecom or connectivity companies that provide
connectivity to IoT-enabled objects (UMTS, GSM,
GSM-R, satellite, etc.) and Machine-to-Machine
(M2M) solutions.
O2
Vodaphone
Telenor Group
SigFox
These companies provide (cloud) platforms and
software frameworks.
Beebotte
Lhings
waylay.io
These companies provide services such as (realtime) (spatial) data services, APIs, data analytics
tools, etc.
Thethings.io
Intellisense.io
Enablement
hardware
Platform
provider
Service
provider
Page 6 of 94
Figure 3: Horizontal Sectors
Hundreds of European companies active in different IoT domains experience a
changing environment with an exponential growth of the number of connected devices
and IoT applications, in which they can do “more Moore and more than Moore”:





Hardware devices are key enabling technologies for the IoT, and many IoT
applications require it to be smaller, lighter, more power-efficient, and cheaper.
Sensors and actuators are becoming more intelligent and provide IoT service
platforms with unprecedented situational awareness.
Wireless connectivity ubiquity offers a communications fabric to link “things”;
Cloud computing provides centralized processing of massive amounts of
intelligence and enables the deployment of “simple” IoT devices (end points);
and
Data analytics tools enable the processing of huge quantities of data (often big
data) captured by IoT end points to be consumed.
Despite these technological revolutions, the necessary collaboration and creation of
open specifications lags behind, which limits the creation of ecosystems in which all
kinds of devices could work together. In particular, it appears that:



The IoT market is still very fragmented in the EU: looking beyond big
existing players (that are mostly global players and not only European ones),
the start-ups and SMEs develop and compete locally. However, the inherent
character of their horizontal positioning would foster a cross-border
development. It reveals the existence of geographical barriers even for cloud
platforms.
Coexistence of open and proprietary solutions: the lack of standardisation
is favourable for leading companies that protect and impose their own
technology. This lack of standardisation also complicates the collaboration
between companies of different vertical industries that could work together to
extract benefits of the IoT. Traditional hardware providers are pushing their
own IoT device ecosystem into the market. In addition, world-wide consortia
are being formed.
Existence of vertical focus: several solution providers leverage their vertical
focus to kick-start activities on platforms, yet the potential to thrive of
platforms developed for one vertical solution is yet to be confirmed.
The European market also consists of multiple organizations that support the
development of IoT applications.
Page 7 of 94
Table 2: Types of support organisations
Type
Description
Examples
Federation
These companies are advocacy groups that seek
to defend consumers from corporate abuse (e.g.
privacy violation, unsafe products, etc.) or try to
group multiple companies to combine their
powers, provide financial resources, etc. They are
industry alliances, federations and consumer
organisations.
Digital Europe,
BEUC,
ENTSO-E,
Industrial Internet
Consortium, Open
Interconnect
Consortium
Research institute
These organisations are establishments endowed
for doing research in the area of the Internet of
Things. They are research consortiums and
technical associations
Fraunhofer focus
TU Delft
iMinds
EFFRA
These organisations are developing, coordinating
or producing technical standards that are intended
to address the needs of some relatively wide base
of affected adopters.
ETSI
oneM2M
The Open Group
IEEE
IETF
Standardisation
organisation
Funding
These companies provide or facilitate the
collection of financial funds for start-ups and
SMEs.
FiWare
Indiegogo
Figure 4: Support organisations
2.2 Vertical sector
In the context of our study, we have listed more than 300 European companies that
are active in vertical sectors in the domain of the Internet of Things. We have
classified these companies according to the United Nations International Standard
Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC).
Page 8 of 94
Figure 5: Vertical sectors
For all these sectors, IoT gives organisations the opportunity to change their business
models, providing new products and services, altering their relationship vis-à-vis
suppliers, consumers, and competitors. At the same time, IoT requires them to make
considerable investments in hardware devices, network infrastructure, and service
platforms. The following observations can be made:



Business-to-Consumer (B2C) oriented sectors, such as those related to smart
health and smart home domains, are highly competitive arenas where many
start-ups fight with bigger players.
Business-to-Business (B2B) oriented sectors hold considerable promise in areas
such as manufacturing, transportation, healthcare, retail, and energy. For
example, the industrial smart grid domain has been rapidly developing in
Germany with Virtual Power Plants.
In some sectors collaboration efforts would allow further exploiting the
possibilities of the IoT. For example, the financial and insurance sector is still at
the beginning of exploiting data from the connected car, with a few notable
exceptions. For example, TomTom succeeded in developing an integrated
strategy where they control key components, both hardware and software in a
vertically closed system, and were able to gain a competitive advantage.
Table 3: Overview of vertically oriented organisations
Industry
Examples
Accommodation and food service activities
Airbnb, housetrip
Agriculture and fishing
OpenAquarium, OpenGarden,
Track a Cow
Arts, entertainment and recreation
Roosegaarde, Stanza
Construction
Bosch, MiniTec
Education
Distance (iotSchool), Superflux
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Dalkia, Elia, Alstrom, Ventyx,
Statkfrat
Financial and insurance activities
EuropAssitance, Insure the box
Human health and social work activities
Lifesum, fifthplay, Kolibree
Manufacturing
Holi, bleepbleeps, lupo
Page 9 of 94
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers
Volvo, BMW, Toyota
Mining and quarrying
Schneider Electrics, Cisco
Professional, scientific and technical activities
Yeedao
Public administration and defence
Cities of Manchester, Bologna,
Santander
Real estate activities
BNP Paribas Real Estate
Transportation and storage
Cyclosafe, Rom Telematic,
TomTom, Ubigo
Water supply
Libelium, ACCIONA Agua
Wholesale and retail trade
Dixons Retail, Carphone
Warehouse
Page 10 of 94
3
BENCHMARK FRAMEWORK
This chapter defines the criteria of the benchmark framework, structured according to
the following three dimensions:
1. European interest and value;
2. Attractiveness to users and service providers; and
3. Potential to be translated to an LSP.
The score given to a use case depends on the ability to satisfy each formulated
criterion. The first set of criteria concerning “European value” were used to shortlist
the long list of use cases that were identified across different IoT domains. The criteria
of the two other dimensions, “Attractiveness” and “LSP potential”, allowed a detailed
evaluation of the potential of the shortlisted use cases. All criteria under the “LSP
potential” dimension have double weight due to its importance in this study.
Table 4 provides an overview of the benchmark criteria, their weights, maximum
scores and their perspective; the criteria are further defined later in this chapter.
Table 4: Overview of benchmark criteria
Importance in the benchmark
Perspective
Weight
Score max
Users
Providers
SC1 Societal challenges
1
5
x
SC2 Industry coverage
1
5
SC3 Market coverage
1
5
x
BC1 Technical maturity
1
5
x
BC2 Usability
1
5
x
BC3 User benefits
1
5
x
BC4 Entry barriers
1
5
x
BC5 Invest. Risks
1
5
x
BC6 Info security risks
1
5
BC7 Openness
1
5
BC8 Legal/ethical barriers
1
5
2
10
European value
x
Attractiveness
x
x
x
x
x
x
LSP Potential
BC9 Value chain
x
Page 11 of 94
BC10 Interoperability
2
10
x
BC11 Replication
2
10
x
BC12 Scale
2
10
x
BC13 User engagement
2
10
x
BC14 Business models
2
10
x
BC15 Cross-border
2
10
x
x
In the remainder of this chapter, the benchmark criteria are described with the
following information:



Description: a short definition of the criterion;
Motivation: a reason why the criterion has been included;
Scoring rule: an explanation on how the criterion is measured.
3.1 Dimension 1: European value
The criteria under the dimension “European value” serve to eliminate use cases that
have less European value, see Table 5.
Table 5: Selection criteria
SC1
Description
Link with societal challenges
Evaluating whether the use case directly tackles one or more of the societal
challenges defined in Horizon 20207:







Health, demographic change and wellbeing;
Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime
and inland water research, and the Bio-economy;
Secure, clean and efficient energy;
Smart, green and integrated transport;
Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials;
Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies;
Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its
citizens.
Motivation
To focus on the policy priorities of the European Horizon 2020 strategy and
address major concerns shared by citizens in Europe and elsewhere.
Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases tackling one or more
societal challenges.
Scoring
rule
0 points - The use case does not directly tackle any of the societal
challenges defined in Horizon 2020
5 points - The use case directly tackles one or more societal challenges as
defined in Horizon 2020
7
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges
Page 12 of 94
SC2
Industry coverage (supply-side)
Description
Evaluating whether the use case has the potential of being taken up in
multiple economic sectors.
Motivation
To focus on use cases that are relevant to broader European sectors. A higher
priority will be given to use cases with a larger industry coverage.
Scoring
rule
0 points - One specific industry sector: The use case is relevant for one
specific industry sector.
5 points - Diverse sectors: The use case is relevant for diverse industries
(broader than one industry sector).
SC3
Market coverage (demand-side)
Description
Evaluating whether there is a high market potential for the use case in terms
of adoption on a massive scale
Motivation
To focus on use cases that are relevant to broader European consumer
markets. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases with a higher
market potential.
Scoring
rule
0 points – Narrow group of consumers: The use case is relevant for narrow
groups of consumers (e.g. people with a certain disease).
5 points – Mass consumers: The use case is relevant for mass consumers
(e.g. elderly people; home owners).
3.2 Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
The objective of the benchmark criteria listed under the second dimension is to
examine the shortlisted use cases for their attractiveness to users (be it industry or
consumers).
Table 6: Attractiveness
BC1
Description
Technical maturity (both users and providers)
Motivation
In general, when a new use case is first conceptualised, it is not immediately
suitable for market adoption. Instead, use cases are usually subjected to
experimentation, refinement, and increasingly realistic testing. Once the use
case is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem.
Scoring
rule
Assessing the level of technical maturity of the use case, i.e. determining its
readiness for operations across a spectrum of environments with a final
objective of transitioning it to the user8.
Technology readiness levels (TRL)9:
0 points - TRL 1-3 (basic technology to research to prove feasibility) -> still
too early for a large-scale pilot
3 points - TRL 7-9 (system/-sub-system development to system test, launch
and operations) -> the use case is already at a later stage of development,
parallel pilots and even commercial solutions may already exist
5 points - TRL 4-6 (technology development and demonstration) -> ideal
timing for a large-scale pilot
8
9
http://www.mitre.org/publications/systems-engineering-guide/acquisition-systemsengineering/acquisition-program-planning/assessing-technical-maturity
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/trl/trl.pdf
Page 13 of 94
BC2
Description
Usability (users)
Motivation
To identify use cases that are attractive for users to adopt. Therefore, a
higher priority will be given to use cases with higher usability levels.
Scoring
rule
Usability is defined as the ease of use, learnability, efficiency, and error
tolerability of a particular use case/solution10. Based on the System Usability
Scale (SUS)11: [select the category that best matches the situation of the use
case]
Assessing how well users can learn and use a use case/solution to achieve
their goals and how satisfied they are with that process.
0 points – In general, the actual or potential users find the solution
unnecessary complex, need support of a technical person to use the solution,
need considerable training/self-learning before they can use the solution, and
find the solution cumbersome.
3 points – Although there are some usability issues, in general, the actual or
potential users would still like to use the solution under condition that the
abovementioned usability issues will be solved.
5 points – In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the
solution frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how
to use it.
BC3
Benefits for the user (users)
Description
Assessing the impact of the use case/solution on the user
Motivation
To identify use cases with a high impact on the user. Therefore, a higher
priority will be given to use cases with significant benefits for the user.
Scoring
rule
0 points – The use case offers only marginal benefits to the user without
much improvement in the current situation.
3 points – The benefits offered by the use case are of a nice-to-have nature
for the user (e.g. better performance, flexibility, productivity, usability).
5 points – The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental
importance to the user (e.g. safety).
BC4
Description
Barriers to entry (providers)
Assessing the factors that restrict the ability of new players to enter and
begin operating in a given domain.
Barriers to entry include12:





10
11
12
Economies of scale -> a need for new entrants to either compete on
a large scale or accept a cost disadvantage in order to compete on a
small scale
Product differentiation -> a need for new entrants to spend time and
money to differentiate their products in the marketplace and
overcome existing customer loyalties
Capital requirements -> a need for new entrants to make large
investments
Switching costs -> a switching cost refers to a one-time cost that is
incurred by a buyer as a result of switching from one supplier's
product to another's; a need for new entrants to provide potential
customers with incentives to adopt their products.
Access to channels of distribution -> In order to persuade distribution
https://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/tech/plan/method/use.php
http://www.measuringu.com/sus.php
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/A-Bo/Barriers-to-Market-Entry.html
Page 14 of 94

Motivation
Scoring
rule
channels to accept a new product, new entrants often must provide
incentives in the form of price discounts, promotions, and cooperative
advertising. Such expenditures act as a barrier by reducing the
profitability of new entrants.
Government policy -> e.g. licensing requirements, pollution
standards, product testing regulations, etc.
To identify use cases where it is relatively easy for new entrants to begin
operating, thereby making it scalable and attractive to a large number of
potential players. Therefore, a higher priority will be given to use cases with
lower barriers to entry.
0 points – There are high barriers to entry that are difficult to overcome.
3 points – There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general
be overcome.
5 points – The barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to
enter for new players.
BC5
Description
Investment risks (providers)
Assessing the key risks associated with investing in the use case. Key
categories of investment risks:





Political risks (e.g. change in regulatory system);
Macroeconomic risks (e.g. economic fluctuations);
Technology and operational risks (e.g. risk of emergence of new
(replacing) technologies or operating paradigms; risk of changing
customer preferences etc.);
Affordability risks (i.e. a risk that the solution will be too costly for
the users);
Capacity risks (e.g. discontinuation of support from key benefactors)
Motivation
To identify use cases with lower investment risks in order to avoid investing
in use cases that are likely to be of temporary interest for the market.
Therefore, a higher priority will be given to cases with relatively low
investment risks.
Scoring
rule
0 points – There are significant investment risks that are difficult to mitigate.
3 points – There are some investment risks; however, these can in general
be mitigated.
5 points – The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe
to invest in.
BC6
Information security risks (users and providers)
Description
Assessing the ability of the use case to address confidentiality, integrity, and
availability risks. Expected the largest concern, confidentiality relates to the
ability to control access to sensitive electronic information and the risk of
leakage of data (i.e. to prevent unauthorised access, use, disclosure,
disruption, modification, perusal, inspection, recording or destruction13).
Motivation
To identify use cases that minimise a chance of unauthorised breaching into
critical private information or of gaining control of the internal systems.
Therefore, a higher priority will be given to cases with low information
security risks.
Scoring
rule
0 points – There are significant information security risks that are difficult to
mitigate.
3 points – There are some information security risks; however, these can in
general be mitigated (e.g. with clear and auditable rules for privacy
13
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3542
Page 15 of 94
management and handling of personal data).
5 points – The information security risks are low, and the use case is
relatively safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic
information.
BC7
Openness (providers)
Description
Assessing whether the use case allows for the use of standards, platforms,
hardware, and software that can be used in accordance with fair, reasonable,
and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions.
Motivation
To identify use cases with a low risk of technology lock-in. Therefore, a
higher priority will be given to cases based on common standards or
openness.
Scoring
rule
0 points – Non-FRAND restrictions on the use.
3 points – FRAND restrictions on the use.
5 points – The use case is based on open standards and specifications that
can be freely reused.
BC8
Legal and ethical barriers (providers)
Description
Checking for (potential) ethical and legal barriers.
Motivation
To minimise risks associated with ethical and legal barriers. Therefore a lower
priority will be given to use cases for which ethical or legal issues could arise.
Scoring
rule
0 points – There are significant legal and/or ethical barriers that are difficult
to overcome.
3 points – There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can
in general be overcome.
5 points – The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal
barriers.
3.3 Dimension 3: LSP potential
The LSP potential dimension allows assessing whether the use case is suitable for
testing in a large-scale pilot setting. The criteria are directly derived from the LSP
definition provided in the Tender Specifications to this study. The criteria include value
chain coverage, interoperability, replication, scale, user engagement, new business
models and cross-border potential.
Since this dimension concerns the originality of the LSPs, the criteria around value
chain coverage, interoperability, replication, scale, business models and cross-border
potential were assigned a larger weight compared to other criteria. This is done by
assigning double scores, thus 0, 6 or 10 instead of 0, 3 or 5.
Table 7: LSP potential
BC9
Value chain coverage
Description
Assessing whether the use case covers the full value chain and demonstrates
integration capabilities.
Motivation
To identify use cases with a (potential for) full value chain coverage as one of
the key requirements for large-scale pilots. The higher priority will be given
to use cases for which the value chain is formed by (predominantly)
Page 16 of 94
European organisations for both developing and applying the solution.
Scoring
rule
0 points – The use case covers only individual elements of the value chain.
6 points – The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of
individual elements)/ The use case covers the whole value chain that is
formed by a mix of European and non-European organisations.
10 points – The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and applying the
solution.
BC10
Description
Motivation
Scoring
rule
Interoperability
Assessing the ability of the use case to make systems and organisations work
together (inter-operate).
To identify use cases with a high degree of interoperability as one of the key
requirements for large-scale pilots.
Based on NATO C3 Technical Architecture (NC3TA) Reference Model for
Interoperability14:
0 points – Structured Data Exchange: exchange of interpretable structured
data intended for manual and/or automated handling, but requires manual
compilation, receipt and/or message dispatch.
6 points – Seamless Sharing of Data: automated sharing of data amongst
systems based on a common exchange model.
10 points – Seamless Sharing of Information: universal interpretation of
information through data processing based on cooperating applications/using
open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).
BC11
Replication
Description
Assessing the suitability of the use case for pilot replication (e.g. several
locations, re-use of components etc.).
Motivation
To identify use cases with a high potential for replication as one of the key
requirements for large-scale pilots.
Scoring
rule
0 points – The pilot is difficult to replicate in other settings and locations.
6 points – Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the
pilot in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
10 points – The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and
locations.
BC12
Scale
Description
Assessing the ability of the pilot to be of a certain scale to be considered
large enough.
Motivation
To identify use cases with a large scaling potential as one of the key
requirements for large-scale pilots.
Scoring
rule
0 points – The pilot represents a small laboratory model.
6 points – The pilot is a sub-system, a component for a full-sized system.
10 points – The pilot is close to a full-size system.
BC13
14
User engagement
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/04tr004.pdf
Page 17 of 94
Description
Assessing the involvement of multiple user groups in the pilot.
Motivation
To identify use cases where multiple user groups and social scientists are
involved in order to design systems that are useful and acceptable for people.
Scoring
rule
0 points – The pilot does not imply direct user engagement.
6 points – The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a
small number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users.
10 points – The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and
social scientists.
BC14
New business models
Description
Assessing the ability of the use case to generate new business models.
Motivation
To identify use cases that provide a basis for introducing new business
models, especially for SMEs.
Scoring
rule
0 points – The use case hardly provides a basis for new business models and
implies working in a traditional way.
6 points – The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional
business models, but does not fundamentally change these business models.
10 points – The use case provides a basis for completely new business
models.
BC15
Cross-border potential
Description
Assessing whether the use case has a potential to expand beyond the borders
of one country.
Motivation
To identify use cases with a high cross-border potential. The higher priority
will be given to use cases that have likelihood to be taken up by providers
and users from various European countries.
Scoring
rule
0 points – In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by
maximum one particular European country.
6 points – In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by
two-three European countries.
10 points – In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by
more than three European countries.
Page 18 of 94
4
SELECTION OF USE CASES
Table 8 lists the 19 use cases for the Large-Scale Pilots that were identified based on
desk research and indicates how these 19 use cases score on the selection criteria.
Annex I provides a detailed description of each use case and includes evidence for the
given scores. Use cases that have an overall score of 10 or more are shortlisted for
further analysis in the next chapter.
Multi-modal mobility and
smart road infrastructure
Smart agriculture and
food traceability
Energy savings at home
and in buildings
Smart assisted living and
wellbeing
Worker safety
Smart living environment
Smart manufacturing:
customisation
Environmental monitoring
Balancing the electricity
grid
Smart public safety
Table 8: Long list of use cases
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
Societal challenges
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
Industry coverage
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
5
Market coverage
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
European value (/15)
Energy savings in
production processes
Smart water distribution
networks
Automated manufacturing
Smart design (maker
movement)
Smart factory
Smart manufacturing:
supply chain
Comfort and security at
home
Open platforms for the
audio-visual industry
Citizen engagement and
better public services in
cities
Selected
Selection criteria
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Societal challenges
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Industry coverage
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
Market coverage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Selected
Page 19 of 94
5
SCORING USE CASES
Table 9 contains a summary of the benchmark scores for the 10 use cases selected in
the previous chapter. The total score is calculated based on a maximum score of 125.
Annex I contains a detailed analysis of the benchmark scores and related evidence.
Multi-modal mobility
and smart road
infrastructure
Smart agriculture
and food traceability
Energy savings at
home and in
buildings
Smart assisted living
and wellbeing
Worker safety
Smart living
environment
Smart
manufacturing:
customisation
Environmental
monitoring
Balancing the
electricity grid
Smart public safety
Table 9: Scoring the selected use cases
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
Societal challenges (/5)
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
Industry coverage (/5)
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
0
5
5
Market coverage (/5)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
Attractiveness (/40)
34
38
32
32
34
34
32
36
30
27
Technical maturity (/5)
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
Usability (/5)
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
User benefits (/5)
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
Entry barriers (/5)
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
Investment risks (/5)
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
5
3
3
Info security risks (/5)
3
5
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
Openness (/5)
5
5
3
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
Legal/ethical barriers
(/5)
5
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
3
0
LSP Potential (/70)
70
62
66
62
58
58
58
54
58
50
Value chain coverage
(/10)
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
6
10
6
Interoperability (/10)
10
6
6
10
6
6
6
6
10
6
Replication (/10)
10
6
10
6
10
6
6
10
6
6
Scale (/10)
10
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
User engagement (/10)
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
Business models (/10)
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
6
6
6
Cross-border (/10)
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
119
115
113
109
107
102
100
100
98
87
European Value (/15)
Total (/125)
Page 20 of 94
6
CONCLUSION
This section lists the proposed use cases for the LSPs, elicits expected benefits and
makes some recommendations on accompanying measures and future work.
6.1 Proposed use cases
Based on the benchmark scores, the following top-5 use cases are proposed for the
Large-Scale Pilots:
1. Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure;
2. Smart agriculture and food traceability;
3. Energy savings at home and in buildings;
4. Smart assisted living and wellbeing; and
5. Worker safety.
6.2 Expected benefits
It is expected that the deployment of Large-Scale Pilots in the area of the Internet of
Things will bring among others the following benefits:

The LSPs will build a critical mass for specifications and standards via
the implementation of open platforms: IoT technology requires
organisations to set up an entirely new technology infrastructure. The LSPs
should leverage where feasible the use of open-source implementations (for
example, reusing software from FIWARE or OM2M) of open standards and
specifications (for example oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS, IETF, the Open Group,
INSPIRE, Datex2, etc.) that target applicative cross-domain interoperability for
the service layer and API aspects. This will showcase the possibilities to
develop value-added services on top of open, horizontal platforms creating
innovative, competitive, and sustainable ecosystems. The use of standards and
specifications that are at least usable under FRAND (fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory) conditions is key to avoid technology lock-in. The Large-Scale
Pilots can help to test new standards and specifications and build a critical
mass for these standards and specifications to allow market adoption. One
important area of standardisation is the use of semantic standards (data
models and reference data), to enable interoperable information exchange and
data analytics. The use cases for the LSPs have been selected in areas where
standards and specifications are available to a certain extent. Nonetheless,
standardisation should be flexible enough to leave room for innovation.

The LSPs will allow organisations to work together to validate new
ecosystems and business models and create new market opportunities
via direct interaction with consumers: IoT technology enables a new set of
products and more importantly value-added services, which will change the
business models of companies and other organisations in their relation with
their customers, competitors, and suppliers. For example, IoT will allow new
pricing models (e.g. pay-per-use), closer customer relationships (e.g. value-
Page 21 of 94
added services and data analytics), mass customisation of products, product as
a service (access-over-ownership), new markets (e.g. electricity balancing
market), new relationships with suppliers (e.g. avoiding cloud lock-in), etc. The
use cases for the LSPs have been selected in areas where organisations could
achieve more through collaboration with customers, competitors, and
suppliers.

The LSPs will broaden the perspective of organisations to a European
context and market situation: The European ICT sector is still nationally
oriented and SMEs and research organisations at times lack the contacts and
knowledge needed to unlock to potential of IoT solutions at an EU scale. The
deployment of Large-Scale Pilots in the context of the Horizon2020 Programme
will bring together actors spread around Europe and will provide a physical
display of the capabilities of European organisations (companies, public
administrations, and research institutes) and create network effects between
them. The selected large-scale pilots all allow a cross-border aspect and have a
potential to strengthen the digital single market.
6.3 Accompanying measures
The following accompanying measures are proposed for the Large-Scale Pilots. They
result in a proposed design for the LSPs depicted in Figure 6.

Set up an architecture office to ensure a minimum level of cross-LSP
coordination and alignment: The situation must be avoided where each LSP
reinvents the wheel by developing solution building blocks that are similar but
not interoperable with building blocks used in other LSPs. Where possible, the
LSPs should leverage common, horizontal enablers that are context and sector
neutral. This will ensure that the IoT technology that stems from the LargeScale Pilots has a large potential for cross-sector reuse. It is therefore
recommended to set up an architecture office that ensures a minimum of
cross-LSP coordination by identifying a minimum set of common principles,
standards and specifications, terminology, methodology, and common solution
building blocks – e.g. next to the FIWARE platform also certain building blocks
from OM2M (the open source implementation of the world-wide oneM2M
initiative) could be used. The architecture office should be embedded in the
governance structure and decision mechanisms of the LSPs;

Set up a stakeholder management office to ensure effective
dissemination, engagement activities across LSPs: it is important for the
deployed LSPs to have a common function for stakeholder management which
will be responsible for all training activities and will maintain a common contact
log.

Perform continuous monitoring and evaluation at programme level:
Since one of the objectives of the LSPs is to validate and test business models,
user acceptance and integration capabilities, the stakeholder management
office has to provide performance metrics allowing to quantitatively measure
this.

Require LSPs to analyse information security risks and foresee
sufficient guarantees for personal data protection: confidentiality of
personal data is a vital concern for all LSPs. As the LSPs promote the use of
Page 22 of 94
horizontal, open platforms in a wider ecosystem, there is a real risk that
personal data is being used by a third party for purposes beyond control of
individuals. Current IoT standardisation initiatives have only started looking at
privacy. The identity and access management schemes that are used in other
domains cannot be easily transferred to the IoT domain since they are too
resource consuming for many of the devices compromising the IoT and lack in
scalability. One solution could be to work with Privacy Enhancing Techniques
(PETs) and pseudo-identifiers providing different identifying attributes
depending on the authentication context. It is recommended that each pilot
conducts an analysis of information security risks and adapts its solution
accordingly. The architecture office should also play a coordinating role;

Require LSPs to foster replicability via training and dissemination
activities to ensure the enablement of ecosystems of smart solutions, which
demonstrate integration capabilities and interoperability between actors across
multiple vertical and horizontal sectors. Training and dissemination activities
are expected to lower the threshold and remove fear to start cooperating.

Require LSPs to elaborate on guarantees for sustainability: Each LSP
could be asked to elaborate on various options to guarantee the sustainability
of the solution developed in the LSP. Such guarantees for sustainability could
be to set up an industry federation or consortium that ensures that
collaboration persists when funding via the Horizon2020 programme has
ended. Other guarantees could be to hand-over developed software solutions
to existing organisations and standardisation initiatives.

Set up a cross-pilot IPR policy: the LSPs should include guarantees for
openness (e.g. under FRAND conditions) and access to the pilot’s
(intermediate) results by third-parties. This requires putting in place the
necessary contributor licence agreements and legal support and collaboration
and dissemination platforms. This cumulative approach would enable SMEs to
enter the LSP after successful deployment, use the existing infrastructure to
set-up an accompanying small scale pilot or benefit from useful datasets.

Require LSPs to assess the environmental impact of IoT: IoT devices
have a considerable ecological footprint (e.g. related to production and to
deployment of sensors in natural areas), so the total footprint of the solution
should be taken into account when evaluating the pilot.
Page 23 of 94
Figure 6: Proposed design of the Large-Scale Pilots
6.4 Future work
The following follow-up research is proposed:

Continue to explore use cases. As pointed out during the validation
workshop, some use cases that were not shortlisted for the benchmarking such
as ‘energy savings in production processes’ and ‘smart water distribution
networks’ would nonetheless merit further investigation.

Continue to update the dataset of organisations that are active in the IoT
area. The current dataset includes more than 500 organisations that are active
in the IoT area. This seems only to be the tip of the iceberg. It is suggested to
continue maintaining this dataset, including also other, less visible
organisations, such as device manufacturers. When available as open data,
such a dataset can become an enabler of market intelligence, expected to be
useful especially for new market entrants.

Continue to fund research and innovation on key enabling
technologies, IoT devices, network infrastructure and service
infrastructure. The proposed use cases for LSPs will impose some further
requirements and constraints for core IoT technology, but mainly target the
market adoption of IoT. In addition, fundamental research and innovation is
needed in core IoT technology (IoT devices, network infrastructure, and service
infrastructure). For example, many IoT use cases will require IoT devices not
only to be smaller, lighter, more energy-efficient, and cheaper, but will also
require sensor readings to provide better quality readings (e.g. in terms of
accuracy, frequency, etc.). This requires research and innovation activities of a
more fundamental nature that could – in part – be coordinated independently
from the LSPs.
Page 24 of 94
Annex I.
Selecting and scoring use cases
This annex contains the evidence supporting the benchmark scores of the 19 use
cases for LSPs that were defined in this study.
I.1.
Use case
description
Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure
A group of IoT use cases that involve putting in place horizontal platforms that
will collect data from private and public transport vehicles equipped with onboard units to allow for increased multi-modal mobility, more efficient traffic
management, a dynamic road infrastructure, automated road tolling, usagebased insurance and improved policy making through the analysis of road
usage data.
The platform will provide real-time information on road congestions, public
transport alternatives, road tolling, and parking spot availability, availability of
charging stations for electrical vehicles and vehicle-pooling or vehicle-sharing
possibilities as a data-service via open protocols to different navigation devices
(on-board devices, tablet, smartphone, browser, etc.) which will then be able
to provide optimised real-time and multi-modal navigation services.
It is anticipated that not all aspects of the aforementioned use case description
can be technically realised in the context of one LSP, however, the LSP should
provide the platform for European companies to work together on this.
Specific use 
cases







Collect real-time and up-to-date travel information on
current road
congestions, road works and taxi or public transport availability to enable
efficient and optimised navigation services, including multi-modal
transportation alternatives (e.g. vehicle-sharing and public transport);
Enable easy vehicle pooling and sharing by the use of an open platform on
which users can find drivers in their vicinity willing to share their (taxi) ride
with others living or working nearby;
Improve the ease of charging electrical vehicles, by providing information
about the availability of charging stations nearby and allow user to pay
automatically for the electricity they have used;
Improve the last mile reachability by equipping public bikes with tracking
devices and keyless bike locks to enable easy bike sharing;
Enable locating and automatic paying for the best, available parking spots
(related to price, distance, safety, etc.) nearby the destination and allow
elderly or disabled individuals to reserve those spots in advance;
Allow individuals to rent their privately-owned parking spots to other
drivers when they are not using them and improve the ability of public
services to detect illegally parked vehicles.
Create an open data platform with (big data analyses on) usage statistics,
travel information, road congestions, public transport timetables,
accidents, road works, etc. to improve decision making, traffic
management and allow external developers in creating value-added
services; and
Automated electronic and usage based payment of road tolls (using the
European standard for Electronic Tolling Services (EETS)), insurance,
public transport and parking spots with pricing dependent on road
congestion, carpooling and driving behaviour.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This LSP has a clear link with several European challenges:

H2020 societal challenge: "Smart, green and integrated transport"

Smart Mobility is on the Digital Agenda for Europe
Page 25 of 94


EU 2020 objective of reducing greenhouse gasses
Open data, privacy and road charging: European Electronic Toll Service
(EETS) Directive
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors: road infrastructure companies,
public organisations, vehicle manufacturers, navigator system companies,
transportation companies, leasing companies, etc.
Market
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to a mass consumer group, since it relates to all
citizens using some kind of transport. This use case would also make car
transport more affordable and environmentally friendly (e.g. car-sharing) and
could make multi-modal mobility more attractive and accessible for a broader
user group.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
Several similar, but limited commercial solutions already exist and show the
technical maturity, e.g.

Mobile Ninja is a web application that implements basic multi-modal
capabilities and tries to achieve a traveller’s community, in which
individuals can share information [MobileNinja];

Carpooling.com provides a platform for ride-sharers to find each other
easily and book a seat;

TomTom has their own vertically closed navigation systems in which they
want to partner with insurance companies, fleet management companies,
etc.;

Google Maps provides a basic multi-modal mobility solution which
integrates public transport;

Automated payment schemes are already used in London (Oyster card)
and Bogota (SITP fare card);

Be-Mobile monitors 24/7 live traffic to improve traffic management; and

Transit App in Mexico City shows the power of an open data platform
[WBG].
Although this project aims at creating open, horizontal platforms, which
combines these verticals and integrates even more information into navigators
(e.g. parking spot availability, road tolling, car and bike sharing, etc.), which
has not yet been demonstrated.
“Real-time on-board-navigation is an established technology today and remains
the key mobility management function.” [Strategy&]
During interviews we were able to confirm the fact that this is an ideal timing
for a Large-Scale Pilot in this area:

“The timing is right to put in place a demonstrator project for multi-modal
mobility in several cities and ideally in a cross-border context, since all
technologies exist but are not always used in concert.” (source: ITS
Belgium)

“Technology is mature enough; it's a matter of collaboration to create the
interconnected system.” (source: Zen Car)
Usability
5/5
The actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently,
find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.
This pilot consists of three major aspects:

Multi-modal navigation is definitely of big interest, since road
congestions and emissions are becoming a very big problem in large cities
(WBG predicts an exponential growth in emissions from urban transport
Page 26 of 94



[WBG]), people are really willing to look at alternative transportation
methods;
Dynamic road infrastructure is wanted by potential users, since it will
increase their efficiency and satisfaction;
Improved charging solutions for electrical vehicles are really needed,
since the uptake of electrical vehicles is limited due to the short autonomy
and the unavailability of charging stations;
Road tolling and usage-based insurance will lead to improved
efficiency and potential lower insurance cost and will thus be used
frequently.
Recent studies have shown that the market potential for safety increasing car
technologies and vehicle management is likely to respectively quadruple and
triple by 2020. [Strategy&]
Already existing similar project also showed that the usability for ITS is very
high:

London's Oyster card for multi-modal payment [Oyster]

Ubigo ITS pilot in Sweden [Ubigo]
The usability has also been confirmed by experts in the field of Intelligent
Transportation Systems: “The use case has the potential of being easy-to-use
and used frequently, provided that information sources are well integrated and
that payment options are consistent and give the right incentives.” (source:
ITS)
User
The benefits address fundamental needs of citizens and businesses.
benefits 5/5
These benefits from an end-user perspective are [ITS]:

Improved efficiency of travelling since roads will be less congested and
multiple alternative ways of reaching the destination will be compared;

Safer roads due to less road congestion, eCall [eCall] and integrated wellbeing assistance (e.g. fatigue protection, lane assist, automated braking
system);

Improved charging of electrical vehicles: this will allow electrical
vehicle drivers to charge their car with the same ease of filling up gasoil
vehicles, e.g. improved payment systems will enable users to charge their
vehicle at other companies and still pay for the electricity themselves.

Less fuel consumption and emissions since the use of public transport
alternatives will be encouraged;

Increased social cohesion due to the increased use of public transport;

Cheaper travelling due to pay-per-use models and decreased tolling
prices if you are willing to carpool; and

Higher traveller satisfaction since travellers will have access to reliable
travel times, find parking spots more efficient, etc.
These benefits have all been confirmed by experts during interviews and actual
proof of those benefits can be found in already existing projects [ITS], e.g. ITS
has reduced the travel time in Los Angeles by 25%.
Entry
barriers
3/5
There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be
overcome.
These barriers are:

High capital investments in road infrastructure and deploying on-board
units are required, which can be difficult for SMEs and smaller
municipalities, but can lead to selling value-added services towards
companies (e.g. navigation system developers), other governments, car
insurance companies, etc. to ensure return on investment;

Appropriate legal frameworks are needed to stimulate collaboration and
create this ecosystem. Legislation in many regions slows down technical
opportunities. [Strategy&];
Page 27 of 94




New business models are needed for private organisations to tap into,
which could be incentivised by regulations and standards;
Openness: most public organisations have invested a lot and now want to
foster their own transportation system;
Clear benefits are needed to change the habits of people, because most
of the users prefer to take their own vehicles; and
Last mile reachability: True multi-modal transport must support
transportation facilities from doorstep to doorstep, but the so called last
mile remains a problem [LM]. This can for example be mitigated by
allowing public bike users to leave their bike behind on every street corner.
Investment There are some small investment risks; however, these can in general
risks
be mitigated.
Score
3/5
Since most of the required information is already available in the systems of
the different actors (e.g. availability of parking spots, real-time traffic data,
road tolling data, etc.), the use case only requires making this data available to
others using common specifications.
An example of a small investment risk is the integration of payment methods,
since this will require a large investment and there are little guarantees that
those payment solutions will be sustained.
Information
security
risks
Score
3/5
Openness
Score
5/5
There are some information security risks; however, these can in
general be mitigated.
The most important security issue may be personal data protection, however,
for this, privacy-enhancing techniques (PETs) are available [PET]: these
techniques will use different identifiers in different contexts, i.e. pseudonyms,
which makes it impossible to combine all information from several contexts
together and link it to a specific individual.
The use case can largely be built on
specifications that can be freely reused.
common
standards
and
Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot:

Wireless and automated payment can be done by the use of
smartphones and smart cards with RFID and/or Near Field Communication
(NFC) technology and the Calypso [Calypso] electronic ticketing standard;

Real-time road usage information exchange can be achieved using the
DATEX II or CEN SIRI standards [DATEX, CEN] and the initiatives around
the INSPIRE data specifications with TN-ITS/ROSATTE on ITS-related
spatial data [TN-ITS, ROSATTE];

Positioning vehicles and public bikes can be done by using GPS/Galileo
devices;

Improved electrical vehicle charging can be achieved by the use of the
IEC 62196 standard, which is an international standard for a set of
electrical connectors and charging modes for electric vehicles;

Automated road tolling can be achieved with technologies in the
European road tolling standard [EETS], such as Dedicated Short Range
Communication (DSCR), Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) or
the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS);

Automated notification of emergency services can be done with the
eCall standard [eCall];

Parking spot availability can be checked using a wireless sensor network
with 802.15.4 technology; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,
such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.
Also during interviews, the need to use open standards and specifications was
clearly stated: “To enable the creation of a solid solution with collaboration
between public and private sector (instead of fragmented approaches), a
harmonisation is needed at the level of European standards to enable
Page 28 of 94
interoperability and the supporting legal frameworks.” (source: ITS)
Legal/
ethical
barriers
5/5
The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal
barriers.
The main barrier is that multi-modal mobility requires the use of a smart device
(smartphone, sophisticated navigation system, etc.), which can be
discriminating and enforce e-exclusion (e.g. only half of the population has
access to a smartphone [SP]). On the other hand, e-inclusion will also be
increased due to the fact that car sharing and car-pooling initiatives will allow
people that cannot afford a proprietary car to travel more efficiently.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and
10/10
applying the solution.
Interoperability
10/10
Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Equipment manufacturers: companies that will manufacture the
necessary on-board units and sensors, e.g. Be-Mobile, RDM Telematics and
Springworks AB;

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox;

Platform service providers: responsible for the collection and analyses of
data (real-time congestion information, vehicle locations, driving behaviour,
public transport time-tables and real-time schedules), e.g. Evrythng,
Sensolus and ThingWorx or platforms as FIWARE and OM2M;

Ongoing
initiatives:
collaboration
with
ongoing
multi-modal
transportation initiatives is possible, e.g. Carpooling.com and TomTom;

Leasing companies: those companies can stimulate their clients to
participate in car sharing initiatives, e.g. Enterprise Holdings, DPDHL;

Home appliances companies: those companies can provide ‘home
integration’ services which connects vehicles with home/office (e.g. disable
alarm when arriving, )

Car sharing and rental: companies that can cooperate to deploy a wellintegrated car-sharing solutions, e.g. Enterprise Holdings, Hertz, Car2Go
and BlablaCar;

Bike sharing solutions: companies that can provide keyless bike locks
and bike tracking devices, e.g. Bitlock and Skylock;

Electrical vehicle charging stations: companies that offer charging
solutions for electrical vehicles;

Public sector: road authorities, traffic control agencies and public
transport companies;

Mobile payment: companies who can team up to deploy the automated
payment solution, e.g. AWL, SixDots, Fortumo and MobiWallet;

Insurance companies: those companies could introduce usage-basedinsurance (UBI) models, e.g.DriveLikeAGirl and InsureTheBox;

Parking companies: companies that manage public and private parking
facilities, e.g. APCOA, InterParking and Q-Park; and

Vehicle manufacturers: Europe has a lot of vehicle manufacturers who
could cooperate, e.g. Scania, BMW, Citroen and Volkswagen.
This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of information, based on open
standards and specifications.
A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence
provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the
cooperating actors to do the following:

Public transport sector will share the location and availability of their
vehicles, real-time and up-to-date timetables and payment information;
Page 29 of 94

Replication
10/10
Navigation systems will share the travellers destination and preferred
arrival time, the willingness to share a car, real-time information on road
congestion;

Private parking companies will share the availability of their parking
spots, payment information and usage analyses;

Road tolling companies will be able to share detailed road usage
analyses for policy and decision making, payment information;

Public sector will share information on road works, strikes and speed
regulations; and

Road infrastructure will share detailed and real-time road congestion
information.
The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and
locations.
The general idea and objective of the pilot of creating an advanced multi-modal
transport concept is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and
locations, as long as the involved member states put effort in agreeing on
standards and legal frameworks.
Scale
10/10
An example of the differences in regulations is the fact that in the
Netherlands it is allowed to test driverless vehicles on public roads, which is not
the case in several other European countries [Reg]).
The scale of the multi-modal LSP can be considered large enough, since
it is close to a full-size system.
Since this pilot really wants to involve all the actors in the value chain of a city’s
transportation system, the scale can be considered large enough.
A demonstrator acting as validator for the finalised European standards and
accompanying legal framework could showcase the harmonisation of the
already ongoing small scale and isolated developments.
User
The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social
engagement scientists.
10/10
This pilot will address a really large value chain and will affect a broad group of
consumers due to considerable market potential. This will make sure that the
pilot involves active engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a
system that is useful and acceptable for people.
New
The use case provides a basis for completely new business models.
business
models
Every actor of the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new
10/10
business models:

Vehicle manufacturers: could shift from "ownership" to "access", offer
after sales services (e.g. over-the-air updates) and provide remote
diagnosis and maintenance planning;

Car sharing and rental companies: could seek value-added services via
better integration with other means of transportation and optimize
operation and maintenance of the fleet;

Bike sharing solutions: could seek value-added services via better
integration with other means of transportation;

Public sector: could better organise road tolling, traffic management,
emergency services, etc.;

Electrical vehicles charging stations: those companies can put in place
charging stations at a wide variety of locations (e.g. on private company
and public parking spots), connect them to their electricity facilities but
allow for reimbursements since the users will actually pay for the consumed
electricity;

Leasing companies: rather than a traditional leasing, leasing companies
could organise carpooling and car-sharing initiatives among the personnel of
its clients, they could offer vehicle tracking, remote diagnostics,
maintenance planning and deliver Key Performance Indicators (KPIs);

Mobile/Internet payment companies: could integrate electronic
Page 30 of 94
ticketing solutions, mobility budget, etc. on their payment platform;
Insurance companies: could implement a pay-per-use model, better
segment their customer base according to their driving behaviour and allow
for target group marketing and obtain a data base for tariff calculations;

Network operators: could provide the necessary networking capabilities
for the connected car enabling value-added services; and

Platform service providers: this LSP will enable new markets for platform
service providers, who will provide the integrated information services (e.g.
real-time congestion information, vehicle locations, driving behaviour, public
transport time-tables and real-time schedule, etc.) that will form the basis
of all these value-added services.
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
than three European countries.

Crossborder
potential
10/10
The uptake of such a multi-modal demonstrator project can be compared to the
uptake achieved by the eCall demonstrator [eCall2].
The creation of such a horizontal platform will require regulations and
appropriate legal frameworks to enable a cross- cities and/or cross-border
travelling aspect (such as highways, cities public transports).
References
[eCall] eCall : http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ecall-time-saved-lives-saved
[EETS] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/studies/eets_en.htm
[eCall2] eCall demonstrator: http://www.embeduk.com/case-studies/ecall-via-model-baseddevelopment
[DATEX] DATEX II standard: http://www.datex2.eu/
[Calypso] http://www.calypsostandard.net/
[ITS] A survey on ITS:
http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr15%285%2913/4.pdf
[SP] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/
[LM] http://www.utne.com/environment/first-last-toughest-mile-intransportation.aspx#axzz2yn1QAbDP
[Oyster] http://wima.mc/dan/PRESENTATIONS_CONF/22_april/dobson2.pdf
[Ubigo] http://web.viktoria.se/ubigo/las-mer/about-english/
[PET] PET Whitebook:
http://www.dutchdpa.nl/downloads_overige/PET_whitebook.pdf
[Reg] http://www.automotiveit.com/netherlands-wants-to-ok-large-scale-self-driving-car-test/news/id009301
[SIRI] CEN SIRI standard: https://www.vdv.de/siri.aspx
http://www.drivefactor.com/usage-based-insurance-5-reasons-this-is-the-year/
[TN-ITS] TN-ITS initiative: http://tn-its.eu/
[ROSATTE] ROSATTE:
http://tn-its.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ROSATTE-D31-Specification-of-data-exchange-methodsv16.pdf
[EULF] EULF action:
http://ec.europa.eu/isa/actions/02-interoperability-architecture/2-13action_en.htm
[ELF] ELF project: http://www.elfproject.eu/content/overview
[Strategy&] http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/what-we-think/reports-whitepapers/article-display/connected-car-2014-study
[WBG] World bank group: smart mobility research report
https://daue6ehqissah.cloudfront.net/breakouts/2014/2014%2010%2014%20Shomik%20Mehndiratta%
20IoTWF.pdf
I.2.
Use case
description
Smart agriculture and food traceability
A group of IoT use cases using smart solutions for controlling and monitoring
agricultural production and distribution systems. This includes applications such
as remote fertilisation, remote irrigation, or pest detection. It also allows food
traceability and information exchange (e.g. on food provenance or transport
conditions) across the whole supply chain. One possible scope for this use case
could be a more difficult crop to cultivate (e.g. olives).
Page 31 of 94
Specific use Open-air agriculture and horticulture
cases

Automated detection of pests and diseases on crop fields;

Irrigate crop remotely and monitor soil to add necessary nutrients, poisons,
etc.;

Monitor crop to optimise harvesting and picking order; and

Automated harvesting and lawn mowing.
Food traceability

Tracking food during the complete supply chain;

Providing information of food provenance; and

Monitor the conditions of the environment during transport (e.g.
temperature, humidity, etc.)
Cattle

Track location of cattle in big farms;

Remotely monitor activity and vital health parameters of cattle;

Feed cattle remotely and add necessary nutrients and vitamins depending
on the animal's conditions; and

Track animals during long-distance transportation to improve animal safety
and well-being.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Food security,
sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water
research, and the bio economy”, since for example smart agriculture and food
production is expected to save 50 billion gallons of fresh water a year15.
Industry
coverage
5/5
Applicable to several sectors, including "Agriculture, forestry and fishing", and
"Wholesale and retail trade".
Market
coverage
5/5
This use case has impact on the total value chain regarding to food production
and consumption, which allows for improvement from the field, to the
supermarket and the consumer.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
3/5
The use case is already at a later stage of development, parallel pilots
and even commercial solutions already exist.
Open-air agriculture
Examples of already existing commercial solutions are:

Farmlogs, Siega systems and Onfarm: applications that enable
monitoring agriculture related environmental parameters, tracking of field
rainfall, monitoring of local grain prices, managing farm operations, etc.;

Phenonet project is a part of Open IoT that enables plant breeders and
farmers to compare and evaluate the performance of different wheat
varieties using real time measurements for a variety of remote sensors
[Phenonet];

FIspace platform is a B2B software platform which funds, supports and
coaches several smart agriculture applications, they currently have 8 use
case trial experimentation sites in Europe on Crop Protection Information
Sharing, Fish Distribution (Re-)Planning, Flowers & Plants Supply Chain
Monitoring, Fresh Fruit And Vegetables, Greenhouse Management And
Control, Meat Provenance Information.

SmartAgriFood is a project that develops prototypes and works towards
actual applicable tools to be used in the Smart Agriculture domain; and

Optifert develops and implements a demand driven and fully automatic
15
http://liveworx.thingworx.com/Portals/0/2014%20Presentations/OnFarm_Smart%2
0Agriculture%20and%20the%20Internet%20of%20Things.pdf
Page 32 of 94
and combined irrigation and fertilization system to enable farmers to
monitor and control their water and fertilizer consumption.
Horticulture:
Next to the solutions mentioned above, also some horticulture specific
initiatives already exist:

SensorMetrix and Floricode commercial solutions which include for
example a portal for registration and coding of floriculture products that
allows all the users in the supply chain to exchange information.
Food traceability
Some basic initiatives and commercial solutions exist:

FIspace platform develops tools for Meat Information On Provenance,
which enable the tracing of meat and its provenance; and

GS1 develops standards to ensure Food Traceability, e.g. BarCodes, RFID,
EPCglobal, etc.
Usability
score
5/5
Cattle
Commercial systems for animal transport monitoring exist (e.g. TrackACow: a
Heat Detection and Cow Welfare Telemetry Monitoring System), but these are
ad hoc or offline [12]. The connection with IoT would enable better and more
accurate monitoring.
In general, since there already exist multiple (commercial) solutions in all four
of those aspects, the pilot should focus on achieving real interaction
between all the players involved in those pilots, to achieve end-to-end food
traceability and be able to really benefit from big data analyses.
In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution
frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to
use it.
The usability of these use cases has been proven to be high in multiple
commercial successes in several initiatives in the EU, United Stated and Canada
(see BC1). Also some clarification initiatives for food traceability are present
[FoodTraceability].
No existing solutions are identified to monitor living animals during transport,
but combining existing technologies will be able to develop a usable solution
[SensorMetrix], [OpenIoT].
The Internet of Things has a lot of potential in the smart agriculture sector,
especially due to the fact of the growing world population which forces the
agriculture sector to move towards more efficient and sustainable ways of
production. Although for the moment, the cost-benefit relationship is very
important for the actors involved, since it is a sector with a lot of small
companies the affordability of the solution is very important (especially if we
want to move for example towards monitoring individuals products instead of
containers).
In the agriculture sector, there are a lot companies who are really willing to
publish their data on an open platform, e.g. Fion publishes information to
enable traceability of their meat, which creates some kind of trust between the
company and their buyers.
User
benefits
5/5
IoT could also improve the sustainability of the sector, e.g. by reducing the
required amount of pesticides.
The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to
the user.
Open-air agriculture and horticulture
The benefits are fundamental, those are:

Increase in efficiency and productivity in irrigation (e.g. savings up to
50 billion gallons a year according to OnFarm), fertilization, pesticides, etc.
Page 33 of 94

Decrease the environmental impact for everyone, since it would also be
far easier to have an early detection of diseases and drought, therefore
decreasing loss of production or unhealthy end products.
Food traceability
These benefits would also be significant. It would enable

The mapping of the whole supply chain and its offshoots.

Improved detection and tracing of diseases in an early stage.

Tracing the origin of fraudulent products would be faster, more
accurate and easier.
Entry
barriers
5/5
Cattle
The benefits generated by cattle tracking/monitoring are fundamental, since the
EC made animal welfare one of their key points:

Monitor cattle during transportation would give a better insight in stressor harmful situations, making it possible to avoid or enhance them.

Tracking cattle on the field could also increase productivity and
efficiency.
In general the barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is
easy to enter for new players.
These barriers are in general:

Economies of scale and capital requirements: For an individual farmer
(in Europe most of the time SME's) deploying a smart agriculture solution
could be very costly, but this can be mitigated by operating in cooperation
with multiple farmers; and

Severe differences between companies, especially between the rather
big agriculture companies who have a well-developed IT infrastructure and
the small local farmer who mainly use manual methods
Horticulture also intrudes an additional barrier in product differentiation,
since there could be customer loyalties, because there already are some largely
integrated solutions.
Investment The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe to
risks
invest in.
5/5
All those initiatives could be very costly and the initial investments could
be very high for an individual farmer (in Europe most of the time SME's), but
this entry barrier can be mitigated by operating in large cooperation and
trying to spread these costs. There are also enablers that support and fund
these types of initiatives.
Information The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe
security
when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic information.
risks
5/5
The information security risks that could appear are:

Confidentiality: no confidential information (e.g. pricing information) will
be involved in the pilot, the necessary data that will be collected, is
already available for everyone who wants to measure it with manual
methods, this pilot project will only automate this process;

Integrity: only a very small risk of loss of integrity (e.g. changing the
collected values), which can easily be ensured by encrypting the data
when stored or during communication with other devices. For food
traceability, there is also an additional integrity risk, since the entire supply
chain could be mapped and used fraudulently. On the other hand it lessens
the risk, because the mapping of the complete chain can enhance the
reaction time if a disease or fraud is detected.; and

Availability: loss would not entail big risks, since traditional methods could
be used again to overcome the unavailability of the solution.
Openness The use case can be built upon open standards and specifications that
5/5
can be freely reused.
Page 34 of 94
Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot:

Device communications can be achieved by the use of open standards
and open solutions provided by the OpenIoT project, which can be freely
used [OpenIoT];

Exchange of commercial, logistical and financial information can be
managed by the use of open messaging standards, e.g. Floricode (flowers),
Agroconnect (animals) and Brugicon (fruits and vegetables);

Food traceability can be simplified by the use of some of the traceability
standards developed by GS1, e.g. BarCodes, eCom, GDSN, EPCglobal) [16,
17];

Wireless sensor network can be set-up using 802.15.4/Zigbee protocols;
and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,
such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.
Legal/
ethical
barriers
5/5
The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal
barriers.
There are no legal barriers for open-air agriculture, horticulture, food
traceability and cattle.
To ensure traceability of food in Europe, there is a legal requirement within the
EU (and all countries who wish to import into the EU), the so called 'one up one
down' regulation, which require business to keep records regarding who they
have received goods from and who they have delivered them to. This regulation
can be seen as a legal enabler to support this pilot.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and applying
score 10/10 the solution.
Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Farmers: the agriculture activity in Europe is mostly done by local farmers,
feeders and breeders which are often SMEs. It will be very important to
include them as much as possible in the pilot;

Inputs: feeders, pesticides, animal medication and fertilizer
manufacturers: those companies are very important players in the value
chain and could benefit from improved efficiency ;

Import and export: those companies take care of the cross-border trade;

Packaging sector: those companies are very import to achieve end-to-end
food traceability;

Transporters and Logistics: those companies are responsible for the
collection and transportation of the produced goods (e.g. milk, animals,
vegetables) to distribution centres and supermarkets, e.g. Dasher, FM
logistics and Cbutt;

Distributors (wholesale and retail): these companies will actually sell
the goods to the end-user, e.g. Carrefour, Aldi and Auchan;

Food safety administrations which are responsible and have to
guarantee the quality and safety of the food chain;

End-users: the actual consumers of the goods produced;

Government who are responsible for all kinds of regulations related to
food production and distribution; and

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.

Solution vendors: Optifert, BO-MO d.o., Cit development, SDZ GmbH, Qray BV, Mieloo & Alexander Business Integrators, Fraunhofer Institute for
Materialflow and Logistics (IML), ATB - Institute for Applied Systems
Page 35 of 94
Interoperability
6/10
Technology Bremen GmbH, mobics.gr, di.uoa.gr, European EPC
Competence Center
This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data, i.e. automated sharing
of data amongst systems based on a common exchange model.
Within the existing pilots (e.g. FIspace), seamless data sharing is enabled and
based on a common exchange model.
Replication
6/10
A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence
provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the
cooperating actors to do the following:

Farmers which will share information on the provenance of the meat, the
used irrigation and fertilisation, etc.;

Transporters and Logistics may share information on transport
conditions, products origin, etc.;

Distributors (wholesale and retail) may share information on origin and
provenance, intelligent shelf-life indications, etc.;

End-users will be able to provide feedback to the actors in the value chain;
and

Government will share information on regulations and insights gained by
big data analytics.
Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot
in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
Scale
10/10
The challenges that may arise during replication are:

Big difference in IT infrastructure between different countries and
between small, local farmers and bigger companies.
The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close
to a full-size system.
Since this pilot really wants to involve all the actors in the agriculture, farming
and food traceability value chain, the scale can be considered large enough.
A demonstrator acting as validator could showcase the harmonisation of
the already ongoing small scale and isolated pilots and state-of-the-art
commercial solutions.
User
The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social
engagement scientists.
10/10
This pilot will address a really large value chain and will affect a broad
group of consumers due to considerable market potential, large scale and
value chain coverage. This will make sure that the pilot involves active
engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a system that is useful
and acceptable for people.
New
The use case provides a basis for completely new business models.
business
models
These initiatives and technologies create a new way of enhancing the
10/10
agricultural sector. It enables new services, which can be moulded into new
business models.
Every actor of the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new
business models:

Farmers will be able to differentiate their production by the use of for
example alternative fertilisation methods and show this towards the
costumer, they will be able to set up local initiatives (e.g. subscribe to a
service that delivers weekly a set of vegetables at home, mainly produced
by local farmers or specific to a certain diet);

Transporters and Logistics will be able to proof the provenance of their
products and will be able to outsource the quality monitoring during
transport;

Distributors (wholesale and retail) can improve their marketing with
proof on the origin of the products and can benefit from improved usage
Page 36 of 94
analyses;
Consulting initiatives will arise and will be able to give advice on
monitoring solutions, ideal fertilisation methods based on the data gathered
by the sensors, etc.; and

Governments will be able to promote small and local farmers, sell insights
from big data analyses.
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
than three European countries.

Crossborder
potential
10/10
A lot of ongoing projects and pilots are already cross-border, thus the uptake
can be expected to be quite high (e.g. several cross-border horticulture project
which originated in The Netherlands).
References
[FarmLogs] http://farmlogs.com/
[OnFarm] http://www.onfarm.com/about-onfarm/
[Libelium] http://www.libelium.com/wireless_sensor_networks_to_detec_forest_fires/
http://www.libelium.com/smart_agriculture_vineyard_sensors_waspmote/
[Spimesense] http://spimesense.com/applications/
[TrackACow] http://www.trackacow.co.uk/
[FIspace] http://www.fispace.eu/apps.html
[OpenIoT] http://openiot.eu/?q=node/45
[FoodTraceability] http://www.foodtraceability.eu/page/home & http://www.tracefood.org
[SmartAgrifood] http://smartagrifood.eu/pilots
[Floricode] http://www.floricode.com/en-us/home.aspx
[SensorMetrix] http://www.sensormetrix.co.uk/monitoring_livestock_transportation_a_11.php
[Optifert] http://www.optifert.eu/index.php/background
[50 billion gallons water savings]
http://liveworx.thingworx.com/Portals/0/2014%20Presentation/OnFarm_Smart%20Agriculture
%20and%20the%20Internet%20of%20Things.pdf
[Thingsee] http://www.thingsee.com/
[GS1 - Standards] http://www.slideshare.net/gatordkim/gs1-agrifoodautoidlabskaistdaeyoungkim27062014
http://www.slideshare.net/gatordkim/gs1-epcglobal-framework-and-oliot-project-overviewoliot-workshop-2014
[Phenonet] Phenonet smart agriculture project: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/ICT-andServices/National-Challenges/Wireless-sensors-in-agriculture.aspx
I.3.
Energy savings at home and in buildings
Use case
description
A group of IoT use cases in the area of residential smart grids that involve the
use of a home energy management system (HEMS) that would exploit
automation and self-learning capabilities to monitor and steer local energy
consumption (electricity and carbon fuels) and generation (small-scale
windmills, solar energy cells, stand-by generators). This includes the better
planning of electrical vehicle charging, automated reporting of the total cost of
ownership of electrical appliances, and steering of HVAC units. The planning
takes into account thermostats, weather forecasts, dynamic electricity pricing
and demand response codes, and availability of (locally) generated renewable
energy.
Specific use
cases




Delay the start of electrical appliances (electrical vehicles, dishwasher,
tumble dryer, boiler) and HVAC units based on user requirements, dynamic
energy prices, forecasted availability of (locally) generated renewable
energy, weather forecasts;
Provide advice on potential energy savings via the monitoring and analysis
of energy consumption patterns in devices;
Receive automated reports on the total cost ownership of electrical
appliances, with suggestions for potential cost savings, because users often
forget about running costs;
Wireless sensor networks that control HVAC and lighting based on activitylevels; and
Page 37 of 94


Automatically publish data, generated by smart meters to allow for easy
information sharing and application development based on open data
services for facility companies and real estate.
District-level energy management, as demonstrated by existing projects
such as URB-Grade, Ambassador, EPIC-HUB, etc.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Climate action,
environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.
Industry
coverage
5/5
Applicable to diverse sectors: construction companies, utility companies, real
estate and facility management companies.
Market
coverage
5/5
This use case covers a mass group of consumers in the residential housing
market and professional real-estate market, since all households and building
owners can easily benefit from the gained savings.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
The needed policies, standards, and technologies exist but a combination of all
specific use cases does not exist yet in practice.
On the one hand, commercial solutions exist or are emerging for some specific
use cases such as those to be able to remotely steer electric appliances:

Siemens and Bosch: developed together an app Home Connected will
allow users to control their household appliances [HomeConnect];

Miele will launch in 2015 a brand dedicated to more connected
appliances Miele@Home. [Miele]

GE and LG connected oven [GE, LG]

NetAtmo: smart thermostats connected to an app and weather data. It
gives every month personal energy savings reports, track the
consumption and help to schedule the heating more efficiently.
[NetAtmo]

Smart plugs: [Electrabel]
Installation and government measure are in place in the UK to foster
deployment of smart meters at large scale.
On the other hand, for some specific use cases, the market is still at a
research/pilot stage such as for a dynamic electricity pricing system at a
residential scale based and demand response codes and using smart meters.
The Linear Project in the Netherlands is one of the largest smart grid research
projects in Europe with around 250 families tested that combines smart
appliances and smart meters.
The project would ensure the existence of a complete system.
Usability
5/5
In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution
frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to
use it.
Studies have been done on that topic demonstrating that interactive aspects
around the solution is very important (e.g. having a display screen) (Source:
Page 38 of 94
interview ESMIG).
Main challenge will be the end users acceptance and to keep their motivation on
the long term: solutions should be as automated as possible but let the
possibility to users to retrieve control if they want. (Source: interview EERA
JPSC)
Expertise and research are available about the psychology of consumer
engagement in Demand Response [Vaasaett].
An IDC study shows that Smart Energy has the largest growth potential across
leading smart environments (health, transport, manufacturing, homes,
environment and agriculture) [IDC].
User
benefits
5/5
The benefits address fundamental needs of citizens and businesses in
terms of energy usage, and thus cost reduction by the use of smart
devices.
Evidence for the following use benefits were identified:

Savings on heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC):
Energy savings from smart thermostats could be as much as 40%
(Source: interview NetAtmo). In many countries, buildings represent
around 40% in terms of primary energy consumption and households
mainly consume energy for heating (70%), cooling, hot water, cooking
and appliances. [BPIE]

Savings on electricity bill: Energy savings via a residential smart grid
solution would amount to about 100€ savings in electricity costs per
year for an average household under current market conditions
(Source: Linear smart grid project).

Reducing peak capacity power generation: by letting power
consumption better follow available capacity, demand peaks are
smoothened, reducing the need for peak power generation and grid
balancing measures. The latter often is more expensive or less
environmentally friendly.

Increase the capacity for distributed renewable energy sources:
the use of local demand control systems enables the electricity grid to
absorb a higher amount of distributed renewable energy sources.

Value added-services: A home energy management system may also
lead to purchase advice (e.g. install better lamps, change the fridge …).
(Source: interview ESMIG)
Entry
barriers
3/5
There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be
overcome.
This use case has the potential of attracting a large number of players and
would introduce only a few market entry barriers.

Investment risk: for smart plug solutions, the initial investments are
too high compared to the possible winnings and the need for users to
change their habits.

Switching cost: not all lighting and heating appliances support smart
meters and thermostats, a severe equipment switching cost could arise.

Lack of standards and openness: is a barrier for new entrants
(source: interview ESMIG)

Lack of collaboration: A lot of actors will have to comply on a
strategy and large companies might have more power to impose their
technology or solutions (source: interview ESMIG). Currently horizontal
IoT infrastructures are mostly dominated by large companies/”big
market players”. Currently, there does not exist a set of common
standards and specifications for horizontal IoT infrastructures. (source:
interview Lhings)
Investment There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be
risks
mitigated.
Page 39 of 94
3/5
There are limited investment risks linked to this use case, since people are
already convinced that they need this solution the companies only have to open
the channels to roll out the solution. (Source: interviews NetAtmo, ESMIG)
Information There are some information security risks; however, these can in
security
general be mitigated.
risks
The information security risks that could appear are:
3/5

Confidentiality: confidentiality risk can be mitigated in the context of a
home energy management system. Centralising personal data can only
happen upon user consent. Customers will be aware of what they are
sharing to benefit from service providers (source: interview ESMIG). Clear
and auditable rules for privacy management and handling of personal data
will be required for the pilot (source: interview NetAtmo).

Availability: The availability of the home energy management system may
become critical to guarantee availability of electricity and comfort (HVAC).

Integrity: only a very small risk of loss of integrity (e.g. changing the
collected values), which can easily be ensured by encrypting the data
when stored or during communication with other devices. With Home
Connected, Siemens and Bosch addressed the issue of the information
security risk and worked with TUV to ensure to meet highest level of
security standards. [HomeConnect]. Yetu suggested encrypted hardware at
homes that would be used as a key for using data (source: interview Yetu).
Openness
3/5
The use case is based on open standards and specifications that can be
freely reused on some technologies but work is still on-going for
others.
Standards on smart meters exist but are not well used nor accepted. Aim of the
Smart Meter Coordination Group (SM-CG) is to ensure that what a European
Member State may want to do in smart metering is covered by suitable
standards. SM-CG, under a European mandate, developed 6 functionalities that
should be provided by the Smart Metering Information Systems [SMCG]:

Automatic meter reading

Information exchange

Support advance tariffing & payment systems

Allow remote disablement & enablement of supply

Facilitate energy services

Customer display
Standards for communications are not a best practice solution or
recommendations [SMCG] and SM-CG standards do not cover ‘back office’ or
other industry IT systems impacted by smart meters (but work will have
implications).
In the USA, groups such as openAMI and UtilityAM promote the OpenHAN, a set
of standards for home networks.
There is an ongoing standardisation initiative on which TNO and ETSI are
working: Smart appliances ontology: TNO aims to bring the information from
different smart appliances in one common ontology that can be used to match
the data. The ontology created will fit into the ETSI M2M architecture. [TNO]
Opinions diverge on the possibility to foster openness:

For ESMIG, standardisation at European level would be beneficial but it’s a
hard work due to the strong differences between European countries. As
soon you have a common standard, it will allow the market to extend.
(Hard for a Spanish player to work in Germany).

For NetAtmo, the use case can largely be built by the use of open API’s.
It seems that consumers are not yet be able to control appliances from different
brands with a single app, nor have multiple appliances communicate with each
other, for example:
Page 40 of 94

Home Connect uses wireless Internet (WLAN) to connect appliances with
mobile devices. [HomeConnect]
Miele is developing its own brand Miele@Home and have already now more
than 400 Miele appliances that offer some level of connectivity. Older
models can also be retrofitted to include a communication module. [Miele]
On the other hand, Siemens and Bosch adopted another strategy to create
an alliance involving many European manufacturer that would us the same
app Home Connect based on open standards. [HomeConnect]


Legal/
ethical
barriers
5/5
There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in
general be overcome.
There are no ethical barriers. However, the consumer has to be given the
choice to use a home energy management system, a solution cannot be
imposed (source: ESMIG)
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage: (predominantly) European organisations for both developing and
10/10
applying the solution.






Interoperability
6/10
Consumer electronics companies: It is important to involve a good set
of companies providing home appliances and “smart” devices from
different countries to prevent failure in the interoperability/replicability
aspects. This LSP in energy savings in homes will be able to bring all
actors in the value chain together and can be composed by predominantly
European organisations since 85% of the heating (e.g. Bosch and Vaillant)
and lightning (e.g. Schneider Electrics, Legrand, Siemens) companies are
European (source: interview NetAtmo, interview ESMIG).
Vendors of home energy management systems: German companies
are leading the European market such as Miele that is helped by Qivicon,
a cross-brand networking platform and other leading German industrial
companies. [Miele];
Electricity companies: EDF, GDF Suez, Statkraft;
Research organisations: TNO;
DSOs: Regulators and DSOs should be involved (source: interview EERA
JPSC); and
Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.
This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data between several
home appliance services due to the use of open API’s in their cloud
services.
It will be challenging to achieve interoperability for home energy management
systems. However, interoperability is not the major concern for the pilot.
(Source: interview ESMIG).
Replication
10/10
The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and
locations.
Despite small differences in technical maturity and local market conditions,
this use case focuses on the residential applications, making its results easy to
replicate in different locations and settings, provided that the aforementioned
entry barriers can be overcome.
Scale
10/10
The scale of the multi-modal LSP can be considered large enough,
since it is close to a full-size system.
The LSP will enable putting in place home energy management systems in
households, in connection with grid balancing systems of DSOs for dynamic
Page 41 of 94
pricing and demand response.
User
The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and
engagement social scientists.
10/10
Similar pilots like the Linear smart grid project in Belgium, have demonstrated
that users (250 households as test users) adapt their behaviour when
rewarded for flexibility. If the usability is there and the user benefits are
efficiently communicated, the user engagement will be ensured. (Source:
interview ESMIG).
New
business
models
10/10
This LSP will provide a basis to validate new business models.

Consumer electronics companies: can build a stronger customer
relationship via networked services. New business models will be
developed especially around services (from utility companies,
manufacturers and new kind of service providers). For example, home
appliances can be rented with a price based on the energy savings they
allow (source: interview ESMIG) or freemium services for remote control
and automation in switching on or off home appliances and per-per-use
models for energy billing. (source: interview NetAtmo).

Electricity companies and DSOs: can explore new pricing models for
electricity, e;g. at a fixed price for grid connectivity (depending on the
grid input and output capacity), and a variable electricity price demanding
on grid balancing parameters.
Crossborder
potential
10/10
The solution is likely to be taken up by multiple European countries
since there are no severe structural differences in home infrastructure in
different countries. Although installation procedures can differ cross-border
(e.g. for heating installation).
References
[TNO] Smart appliance ontology:
https://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context=thema&content=prop_case&laag1=892&laag2=920
&laag3=122&item_id=2137&Taal=2
[BPIE]
Building
Performance
Institute
Europe
report:
http://www.bpie.eu/uploads/lib/document/attachment/20/HR_EU_B_under_microscope_stud
y.pdf
[ETSI]
report
M2M
on
smart
metering:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102600_102699/102691/01.01.01_60/tr_102691v010101
p.pdf
[SMCG]
Smart
Meter
Coordination
Group
report:
http://stargrid.eu/downloads/2014/04/1101_SMCG_STARGRIDpresentation_FINAL.pdf
[VAASAETT] Energy Data Store specialist: http://www.vaasaett.com/data/ [Windriver]
http://www.windriver.com/announces/intel-gateway-solutions-for-iot/
[Netbiter] www.netbiter.com/applications/building-and-hvac/hvac
[Samsung] smart washing machine: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/128570-samsungww9000-smart-washing-machine-offers-full-lcd-touchscreen-smartphone-like-controls
[HomeConnect] http://www.home-connect.com/en/
[Miele] smart household appliances:
http://www.cnet.com/products/miele-w1-prestige-washer/
[GE] connected oven:
http://www.cnet.com/products/ge-pt9550sfss-profile-30-stainless-steel-electric-double-walloven-convection/
[LG] connected oven:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-smart-thinq-single-oven-range-with-infrared-grilllre3027st/
I.4.
Use case
Smart assisted living and wellbeing
A group of IoT use cases which use intelligent devices (e.g. wearables, sensors,
Page 42 of 94
description
smartphones, and intelligent home appliances) to autonomously generate
reports on an individual's physical activity, overall vital signs and well-being. It
allows the use and sharing of generated data for personal use or report to
specific services (e.g. doctors, nurses, dieticians and sport coaches, drug
researchers) through connected devices. The same ecosystem and technology
also enables "smart assisted living": the remote follow-up of vulnerable people
(children, elderly, hospital patients, etc.) and the automated notification of
emergency services, family, etc. when necessary.
Specific use
cases








Early detection and notification of a wide variety of potential diseases (e.g.
Alzheimer's, Epilepsy, Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease,
Hypertension, Cardiovascular Diseases, Obesity and Congestive Heart
Failure) and accidents (e.g. fallen elderly, epilepsy attack or runaways) by
the use of wearables and intelligent home appliances (e.g. mirrors,
weighting scales, etc.);
Enrich electronic health records with information on social behaviour and
overall wellbeing
to provide better sampling for clinical trials and
longitudinal research on drugs;
Automated reporting on eating, drinking and hygiene habits by intelligent
appliances (e.g. oven, refrigerator, toothbrush and even fork), which can
even be forwarded to your dietician, dentist or GP for improved follow-up;
Automated and intelligent monitoring and reporting on people's physical
activity by the use of intelligent wearables and clothing (e.g. shoes with
step counters, shirts measuring body humidity) to detect a possible
decrease in physical activity indicating illness, to motivate to reach certain
targets and which can even be forwarded to your sports coach or GP for
improved follow-up;
Intelligent monitoring of your sleep routine (e.g. heart rate, breathing
capacity and movements) to calculate ideal wake up times and reduce
insomnia;
Remotely monitor vital health signs of vulnerable individuals (e.g. new-born
babies, elderly people, persons who are recently dismissed from the
hospital, etc.) to allow them to stay longer at their own homes;
Develop an open platform on which patients and caretakers (e.g. nursing
staff, GPs, dentists, dieticians and sports coaches) can easily communicate
with each other, ask questions regarding certain measurements, give
feedback which will improve the efficiency of the day-to-day follow-up of
patients; and
Enable location tracking of vulnerable individuals (e.g. young children and
elderly) to avoid that they get lost.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Health,
demographic change and wellbeing”, and also has a clear link with the EU 2020
objectives and the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on “Active and Health
Ageing.”
This use case is also enforced by the ageing population in Europe which results
in an increased share in elderly people16.
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since it brings together public and
private sectors based on the interest of the individuals. Automated or techbased monitoring and reporting on physical status can be of interest for health
insurances, health professionals (e.g. nurses, dieticians, General Practitioners
(GPs)), health and fitness clubs and food stores.
Market
coverage
These use cases cover a large segment in the B2C area, since the target group
can support people from healthy young (e.g. kids or new-born babies) to
16
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structur
e_and_ageing
Page 43 of 94
5/5
elderly who need special care. Vulnerable and elderly ( over age 65) is around
15-16% of the EU population and children below 14 are around the same
therefore the combination would be around 30-35% of the EU population who
can benefit from the solutions offered by IoT.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
Several similar, but rather limited commercial solutions already exist and show
the technical maturity of the use case, e.g.:

Vital health signs monitoring is already being done by the digital patch
from SensiumVitals [Sensium], 3G-enabled Cardiac telemetry from
Carionet, the smart baby monitoring solutions from Mimobaby and Owlet
and the Sense sleep analyser or WiThings smart weighting scales;

Physical activity tracking solutions are widespread nowadays, e.g. Fitlinx
Pebble+, Garmin and Wahoo fitness trackers;

Children tracking can for example be achieved with the GPS equipped
watch from herO;

Senior safety systems are already developed by BeClose;

Healthcare specific wireless sensor networks can be achieved by the
use of ANT+ or BodyLAN; and

Automated reporting
on eating, drinking and hygiene can be
achieved, e.g. [Colibree] for dental health, [Mirror] for pupil size and skin
colour, etc.;
Those solutions are really vertically oriented, state-of-the-art and are at the
early stages of the technology and product adoption lifecycle [PwC], thus they
can use a demonstrator to showcase the possibilities and make them really
interoperable.
During interviews we were able to confirm the fact that this is an ideal timing
for a Large-Scale Pilot in this area:
1. “The technical maturity is there and it is the right time for launching a Large
Scale Project in this domain.” (source: HP)
2. “The needed technologies (e.g. sensors, connectivity and infrastructure)
and standards are definitely mature enough to generate decent diagnostic
models. But since there are no existing commercial solutions that combine
multiple services, this is the ideal timing for a large-scale pilot showcasing
the ecosystem that can be created.” (source: HICT)
3. “Governments try sometimes to reinvent the wheel each time even if the
technology is there. Private companies and SMEs can bring the market at a
higher level with current technology if it is better used.” (source: WiThings)
4. “Solutions nowadays are often called Internet of Thing instead of Internet of
Things, thus indicating the lack in interoperability.” (source: Televic)
Usability
5/5
The actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently,
find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.
The pilot consists of the following major aspects:

Localisation of lost children and elderly is very likely to be used
frequently since caring family members really fear that something will
happen if their kids or dementing parents get lost;

Vital health sign monitoring allows people to leave the hospital earlier
and elderly to live longer at their own homes, which is definitely something
potential users want to achieve;

Early detection of potential diseases will make elderly feel more safe,
will increase the wellbeing and decrease the need to visit a GP on a regular
basis;
Page 44 of 94


Automated reporting on physical activity and eating, drinking and
other habits is something that a lot of people (e.g. growing market of
wearables, worth 12B$ in 2018 [Statistica]) want to use since a healthy
style of life will improve their wellbeing and joy of life; and
Efficient communication platform between patients and caretakers
are wanted since they can reduce the number of required visits to the GP
and lower the threshold of asking questions which will result in an improved
follow-up.
Already existing similar project also showed that the usability is very high:

DIoTTO project for monitoring elderly person’s routines and deviations to
these routines [DIoTTO]

SensiumVital pilot project in the Saint John’s Health Center showed that
more than 80% of the caretakers found the solution was helpful and
confirmed that patients agreed on wearing the sensors [Sensium]
The biggest usability issue is the fact that it can be expected that multiple
value chain actors won’t be eager to shift towards new business
models (e.g. GPs want to conquer the way they are working nowadays).
The government has to push (and maybe even force) the healthcare sector
towards using such Future Internet solutions, albeit to solve the upcoming
problems of an aging population and lack of staff in hospitals and nursing
homes.
Another small usability issue that has to be mitigated with the clear benefits
related to this use case could be the resistance to change from the patients
due to the fear of poor or wrongly being diagnosed.
User
benefits
5/5
The benefits address fundamental needs of citizens and businesses.
These benefits are:
1. Better diagnostics and patient care: patient health records are enriched
with detailed information on vital signs, physical activity and etc.;
2. Improve population health: due to constant and efficient follow-up;
3. Enable more informative research: provides a good source of
information for clinical trials and longitudinal research on drugs;
4. Improved sense of safety: location tracking of elderly/sick people,
detection of fallen people and changes in physical activity;
5. Improved efficiency: GPs and nursing staff can better allocate their time
and resources (can receive notifications when something happens, but also
will have a fuller set of information); and
6. Improved quality of life: early detection and improved follow-up of
diseases (e.g. early detection of Alzheimer’s or insulin level monitoring for
diabetes patients) and increased independence of sick or elder people
(elderly can stay at home rather than go to retirement home).
All actors in the healthcare value chain have a vested interest to move into
remote patient monitoring. The focus should not be simply on the end user (the
patient), but on the full healthcare continuum: healthcare workers (home care
and healthcare providers, administrators), insurance firms as well as end-user
(source: interview HP).
"There is increasing clinical evidence of the value of continuous physiological
data in managing chronic diseases and monitoring patients' posthospitalization," Theo Ahadome, senior analyst at IMS Research said. "
[Wearable]
Entry
barriers
3/5
There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be
overcome.
Those entry barriers could be:
Page 45 of 94







Lack of financial incentives for GPs and other caretakers: multiple
value chain actors aren’t eager to shift towards the new business models
and want to stick to the usual way of working;
Regulation regarding including SMEs: nowadays it is very hard for SMEs
to do something in the healthcare domain due to strict regulations and long
approval times to produce clinical equipment;
Government policies: high barriers as the financial model of health care
will have to be fundamentally changed (e.g. regarding to reimbursements);
Slow uptake of innovation in the healthcare industry due to strict
regulations, very long trial periods and its multi-dimensional nature (e.g.
medical, clinical and infrastructure);
Regulation regarding to data protection: the Federal Communications
Commission regulation that could potentially affect data protection;
Back-office organisation: a very structured and efficient handling of the
collected data will be needed. Although this can be mitigated by collecting
all data in a central processing unit first, from which it is dispatched in case
of a real emergency to the most appropriate services; and
Variance in the workflow/process: overcoming management of change
issues among a diverse population of organizations/implementing entities.
Investment There are some small investment risks; however, these can in general be
risks
mitigated.
3/5
Those investment risks could be:

Political risks: the public sector policy can drastically change regulation,
which would create instabilities in the market. Although the more recent
public-private partnerships have become more trustworthy;

Low incentives for GPs: to achieve the cooperation with actuals GPs
there will have to be real incentives for them. A possible example to
mitigate this is a new remuneration system based on the number of people
he is following; and

Workflow variance: overcoming the necessary management of change
issues among a diverse populations of organisations/implementing entities
could be very hard.
Information There are significant information security risks that are difficult to
security
mitigate.
risks
3/5
Specifically, the system needs to support the following requirements in order to
mitigate the risks:

Availability of the information and user authorization: can be
mitigated by the use of OAuth 2.0 [OAuth] or Access Control Mechanisms
(ACMs) so individuals are aware and have control about the services they
allow to access their data;

Confidentiality and Integrity of information exchanged or stored:
can be mitigated by the use of decent encryption schemes; and

Personal data protection and the inability to link information from
different contexts together to a specific individual can be achieved using
privacy-enhancing techniques (PETs) [PET].
This need for decent encryption could put additional challenges on the M2M
service platform, e.g. health application provider may not be able to directly
rely on the security provided by the M2M service provider and must instead
implement end to end security at application layer.
Especially since current secure messaging suites such as PGP and TLS may not
provide a sufficient framework to handle trusted communication due to
regulation concerns in the storage, transmission, or destruction of electronic
health information. These regulations are inconsistent across different
jurisdiction regions and must be enhanced to allow for handling trusted
communication.
Page 46 of 94
Consumers remain concerned about privacy. But they trust clinicians more with
their data than any other entity. To retain that trust, companies will need to be
transparent about what is being done with the data. [PwC]
Openness
5/5
The use case can largely be built
specifications that can be freely reused.
on
common
standards
and
Standards that can be used are

Interoperable personal health devices (PHDs) such as weighing
scales, blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors and the like can be
achieved by the use of the CEN ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data
(PHD) standards [PHD];

Exchangeable patients records can use the HL7 Clinical Data
Architecture (CDA) [HL7], the EuroRec initiatives around Electronic Health
Record systems (EHRs) [EHR], the ICD-10 disease classifications and the
ICD, LOINC, HRHIS or ISO 27799 coding standards for medical diagnoses
and procedures;

Exchangeable medical images can be done by the use of the DICOM:
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine standards;

Wireless Medical Body Area Networks (MBANs) can use the IEEE
802.15.6NB1 global standard for wireless healthcare; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,
such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX or MobiquiThings/Sigfox/Lora.
There are a large amount of standards that can be used to build this use case,
so the main focus should be within demonstrating the cooperation possibilities
that these standards can offer.
Legal/
ethical
barriers
3/5
There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in
general be overcome.
The delivered services will in essence stay the same; there is only a change in
how those services will be provided (e.g. remotely instead of during a visit).
The lack of a solid government regulation and clear directives can be seen as
the biggest barriers to enter the market.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and
10/10
applying the solution.
Actors include among others:

Actual users: patients, elderly and other vulnerable people, but also
individuals who want to keep track of their physical activity;

Remote monitoring device manufacturers: Toumaz Group, Televic and
WiThings;

Clinicians and care coordinators: GPs/nursing staff;

EMR/PHR/Health Database providers: Cegidim, Santeo and Epic;

Ongoing initiatives: FI-Star [FI-Star], DIoTTO [DIoTTO]; and

Pharmaceutical industry: Bayer/Johnson & Johnson/GlaxoSmithKline/
Pfizer;

Equipment manufacturers: companies that will manufacture the
necessary on-board units and sensors, e.g. Be-Mobile, RDM Telematics and
Springworks AB;

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox;

Platform service providers: responsible for the collection and analyses of
large quantities of (anonymised) patient data on viral signs and behaviour,
e.g. Evrythng, Sensolus and ThingWorx or platforms as FIWARE and OM2M.
Page 47 of 94

Interoperability
10/10
Security companies: could provide a “first line” of security checks (e.g.
go and check whether an alarm is real or not).
This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of Information: universal
interpretation of information through data processing based on
cooperating
applications/using
open
Application
Programming
Interfaces (APIs).
A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence
provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the
cooperating actors to do the following:

Actual users will share information on their physical activity and vital
health signs;

Pharmaceutical industry will share information on medicines and
vaccinations that can be used;

Caretakers will share diagnoses and information about potential diseases;
and

Health insurance will share information on insurance policies.
Although their cooperation and consensus can be hard to achieve, since
there are a lot of different players around the table who want to protect their
own business model.
The government will have to play a major role in pushing these actors
towards new and innovative solutions, albeit to solve the upcoming
problems of an aging population. The standardisation efforts currently for
medical records and data which are currently going on (e.g. HL7, HIPAA,
European Institute for Health Record Systems (EuroRec Institute), CEN
ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data (PHD) standards etc.) will play a major
role in achieving this goal.
Replication
6/10
Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot
in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
The wellbeing aspect of this pilot can be easily replicated since it has no direct
link with local infrastructures and has no need to interface with GPs, hospitals,
etc. Although this is the case with the smart assisted living aspect, thus there
are some challenges that could arise are:

Regulatory issues: due to the lack of EU specific legislation around
telemedicine and severe differences in the approach of the Member States
(e.g. related to reimbursement and medical liability), an efficient crossborder tele-healthcare system will require a lot of efforts to be made
[Regulation]; and

Workflow variance: overcoming the necessary management of change
issues among diverse populations of organisations/implementing entities
could be very hard.
These challenges are manageable with clear legislation, for example the EC is
currently working on an eHealth action plan [Action] which focusses on wider
interoperability with a knowledge sharing platform [Momentum] and code of
practice for tele-health practitioners. [Code]
In case of replications; 80% of the will be easily transmittable, while 20% need
to be adjusted according to the situation. In order to be successful we need to
ensure that the implemented framework is well recorded (source: interview
with HP).
Scale
10/10
The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to
a full-size system.
Since the pilot wants to involve as many actors as possible in the large value
chain of the growing healthcare market (e.g. from caretakers to insurance
companies), the scale can be considered large enough.
Page 48 of 94
User
The pilot would imply active engagement of multiple user groups.
engagement
10/10
This pilot will address a really large value chain and will affect a broad group of
consumers due to considerable market potential. This will make sure that the
pilot involves active engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a
system that is useful and acceptable for people.
New
business
models
10/10
The use case provides a basis for completely new business models.
Every actor of the value chain will be able to test and validate potential new
business models:

Clinicians, GPs and care coordinators will allow GPs and nursing homes
to test solutions on remote patient monitoring, with different levels of
service and remuneration systems based on the number of people they are
monitoring and following;

EMR/PHR/Health Database providers can sell analyses on large
amounts of (anonymized) data to decision makers, insurance companies,
pharmaceutical industries, etc.;

Pharmaceutical companies can improve their relationship with the actual
patients who take medication;

Insurance companies can move from a conventional fixed-price servicecost structure to where the orientation is on utilization or incentive-based;

Network operators: could provide the necessary networking capabilities
for the monitoring; and

Platform service providers: this LSP will enable new markets for platform
service providers, who will provide the integrated information services (e.g.
the collection and analyses of large quantities of (anonymised) patient data
on viral signs and behaviour, etc.) that will form the basis of all these valueadded services.
The biggest issue here is the fact a lot of these value chain actors don’t want to
move towards those new business models (e.g. GPs who want to conquer their
way of working and do not yet have clear incentives for change).
The government will have to play a major role and has to push (and maybe
even force) the healthcare sector towards these new business models, albeit to
solve the upcoming problems of an aging population and lack of staff in
hospitals and nursing homes.
Crossborder
potential
6/10
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by twothree European countries.
Due to the entry barriers, investment risks and severe information security
risks there will be some inertia and this LSP isn't likely to be taken up by the
majority of the European countries in the next two years. Although a lot of good
initiatives around cross border care (e.g. the cross-border healthcare directive
[CBC], which already provides a set of rules on healthcare access and
reimbursement across European borders) show the possibilities of cross border
policies.
The ability to replicate after the pilot is highly dependent on the receptivity of
the prospective organizations seeking to replicate and the viability and stability
of the new business models. Technically, it would not be difficult to replicate a
solution, even with relatively high level of customization required for each new
country. However, the willingness of prospect countries to replicate and the
effective management of the change process is the single biggest factor to
speed and success of replication.
References
[PwC] PwC Health Research Institute:
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/healthcare-new-entrants/index.jhtml
[Wearable] http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/10-wearable-health-tech-devices-towatch/d/d-id/1107148?page_number=6
[EHR] Report on Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health
Page 49 of 94
Records: Phase 2
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2014/EHRdomains2.aspx
[ETSI] ETSI use cases for eHealth:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102700_102799/102732/01.01.01_60/tr_102732v010101p.p
df
[PHD] ISO/IEEE 11073 PHD Standards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEEE_11073_Personal_Health_Data_%28PHD%29_Standards
[OAuth] OAuth 2.0: http://oauth.net/2/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing
[CoD]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Causes_of_death_%E2%80
%94_standardised_death_rate_per_100_000_inhabitants,_males,_EU28,_2004%E2%80%9310_(1)_(2004_%3D_100)_YB14_II.png
[LVBM] Low Voltage Body Monitoring solution:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6733186
[HL7] HL7 standards: http://www.hl7.org/
[FI-Star] FI-Star: https://www.fi-star.eu/fi-star.html
[EuroRec] EuroRec: http://www.eurorec.org/
[CBC] EU Cross Border Care directive:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/policy/index_en.htm
[Sensium] SensiumVital: http://www.toumaz.com/sites/default/files/White%20paper%20%20v1%207%20NL.pdf
[Colibree] Colibree smart toothbrush: http://www.kolibree.com/en/
[Mirror] Smart Mirror: http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/could-smart-mirror-save-yourlife_en.html
[ABI] ABI Research: www.abiresearch.com/research/product/1005339-wireless-health-and-fitness
[DIoTTO] Zorgproeftuinen project DIoTTO: http://www.zorgproeftuinen.be/nl/node/328
[PET] PET Whitebook: http://www.dutchdpa.nl/downloads_overige/PET_whitebook.pdf
[Statistica] Statistica research on growing wearable market:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/259372/wearable-device-market-value/
[Regulation]
http://docbox.etsi.org/Workshop/2014/201405_EHEALTHWORKSHOP/S02_REGULATIONS/EC_
DGCONNECT_DESWARTE.pdf
[Momentum] http://telemedicine-momentum.eu/
[Code] http://telehealthcode.eu/
[Action] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/newsletter-itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9155
I.5.
Worker safety
Use case
description
A group of IoT use cases aiming to increase worker safety in factories and on
construction yards by adding sensors to industrial equipment (e.g. forklifts,
cranes, bulldozers, conveyor belts) and personal safety equipment (e.g.
wearables, helmets, clothing). The use cases enable to locate workers, notify
co-workers of possible dangerous situations, monitor vital health signs (e.g.
temperature and oxygen levels for firefighters), monitoring factory hall
parameters, avoiding collisions, emergency stops of machinery, etc.
To preserve a certain level of confidentiality, notifications are only sent to the
worker himself and others in his vicinity that are directly affected by the
actions. Only when certain incidents are reoccurring and sever safety threats
arise, the medical assistants and in the end management could be informed.
Specific use 
Monitor safety of workers (auto off, warning messages, etc.) and provide
cases
detailed analytics on safety behaviour by the use of factory-floor wearables;

Wireless sensor networks for tracing workers in harsh production
environments; and

Odour and hazardous gas monitoring system using wireless sensor
networks.
Interesting 
Manufacturers of safety equipment: [3M], [Uvex], [JSP], [SIOEN],
companies
[Snickers], [Centurion]
and organi- 
IT service providers: [Cisco], [IBM]
Page 50 of 94
sations to
deploy the
LSP




Manufacturing industry: [Total], [Volkswagen], [BASF], [ArcelorMittal],
Quarrying and mining: [DPM], [Anglo American plc]
Construction: [Vinci], [ACS], [Hochtief], [CFE]
Government : [EU]
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following
demographic change and well-being”.
Horizon
2020
challenge:
“Health,
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since all sectors which involve
moving equipment, moving raw materials and goods, dangerous/chemical
substances and dangerous working environments can benefit from this use
case.
Market
coverage
5/5
This use case covers mass consumers in the B2B area, since it allows for
increased worker’s safety in multiple industries using processes in which
moving equipment, moving raw materials and goods, dangerous/chemical
substances, dangerous working environments etc. might endanger worker
safety. (E.g. manufacturing and transport), provides insights for insurance
companies and also relates to emergency services in case of accidents.
It may also affect the B2C market where consumers do not want to consciously
buy products of whose production process endangered the lives of workers.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
Several similar, but limited pilots and commercial solutions already exist and
show the technical maturity, e.g.
Industrial equipment

RaymondCorp enables tracking of forklifts to avoid collisions [MMH,
Modern Materials Handling, iWarehouse]; and

SK Solutions developed a tool that adds artificial intelligence to any mobile
equipment (e.g. cranes, bulldozers, etc.) to avoid collisions [SK Solutions].
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Monitoring of mining workers to increase their safety is already done
by Cisco for a large mining company [Cisco, Acrodex, Cisco – DPM]; and

Human Condition Global is developing a smart vest and helmet which
is capable of monitoring vital health signs and tracking the location of for
example firefighters, construction workers and cops/soldiers. The helmet is
for example equipped with an airbag which inflates in case of accidents
[Human Condition Global, HCG Infographic].
These initiatives all originate in the United States, but show that the technical
maturity and market interest is there.
Usability
5/5
The already existing pilots also focus too much on specific aspects of worker
safety (e.g. tracking of forklifts) and don’t allow collaboration with other safety
increasing solutions (e.g. interoperability between the GPS in a worker’s helmet
and the one on a forklift).
In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution
frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to
use it.
The success of the already ongoing commercial and pilot initiatives in the
United States show that the usability is high.
Especially due to the fact that the tools used for monitoring purposes don’t
Page 51 of 94
imply any interaction from the user, they only enable monitoring by being
connected to the Internet.
User
benefits
5/5
Since this solutions offer possibilities to locate workers faster, improve response
times in case of accidents and monitor worker’s conditions this solution will be
used frequently.
The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to
the user (e.g. increased safety).
The benefits for the users could be of lifesaving importance, e.g. monitoring
of vital health signs, toxic gas detection, locating workers in case of accidents
and collisions and accidents avoidance could save a lot of lives.
Entry
barriers
5/5
The human global condition institute calculated based on an OSHA-Us study
that the use of smart helmets and vests could safe more than 400 workers’
lives per year in the US [Human Condition Global]. Due to the fact that at this
moment 22,6% of European workforce is in manufacturing and 10,8% in
construction (in total more than 50 million employees) this solutions could save
a lot of lives in Europe as well [EC Statistics].
The barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to enter
for new players.
The relatively low barriers that eventually could arise are:

Economies of scale since these products will only be affordable if they can
be produced in large quantities;

Capital requirements: production could need large initial investments, but
a business model could be that they outsource the actual production.

Government policy: there are a lot of regulations for personal protective
equipment, so this could be an issue. On the other hand current helmets
and vests are already manufactured according to these regulations and the
additions to make them ‘smart’ should not change much to the compliance
[PPE EU Regulations].
Investment The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe to
risks
invest in.
5/5
Those low investment risks could be:

There are some political risks, since personal protective equipment is
tightly regulated.

Also technology and operational risks are present. If a producer invest
heavily in trying to make a standard, but another standard is being
adopted it could entail high financial costs.

Affordability risks are also present, since safety helmets and vests are
cheap nowadays. Making them “smart” would mean a network is
necessary and the products themselves could be significantly more
expensive.
Fortunately, all these risks are “mitigated” or nullified by the increase of
safety they offer (and efficiency: DPM had an increase of 400% production
due to the cisco ‘smart’ implementation [Cisco - DPM]).
Information There are some information security risks; however, these can in
security
general be mitigated.
risks
3/5
The information security risks that could appear are:

The confidentiality and integrity risks are rather small, the only a risk
is an exposure, which could results in the theft or change of information
about the location and on vital health signs of all workers; and

Availability loss would not entail big risks, since traditional methods could
be used again to overcome the unavailability of the solution.
Openness There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition
3/5
restrictions on the use.
The case specific standards are proprietary and are not available under an open
licence.
Page 52 of 94
Legal/
ethical
barriers
3/5
Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot:

Wireless sensor network can be set-up using 802.15.4/Zigbee protocols
and RFID;

Interoperable and open data platform can be developed by the use FIWare or OneM2M architectures, in combination with well documented
RESTful API's; and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,
such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.
There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in
general be overcome.


There are a lot of regulations for personal protective equipment, so this
could be an issue. On the other hand current helmets and vests are already
manufactured according to these regulations and the additions to
make them ‘smart’ should not change much to the compliance [PPE EU
Regulations]; and
Loss of freedom can be seen as an ethical barrier, since constant
monitoring and tracking workers could give them the feeling that they lost
their freedom and could create a big brother effect.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of
coverage
individual elements)
6/10
This LSP in worker’s safety will be able to bring a large part of the actors in the
value chain together, which can be composed by predominantly European
organisations. Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Producers: the production of PPE in Europe is mostly done by large
companies. It will be very important to include them as much as possible in
the pilot; [3M], [Uvex], [JSP], [SIOEN], [Snickers], [Centurion]

Transport, Logistics and Construction companies: those companies
could use the products (smart vest & helmet, collision & activity systems);

Government: which is responsible for all kinds of regulations related to
PPE; and

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.
InterThis pilot allows for seamless sharing of data, based on a common
operability exchange model.
6/10
The LSP should enable the seamless sharing of data. It would need a general
platform used by all construction companies, architect, transporters, etc. in
order to make sure that a subcontractor, site supervisor, architect, etc. that
arrive on site can easily be coupled to the system to ensure its safety.
The cooperating actors could be for example:

Construction and manufacturing companies: workers will be the end
users, providing data on whereabouts, vital health signs, etc. and the
management will use the data to monitor activities and ensure safety &
efficiency;

Transporters and Logistics: providing data on truck drivers
(whereabouts, vital signs, activity, …);

Architects and site supervisors: providing data on themselves when
visiting construction sites (whereabouts, vital signs, activity, etc.) and they
could enable 3D mapping of the construction site, so that workers can be
localized in 3D; and

Government: performing data analyses based on data provided by
manufacturing and construction to detect trends in safety threats and
provide regulation on standards and technologies.
Page 53 of 94
Replication
10/10
The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and
locations.
Scale
10/10
The general idea and objective of the pilot is relatively easy to replicate in
different settings and locations, since all construction sites are similar according
to the point-of-view of the LSP.
The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close
to a full-size system.
Since this pilot really wants to involve all the actors in construction and
manufacturing, the scale can be considered large enough.
A demonstrator acting as validator could showcase the increase in safety
and efficiency.
User
The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social
engagement scientists.
10/10
This pilot will address a really large part of the value chain and will affect
a broad group of user groups. This will make sure that the pilot involves
active engagement of multiple user groups in order to design a system that is
useful and acceptable for people.
New
The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional
business
business models, but does not fundamentally change these business
models
models.
6/10
These initiatives and technologies create a new way of monitoring and
creating a safe workers’ environment. It enables new services, which can
be moulded into new business models.

Manufacturers of safety equipment: They can differentiate themselves
from their competitors by selling smart safety equipment and services
coupled to it;

IT service provides: service providers could offer a monitoring
solution/service, with the products (smart helmet & vest) included;

Manufacturing industry: more efficient and safe (attracting a better
workforce);

Quarrying and mining: more efficient and safe (attracting a better
workforce); and

Construction: more efficient and safe (attracting a better workforce).
CrossIn the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
border
than three European countries if the LSP is successful.
potential
10/10
This use case is likely to be taken up by multiple countries, especially if this
pilot can showcase the possibilities of increasing efficiency and saving actual
lives.
At the same time it could be an LSP with multinational companies in a
cooperation with the EU to workout regulations and standards.
References
[WhiteLight Group, LLC] http://whitelightgrp.com/internet-things-transforming-construction/
[MMH, Modern Materials Handling]
http://www.mmh.com/article/4_ways_the_Internet_of_things_will_reshape_manufacturing
[iWarehouse] https://www.raymondcorp.com/about-us-overview
[SK Solutions] http://www.sk-navigator.com/software/anti-collision.html
[Cisco] http://www.cisco.com
[Cisco - DPM] http://www.cisco.com/web/NL/tomorrow-starts-here/pdf/C36-73078401_Dundee_Precious_Metals_CS_v3a_Netherlands.pdf
[Acrodex] http://www.acrodex.com/
[Human Condition Global] http://humanconditionglobal.com/construction-safety-technology/
[3M]
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_EU/PPE_SafetySolutions_EU/Safety/Product_Catalogu
e/~/Head-Protection?N=5158345+3294857473&rt=r3
[Uvex] http://www.uvex-safety.com/en/products/safety-helmets/safety-helmets-hard-hats/
[JSP] http://www.jsp.co.uk/products/head-protection
Page 54 of 94
[SIOEN] http://www.sioenapparel.com/EN/sioen-apparel-13.aspx
[Centurion] http://www.centurionsafety.eu
[Snickers] http://www.snickersworkwear.com/about-us
[HCG Infographic] http://humanconditionglobal.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/ConstructionSafety_Infographic.jpg
[EC Statistics]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Construction_statistics__NACE_Rev._2
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Manufacturing_statistics__NACE_Rev._2
[PPE EU Regulations] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/personal-protectiveequipment/index_en.htm
I.6.
Use case
description
Smart living environment
A group of IoT use cases involving organisations in the public, cultural, tourism,
and entertainment sector that deal with the confluence of the physical living
environment and a virtual reality. This makes everyday objects, artworks,
books, games, music more interactive through the use of devices such as 3D
glasses, motion sensors and motion controllers, image recognition, tags, etc.
delivering an augmented user experience.
Specific use 
cases



Interviewed 
organi
sations


Personalised user experience (different available languages, age,
interests...) and gamification for guided city tours and museum visits.
Augmented reality and interaction for sports games, theatre plays, concerts,
etc.
Increasing social interaction in cities via gamification (source: smart-ip.eu).
Interaction with objects in the public environment (e.g. streetlights) and
entertainment (e.g. dance floor).
I2cat (Spain)
EERA JPSC
Manchester expert in digital experience (United Kingdom)
City of Bristol (United Kingdom)
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This
use
case
covers
the
following
Horizon
2020
challenge:
"Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies
mainly through innovative services for citizens"
Industry
coverage
0/5
This use case is only applicable
“Arts, entertainment and recreation”.
to
one
specific
industry
sector:
Market
coverage
5/5
This use case covers a mass group of consumers, since it aims at the large
market related to tourism and entertainment (e.g. museums, (movie) theatres,
theme parks, public monuments, cultural heritage, etc.).
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
High maturity for the following technology components:

Sensors/Cameras in Museum, amusement parks

Smart mobile devices: smartphones, tablets, head-mounted display (3D
glasses)

Advertising panels
Page 55 of 94


Augmented reality technology
Game consoles
Technology is mature but mobile Internet connectivity is still lagging behind.
The necessary improvements in infrastructure, network and software are
expected within the 2 next years to bring pilot at a large scale (source:
interview i2cat). The speed of interaction is important in a LSP at a city scale.
The latency of interaction can lead to a loss of interest for users (source:
Bristol)
Many cities are well developed in Asia and the question is how Europe will catch
up. The technical maturity is there but cities need to take this up and not to
lose moment (source: interview EERA JPSC)
There is a technical infrastructure but often these environments such as
museums are not technologically literate (source: interview Manchester city).
Usability
3/5
Although there are some usability issues, in general, the actual or
potential users would still like to use the solution under condition that
the abovementioned usability issues will be solved.
Usability for end users is a critical success factor. Innovative user interfaces
such as 3D displays, 3D motion controls, head-mounted displays (3D glasses),
motion sensors, touch screens, etc. are becoming intuitive and easy to use.
Nevertheless, a mental barrier and a knowledge gap may remain among end
users (Source: interview i2cat).
User
benefits
3/5
The benefits offered by the use case are of a nice-to-have nature for
the user.
For a large part of the population, the use case will foster end user comfort.
Benefits would be

Quality of life

Social activity

Easier access to information and services
But a small group of people (elderly or disabled people), benefits can be
fundamental since the use case will allow them to live experiences they usually
cannot (such as people with eye problems) (source: interview i2cat). It will also
enable services in the educational sector (source: interview Manchester). The
learning capabilities such LSP will foster is of fundamental importance for users
(source: interview Bristol).
Entry
barriers
5/5
The barriers to entry are relatively low, and the domain is easy to enter
for new players.
There are a few small barriers that can restricts this use case in the ability to
allow new players to enter the market:

Infrastructure owned by third-parties who do not see business
interest to make available their infrastructure for SMEs in the creative
industry;

Right and copyright of existing players that are leader in some
industry (music, movies);

Capital investments: Cost can be high especially and a budget
restricted or if the city is cutting its budget (source: interview
Manchester).

Community mindset: a community structure and mindset is required
but it is rarely the case. (Source: interview i2cat). An LSP might bring
together the right players.
Entry barriers are high and SMEs do not have the resources (interview
Bristol). Bristol sees that it is hard for start-ups and crowdfunding is of
good help. In Bristol they have incubators for start-ups.
Page 56 of 94
Investment The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe to
risks
invest in.
5/5
Those low barriers could be:

Political risks: Government or local policy regarding the creative industry
might change with and weaken the development of a pilot that would be
deployed over several years. (Source: interview i2cat). Currently, Bristol is
supportive of the creative industry which is very helpful (source: interview
Bristol).

Technology and operational risks: average. Technology developed in
such pilot should take into account the fast development of technology.
There is a low risk related to the emergence of new (replacing)
technologies. The risk exists if investment is made in a closed product
solution. Lower risk in an open source solution. City would foster open
technology but it raises legal and ethical barrier and big companies prefer
their proprietary solutions. (Source: i2cat)

Affordability risks: low since it will foster the development of multiple
services provided by any kind of actor. The competition and the large scale
effect will help to reduce the cost for end-users (source: interview i2cat).
Could be a public-private partnership, key to bring different stakeholders
together as it is indirect benefit for the cities (source: interview EERA JPSC)

Capacity risks: average. The support must be ensured and stable until
the business model is viable by itself. (Source: interview i2cat)
Information
security
risks
5/5
There are some information security risks; however, these can in
general be mitigated (e.g. with clear and auditable rules for privacy
management and handling of personal data).

Confidentiality: there is less need for keeping data confidential. Personal
data of users is not needed for most use cases or could be reasonably well
protected.

Integrity: According to EERA JPSC, the information security risk is not
very critical. Information are usually not sensitive and can only be used for
advertising purposes. (Source: interview i2cat).

Availability: Outages or downtimes do not lead to considerable damages.
(Source: interview i2cat)
Openness
3/5
There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition
restrictions on the use of relevant standards and specifications for this
use case.
Today, there are only limited standards and specifications available that are
available under FRAND conditions. (Source: interview i2cat). Cities might foster
openness and use of standards and specifications, but risk increasingly to have
to rely on closed systems. Large companies would remain to be involved with
proprietary technology (e.g. Schneider Electric and Cisco with the smart city
campus project).
Legal/
ethical
barriers
5/5
There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in
general be overcome.
There are legal barriers to might halt such pilot but no ethical barriers (sources:
interview i2cat, EERA JPSC)
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and
10/10
applying the solution.
The use case would bring together the following actors in the value chain:
 Entertainment industry: Music corporations (e.g. universal music), movie
Page 57 of 94









corporations (e.g. Disney, Dreamworks);
Providers of Internet media: e.g. Netflix (streaming);
Music platforms: Spotify, Deezer, SoundCloud, itunes;
Gaming designers;
Virtual reality devices manufacturers: headset (Oculus, Zeiss), 3D
glasses (Google glass), 3D display providers: Holografika;
Public administrations: cities (Bristol is a pioneer),
Education bodies: schools, universities;
Museums, tour operators;
Entertainment places: amusement parks, night clubs; and
Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.
There are many projects in Europe conducted by cities and some at European
scale such as spitfire. A lot of effort is still necessary since current cooperation
could be more efficient (source: i2cat).
Interoperability
6/10
Seamless Sharing of Data: automated sharing of data amongst systems
based on a common exchange model.
Interoperability will be complex to achieve because it will be hard to have a
common basis. (Source: interview i2cat).
Replication
6/10
Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot
in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
The European diversity can be a barrier for the replication in this case. Culture,
government issues can break the replication. (Source: i2cat)
Bristol is working with other cities and for them, the replicability is very
important but challenging target.
Scale
6/10
The pilot is a sub-system, a component for a full-sized system.
Due to the nature of this pilot, smart living environment applications developed
in the context of this pilot will not be embedded in a larger ecosystem.
User
The pilot implies active engagement of multiple user groups and social
engagement scientists.
10/10
The creative and participative aspects of such pilot make it accessible to
multiple groups of users and foster e-inclusion. It can initiate stronger
community solutions where the citizens are the major actors (source: i2cat,
Manchester).
New
business
models
10/10
The use case provides a basis for completely new business models.
Crossborder
potential
10/10
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
than three European countries.
Many new business models will emerge with many type of service providers
that will aim to improve user’s comfort (source: i2cat).
Children that will have access to complex but easy to use technology might be
the motor of the emergence of new business (source: Manchester).
According to Bristol, at least 10 other cities that would develop a project in that
domain.
References
[Bristol] Bristol is Open: www.bristolisopen.com
[CREAM]: http://communities.cre-am.eu/
[Creatifi]:http://www.slideshare.net/arturserra/creatifi-leveraging-thefuture-internet-forcreative-industries
[Holografika] http://www.holografika.com/
[Oculus] http://www.oculus.com/
Page 58 of 94
[zeiss]: http://www.zeiss.com/cinemizer-oled/en_de/home.html
http://pro.europeana.eu/pro-blog/-/blogs/2033630
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/figuerola-presa.pdf
I.7.
Smart manufacturing: customisation
Use case
description
A group of IoT use cases that enable the production of customised outputs.
Such production systems combine the low unit costs of mass production
processes with the flexibility of individual customisation.
Specific use 
Continuous Additive Manufacturing;
cases

Flexible automation for robot manufacturing;

Robot systems for additive manufacturing;

Production of one-of-a-kind customer designs; and

Dynamic production systems and shop floors - mobile robot for efficient and
flexible use in cleanrooms.
Interviewed 
organi
sations

Admesy (the Netherlands)
Opiflex (Sweden)
TNO (the Netherlands)
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenges:

“Secure, clean and efficient energy”; and

“Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, in particular those with complex
supply chains, consisting of many steps and/or partners. This includes nearly all
manufacturing sectors, which is the complete secondary sector of the EU
economy. It also covers sectors such as logistics, retail, wholesale, waste
management, transportation, public services etc.
Market
coverage
5/5
These use cases cover a mass group of consumers in both the B2B and B2C
area, since it has impact throughout the whole lifecycle and value chain of
manufactured items.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
3/5
The use case is already at a later stage of development, parallel pilots
and even commercial solutions already exist.
Several similar, commercial solutions already exist and show the technical
maturity, e.g.

Optiflex already offers a commercial solution that enables customisation
and flexibility using mobile robotics;

In the market of display manufacturing (cfr. interview with Ademesy),
there exist commercial solutions to automate the control on colour and
light emission.

The Siemens Electronic Works facility in Amberg, Germany, produces
electronics components following a
custom, built-to-order process
involving more than 1.6 billion components for over 50,000 annual product
variations, for which Siemens sources about 10,000 materials from 250
suppliers
In other markets and for the application of Internet of Things in production
environments technical maturity is more moderate, since those initiatives are
still in the development and demonstration phase. E.g. continuous additive
manufacturing is still in the technology development and demonstration phase.
Page 59 of 94
Usability
5/5
User
benefits
5/5
Entry
barriers
3/5
Due to the limited number and very specific nature of the existing commercial
solutions, the technology is definitely not too mature for a Large-Scale Pilot
[EFFRA].
The actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently,
find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.
Companies that offer flexible automation solutions aim to make their
technology as easy to use as possible, but there are of course always several
usability issues to be dealt with, e.g.

Changing setups of for instance flexible robotics systems, which requires
more skills (programming) from operators than fixed machines (Opiflex);
and

Information
security
challenges
for
quality
measurement
equipment that captures and generates a lot of business intelligence
(Admesy).
The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to
the user.
The application of IoT for this specific subdomain of customisation and flexibility
focuses on increasing performance, flexibility, productivity and usability.
There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be
overcome.
These barriers are

Capital requirements are very large for offering complete manufacturing
systems (e.g. like Siemens does); and

Interoperability between hardware and software constitutes switching
costs. However, new entrants can start as parts or components suppliers,
illustrated by Opiflex and Admesy, which both offer technical solutions that,
combined with existing manufacturing equipment provide advanced
manufacturing performance.

This industry is characterised by enormously specialised companies,
with huge quantities of parts being incorporated in one production solution;
and

The opportunities to differentiate are vast, but to come to system solutions
requires collaboration across the value chain and between different
component suppliers.
One of the key drivers for deciding to adopt automation/customisation solutions
is the increased productivity in comparison to the investment requirement.
Naturally, this investment is easiest to earn back when production volumes are
very high. Mobile robotics platforms, like Opiflex offer, however, to decrease
the required production volume for efficient automation. Small series
production and even handicraft become potential subjects for automation,
through this technologies, effectively decreasing entry barriers for automation
partners to these segments.
Investment There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be
risks
mitigated.
3/5
The risks that can arise are

This technology can be of temporary nature, however, because this
constitutes an enabling technology, namely flexible production technology,
the risk is limited;

The specific automation market is very international, which means that
companies operate in different political contexts (e.g. Admesy indicated
that conducting business in China is always risky);

Automation/customisation technology, as mentioned afore, is associated
with considerable affordability risks. However, because this technology
nearly always results in direct cost reductions, this risk is mitigated. In fact,
Opiflex foresees that European manufacturing SMEs eventually will have to
automate (part of) their production, in order to be able to compete
internationally;
Page 60 of 94

This technology is not necessarily associated with capacity risks (or at
least more risk than existing capacity), as a substantial share of
automation/customisation technology constitutes replacement of existing
production capacity.
Information The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively
security
safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic
risks
information.
5/5
The main information security risks associated with this technology is the risk
of leakage of data, due to connecting all machines and tools within a factory
to the Internet, which creates a wealth of data. Fortunately, this is only
particularly true when production data leaves the factory and currently in many
production environments, information is only shared between different
machines or production departments, but not necessarily with external parties.
Admesy indicated for example that one of its key customers, a global
smartphone manufacturer, strictly prohibits any production data to leave its
factories and takes adequate measures.
When applying IoT across the whole value chain, naturally this risk become
more prominent. However, because (parts of) the factory is only accessible to
a limited number of parties (e.g. suppliers, operators, maintenance service
providers and retailers), the security risk should be manageable.
Openness
3/5
Legal/
ethical
barriers
5/5
A production manager from Philips also stated: “It is open innovation with a
fence around it”, implying innovation collaboration with a limited partnership.
There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition
restrictions on the use. [Kontron]
Openness on use of patents differs between application domains. Admesy
indicates that for their market, most competitors rely on the same underlying
sensor technology which is well covered with patents offered against FRAND
conditions, whereas at an application level (e.g. assembling different
components into a measurement instrument, and integrating that instrument in
a production line) the amount of patents used is limited and the used
technology is shared openly.
This differs from Opiflex, which has filed and acquired several patents to protect
the different elements of its product offering. While in continuous additive
manufacturing, using IPR is restricted with non-FRAD conditions (case of TNO).
There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in
general be overcome.
The use case is not associated with substantial legal barriers, but where the
topic touches on the elimination of jobs as a result of automation, some
ethical issues might arise. This is also applicable to a specific market, such as
continuous additive manufacturing, according to TNO.
However, as for instance the CEO of Opiflex indicates, that automation and
customisation of European manufacturing will likely result in increased
productivity. This might eventually result in production that was initially
outsourced to low-wage countries, to return to Europe.
Effectively, this might result in more, higher skilled, European jobs. In
addition, this frees up manpower, initially occupied with monotonous labour, to
conduct more creative and finger-fine jobs.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and
10/10
applying the solution.
Page 61 of 94
In theory, the use case stretches across the whole value chain. With production
getting more customised in terms of production parameters and volumes,
other company functions, like procurement and logistics also need to
become more tailored and connected. Full value chain coverage is expected
to take place as the technology matures, for instance due to earlier mentioned
information security issues and collaboration challenges.
Although European parties are definitely not the only competitors in the
customisation and automation domain, but is does boast some of the most
prominent suppliers of this technology, e.g. Siemens, Bosch, Festo, SAP,
Trumpf, Fraunhofer, Kuka, ABB, Phoenix Contact, Shapeways etc.
Interoperability
6/10
This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data amongst systems,
based on a common exchange model.
For IoT application in the manufacturing automation or customisation domain
sharing of data needs to be seamless and automated between different system
elements. Although interoperating technologies are already developed for
industry 4.0, these are not yet adopted by all system partners.
TNO added that currently data is shred on a common exchange model, but it is
not yet universally interpreted based on APIs.
Replication
6/10
There are always manners to make one supplier’s device work with another
supplier’s device, but this requires a substantial amount of integration costs
[AW].
Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot
in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
The nature of this use case is that it is flexible and easy to customise to
different requirements and contexts. Because different elements in the
production system communicate and contain embedded intelligence, replication
of the pilot should be facilitated.
Scale
10/10
However, suitability of the pilot for replication depends on the type of
production line that is selected for the pilot. Naturally, ultra-high tech
production systems like those for semiconductors or nanotechnology cannot
easily be replicated in changing settings, due to the very sensitive
environmental conditions surrounding such a system (highly susceptible to
contamination).
Replication of production pilots based on more mainstream technologies is
substantially easier. According to Admesy’s CEO this is being done frequently in
countries like China. European parties often lack the resources and manpower
to do this. However, with a combined effort and supported with European
resources, these obstacles should be manageable.
The scale of the multi-modal LSP can be considered large enough, since
it is close to a full-size system.
As this technology constitutes an integrated production system, with many
production elements and adjacent value chain activities being integrated, the
possibilities to create a close to a full-size system are plentiful.
User
The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a small
engagement number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users.
6/10
This pilot will affect mostly the plant owner, since the operation of a production
facility is normally limited to them.
Other evident user groups would be

Unions or other representatives of employees/operators;

Maintenance companies that have to conduct maintenance of the (pilot)
production line; and

Procurement and logistics companies that offer adjacent value chain
activities.
Page 62 of 94
New
business
models
10/10
Crossborder
potential
10/10
In general, a production environment is relatively ‘fenced off’, which can
limit the involvement of social scientists.
The use case provides a basis for completely new business models.
Most of the actors in the value chain will be able to test and validate potential
new or adjustments in their business models:

Manufacturers will be able to increase the customisation and flexibility of
the production line, which provides substantial change of the business
model and opens-up opportunities for new products (from a producer-side)
and services (from a supplier-side), but those are limited since the focus is
still on production;

Supplier companies can now provide new software solutions and services
for maintenance, inventory management, factory management and
distribution optimisation; and

SMEs and start-ups will be able to provide new business models around
decentralised and mass customisation manufacturing (e.g. using consumerowned 3D printers) [3DHubs], but these companies currently still mostly
focus on niche markets.
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
than three European countries.
It is highly likely that frontrunners in this technology field, like Germany,
Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland [RB] will start adaptation in the
coming 2 years.
This is highlighted by leading European players in this domain originating from
various European countries (although Germany still boasts the main share of
companies active in this domain).
References:
[EEFRA] EFFRA (2013) Factories of the future – multi-annual roadmap for the contractual PPP
under Horizon 2020, Prepared for the European Commission, DG RTD, Page 121
[RB] Roland Berger strategy consultants (2014) Industry 4.0 – the new industrial revolution:
How Europe will succeed.
[3DHubs] http://www.3dhubs.com/
[Kontron] http://blog.kontron.com/cloud/iot.html
[AW] http://www.automationworld.com/industry-40-and-opc-ua
I.8.
Environmental monitoring
Use case
description
A group of IoT use cases that involve gathering large quantities data from a
wide variety of sensors (owned by the public sector and private organisations,
and households) to monitor air quality, temperature, rain fall, river levels, noise
levels, electromagnetic fields, forest fires, seismic activity, etc. The gathered
data will then be published on open platforms as a service to the public and
private sector to enable value-added services. Possible collaboration with the
EEA on its Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) and the JRC on
implementing INSPIRE.
Specific use 
Equip streets and open spaces with air quality and noise sensors to
cases
automatically report to municipalities, bars and industries on pollution,
pollen and noise levels and to detect risks on toxic exposure due to very
high CO(2) levels or presence of toxic gases;

Equipping natural areas (e.g. forests, deserts, ski areas or other
uninhabited regions) with a large wireless sensor network which could
enable early detection of emergencies (e.g. drowning people) and disasters
(e.g. forest fires, hurricanes, avalanches, earthquakes and other possible
disasters);

Big data analytics tools could use the generated data to construct
forecasting models on for example air quality to support and improve
decision making processes and to be used by insurance and real estate
companies;
Page 63 of 94


Monitoring the quality of water in rivers and brooks will enable early
detection of pollution caused by dumping of toxic or chemical waste from
industries; and
The open platform could collaborate with the EEA on its Shared
Environmental Information System (SEIS) and the JRC on implementing
INSPIRE.
The following use cases related to improving the collaboration between citizens
and government and monitoring and tracking of living animals could also be
included in the pilot, but are considered out of scope during benchmarking due
to the totally different objectives and big differences in needed technology:

Publish discovered problems (littering, broken lights or unavailable services)
on a cloud platform;

Track and monitor (rare) animals in natural areas;

Track birds to analyse migration routes; and

Find and map minerals, oils and natural gases in large urban areas using
animals equipped with sensors or unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs).
Interviewed
organi
sations

Libelium (Spain)
Expert in digital experience
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Climate action,
environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.
Industry
coverage
0/5
This use case will only by applied by one specific industry sector: “Public
administration and defence; compulsory social security”.
Market
coverage
5/5
A large segment of consumers is covered. For example, it provides feedback on
the effects of waste emissions by industrial activity, provides an instrument for
policy making to the public sector, and helps the real estate sector.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
Several similar, but limited (pilot) projects already exist and show the technical
maturity, e.g.

Air quality sensors have been deployed in the Rescatame project in
Salamanca (Spain), where more than 200 air quality sensor were used to
create prediction models and introduce sustainable traffic management
[Rescatame];

Open data platforms to collect sensor data have already been
deployed in multiple American cities (e.g. Sacramento, Palo Alto)[Junar];

Sensor-based Citizen’s Communities are developed during the CitiSense project;

Water monitoring solutions have been tested in Valencia [SW];

Forest fire detection has been done with a wireless sensor network in
Asturias and Galicia [FF] and has a commercial solution with DIMAPFactorLink; and

A platform to deploy, operate and maintain heterogeneous networked
environmental monitoring objects are used in the PLANET pilot [PLANET].
Those small to medium sized pilots show the technical maturity of the different
aspects of this use case, but aren’t built upon a horizontal and open
platform, enabling developers and other third parties to use the gathered data
and develop value added services.
Page 64 of 94
Usability
5/5
During interviews the fact rose that there is no city that wants to be the
first to invest in a real large scale wireless sensor network. An EU-funded
large scale pilot in this area could be a demonstrator of the technologies, and
when deployed successfully, a lot of other cities or regions will follow.
The actual or potential users would like to use the solution frequently,
find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.
The biggest issue that could arise is the risk on low user engagement, since
it will be hard to convince the majority of the citizens to engage in such a use
case.
However, the success of the already existing similar, but limited projects and
pilots (e.g. the ones listed in above) show that the usability for
environmental monitoring solutions can be very high.
For example, monitoring pollution in Stockholm resulted in a people’s
referendum to approve a congestion tax for downtown access. The results were
a 22 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and 18 percent reduction in the
average time of traffic jams [LLGA].
User
benefits
3/5
Libelium once launched a pilot in which they advertised the actual air pollution
(in ppm) in the streets and saw it decreasing over several weeks due to the
facts that people started driving slower and really put effort in lowering their
emissions. This shows that users are will easier put effort in changing their
behaviour if they can actually see the improvements in air quality from day to
day.
The benefits offered by the use case are of a nice-to-have nature for
the user.
Those benefits are:

Increased insights in quality of life and health in certain areas;

Improved policy making, since analyses on the gathered data will
provide feedback and forecasts on the effects of waste emissions by
industrial activity; and

Increased safety due to disaster and accident detection, monitoring of
toxic gases and automated notification of emergency services.
Entry
barriers
3/5
Monitor pollution levels in central cities is key to provide adequate information
to citizens and take actions to reduce it. [WSN]
There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be
overcome.
These barriers are:

Large financial investments are needed to deploy a network with decent
calibrated sensors, which is essential to increase the reliability. These
investments can be hard for SMEs and municipalities, thus an LSP in this
area can support them financially to enter this market; and

Compliancy: it can be difficult to align with all the players in the value
chain, since there exist a lot of similar technologies and every player can
have its own preferences, thus agreeing on the standards used will be
essential for the success of the pilot.
Investment The investment risks are low, and the use case is relatively safe to
risks
invest in.
5/5
The liability of the collected information can be seen a small investment
risk, due to the fact that large scale implementation often choose to use cheap
sensors to lower the cost. Those sensors can be deployed in large amounts, but
lack reliability and accuracy. If municipalities want to use the gathered data as
input for policy making, they have to be sure that whatever is monitored is
accurate and reliable. Reliable (e.g. calibrated) sensors exist, but they are
much more expensive.
Page 65 of 94
Since the market of wireless sensor equipment is changing very fast,
there is always a risk that in a few years new and more efficient technologies
will be developed. The large scale pilot should incorporate this idea and use
open standards and platforms that allow to incorporate those new technologies
in the pilot, even after it has been deployed.
Information The information security risks are low, and the use case is relatively
security
safe when it comes to the protection of sensitive electronic
risks
information.
5/5
There are no confidentiality risks related to this pilot, since it does not gather
personal or other sensitive data. All the data that will be collected, is
already available for everyone who wants to measure it, but this pilot
project will automate this process and published the results as open data,
available for everyone interested.
The integrity of the data (e.g. others tampering with the sensor readings)
can be seen as a small risk, but this can easily be ensured by encrypting the
data when stored or during communication with other devices or the cloud
platform.
Openness The use case can largely be built on open standards and specifications
5/5
that can be freely reused.
Technologies and standards that can be used to deploy this pilot:

Wireless sensor network can be set-up using 802.15.4/Zigbee protocols;

Standardised data exchange and querying can be achieved using
initiatives from the Open Geospatial Consortium (e.g. Geography Markup
Language, SensorML, GeoSPARQL and the OGC Web Map Services) [OGC]
and from the European Commission INSPIRE data specifications, which are
a GML application profile. These can be used under a permissive licence;
and

Cloud platform connectivity can be achieved with networking services,
such as 3G/LTE, WiMAX, MobiquiThings or Sigfox/LoRa.
Legal/
ethical
barriers
5/5
The importance of the use of standards in this use case, has also been
identified during interviews:

“It is most important that the information that is collected and processed
follows a certain standard, since it will be used by several services. The
openness of the actual sensors and the communication protocol that is used
is less important.” (source: Libelium)
The use case is associated with relatively low ethical and/or legal
barriers.
The only small legal barrier could be the required level of reliability of the
information for decision and policy making, but this can be achieved by the
use of decent and well calibrated sensors.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of
coverage
individual elements)
6/10
Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Equipment manufacturers:
companies that will manufacture the
necessary sensors, e.g. Libelium;

Real estate and insurance companies: can use the analyses on the data
to include in their pricing models, improve their decision making, etc.;

Geospatial organisations are responsible for the collection, analysis and
distribution of geospatial intelligence, e.g. OSGeo [OSGF] ;

Public sector: (local) governments, city councils, police departments, can
use the data in the context of their public task: environmental policy
making, law enforcement, pollution control, etc.;

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
Page 66 of 94
Interoperability:
6/10
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox;

Platform service providers: responsible for the collection, presentation
and analyses of data (e.g. real-time overview of air quality, noise levels),
e.g. Evrythng, Sensolus and ThingWorx or platforms as FIWARE and
OM2M;; and

Ongoing initiatives: collaboration with similar ongoing initiatives is
possible, e.g. the PLANET integrated platform to deploy, operate and
maintain heterogeneous networked environment monitoring objects
[PLANET], INSPIRE JRC [INSPIRE], EEA SEIS [SEIS].
This LSP will allow for seamless sharing of data: automated sharing of
data amongst systems based on a common exchange model.
A list of relevant standards and specifications can be found in the evidence
provided for the openness (see above). These standards would allow the
cooperating actors to do the following:

Public sector will share data on spatial organisation and legal policies (e.g.
maximum pollen and noise levels);

Meteorological service providers can share detailed and reliable weather
and other meteorological information with the inhabitants;

Real-estate and insurance companies can share data regarding to
market interest, pricing models, risk areas, etc.; and

Animal and nature welfare groups can share information on risks for
disasters, occurrence of animals, essential forests and natural areas.
Replication
10/10
The pilot will have to demonstrate the interoperability between the different
actors and especially between the wide varieties of devices which will be used,
because this is the main problem nowadays.
The pilot is relatively easy to replicate in different settings and
locations.
Scale
10/10
The general idea of the pilot of environmental monitoring solutions can easily
be replicated in other locations or settings, since the pilot is easily
configurable and designed to support heterogeneous sensors and
network technologies.
The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to
a full-size system.
Although it is important to not only focus on the scale of the project (and
thus invest in a massive amount of cheap sensors), but take into account
that decision making requires decent and reliable sensors which has to
be calibrated. This decreases the scale (due the increase of price) of the pilot
with a factor 5 (source: Libelium), but is very important to sustain the project.
User
The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a small
engagement number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users.
6/10
The pilot will affect a broad group of consumers, since it applicable and
usable by all inhabitants of the region in which the pilot has been deployed.
According to the interviewed experts, the main problem is that citizens don’t
show strong appetite to share the information generated by their own sensors.
Next to this, the interviewed experts state that the gathered information mainly
will be used by the public sector.
New
The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional
business
business models, but does not fundamentally change these business
models:
models.
6/10
Possible new business models could be:

Public sector: The main investments has to be carried by the public sector
to allow for better (environmental) policy making. The public sector will not
be able to monetise on its investment since most of the data will be
published as open data to a wide variety of service providers (revised PSI
Directive);
Page 67 of 94

Crossborder
potential:
10/10
Meteorological service providers: better forecasting models (microclimate);

Insurance companies: differentiate insurance price on the region; and

Real-estate companies: can provide potential buyers with detailed
statistics on the air pollution, noise levels, etc. in a specific area.
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
than three European countries.
A lot of European cities are already deploying small and medium scale pilots
[Pilots] regarding to environmental monitoring. A successful and really large
scale pilot could be a demonstrator to convince others.
References
[OGC] Open Geospatial Consortium: http://www.opengeospatial.org/
[OSGF] Open Source Geospatial Foundation: http://www.osgeo.org
[INSPIRE] INSPIRE: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/
[SEIS] EEA Shared Environmental Information System: http://www.eea.europa.eu/aboutus/what/shared-environmental-information-system-1
[EU] EU Directive on management and quality of ambient air
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l28031a_en.htm
[WSN] http://www.libelium.com/smart_cities_wsn_air_pollution/
[Rescatame] Rescatame project: http://www.rescatame.eu/
[Rescatame2] Rescatame project results:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.createPage
&s_ref=LIFE08ENV/E/000107&n_proj_id=3485
[LLGA] http://www.llga.org/SolutionHistory?sid=70
[Pilots] Environmental monitoring pilots across Europe: http://www.libelium.com/case-studies
[PLANET] PLANET framework: http://planet.etra-id.com/
[Junar] Junar open data platform: http://www.junar.com/
[CS] City-Sense pilot: http://www.citi-sense.eu/
[SW] Smart Water monitoring project:
http://www.libelium.com/smart_water_cycle_monitoring_sensor_network/
[FF] Forest fire detection project:
http://www.libelium.com/wireless_sensor_networks_to_detec_forest_fires/
I.9.
Use case
description
Balancing the electricity grid
A group of IoT use cases in the area of industrial smart grids that involve the
control of a large cluster of electricity generation units (e.g. backup generator
sets, micro combined heat and power (microCHP), windmills, fuel cells, solar
energy, hydro turbines) and consumption units (e.g. HVAC units, factories) to
dynamically steer power production (load-aware generation) and consumption
(demand response) and to smoothen demand peaks.
Specific use 
cases



Interviewed 
organi
sations


Virtual Power Plants: clustering distributed electricity generation units
(such as micro Combined Heat Power, wind-turbines, small hydro, back-up
generator sets etc.) which are collectively run by a central control entity
and are capable of producing electricity following demand peaks.
Demand response solution: demand response signals (codes or dynamic
prices) to steer electricity demand.
Charging station for electrical vehicles
Load-aware power generation
Centre for IT-Intelligent Energy System in Cities
ENTSO-E
Ventyx-ABB
CEER
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Secure, clean and
Page 68 of 94
challenges
5/5
efficient energy”.
Industry
coverage
5/5
Applicable to diverse sectors, since it would touch any sector in which energy is
consumed and or produced at significant scale: Distribution System Operator
(DSO), Transmission System Operator (TSO), Combined-Heat Water
installations, industrial installations, electric vehicle charging stations, etc.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case only covers a small segment of consumers in the B2B area, given
current energy policy.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
3/5
The use case is already at a later stage of development, parallel pilots
and even commercial solutions already exist.

Usability
5/5
Load-aware power generation is proven by the many Virtual Power Plants
(VPPs) that already exist today. For example, Statkraft operates a 5000MW
virtual power plant in Germany [Statkraft]. VPP cloud solutions exist (such
as CyberGrid) [CyberGrid];

Significant improvements in demand response (DR) deployment had been
done in the last years in Europe: Belgium, United Kingdom, Finland, France,
Ireland and Switzerland have reached a level where Demand Response is a
commercially viable product offering [SEDC]. In the USA, high adoption of
OpenADR
solution
witnesses
the
maturity
of
the
technology
[OpenADRAlliance]

More than 400 research projects have been identified so far by the Smart
Grids Observatory [JRCIET]
In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution
frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to use it.
The usability is high: success in USA is a good illustration of the adoption rate.
User
benefits
5/5
Entry
barriers
3/5
Large electricity consumers already have a strong interest in selling their
flexibility, for example in Belgium, ArcelorMittal sells its energy demand
flexibility to the REstore aggregator.
The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to the user.
Load-aware power generation and demand response offers consumers
the opportunity to benefit directly from the Smart Grid and market liberalization
[SEDC]:

more stability of the electrical network;

reduction of black-out risk;

financial benefits from being paid for allowing a consumption flexibility;

contribution to the electric network as an independent electricity producer;

help power-consuming clients update their infrastructure and systems and
schedule their power usage more effectively during the day, trimming their
power bills significantly
There are some barriers to entry; however, these can in general be overcome.
SEDC identified a list a barriers at different levels and for different actor
types[SEDC] in the Demand Response domain:

Regulatory barriers across almost the entire European Union halt the
ability of third parties to enter the market. It remains the main barrier. This
has to do with the fact that grid balancing (regarding primary, secondary,
and tertiary reserves) is regulated at the national level.

Enabling industry participation in Demand Response may be
problematic: Either demand is not accepted within the national market as
a resource (Demand Response is not lawful) or the market roles and
responsibilities do not allow for direct access to industrial consumers to
Page 69 of 94
service providers and therefore a clear path to market. Dialogue and close
cooperation between demand response providers such as aggregators,
retailers and large consumers is a key factor success as what has been
shown in Belgium, France, Austria and Finland.
When those barriers do not exist, development is fast and services and
solutions can be provided by SMEs such as for example REstore [REstore] (a
company founded in 2010 and which is now a European Demand Response
aggregator).
Investment There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be mitigated.
risks

Political risks: low risk. The change in regulatory system in Europe goes
3/5
towards a favourable direction for the development of load-aware power
generation and demand response solutions. So far, no market has made a
step backward. [SEDC]

Macroeconomic risks: average risk. The energy market is a utility
market with low risk linked to economic fluctuations.

Technology and operational risks: low risk. Efforts on openness are
favourable to reduce risks linked to new (replacing) technologies or
operating paradigms; main actors of the value chain (DSOs, TSOs) are
historical actors with a stable position. Risk would come from new actors of
RES type or aggregators for which the business is relatively new and still
evolving considerably.

Affordability risks: low risk. Organisations and companies are eager to
invest in such project knowing the positive impacts. End-user wise,
organisations aim to ensure equity and affordability [SEDC]
Information There are some information security risks; however, these can in
security
general be mitigated.
risks
3/5
Concerns are high especially on the integrity of the control system.
In Europe, the CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Smart Grid Coordination Group [20]
provided high level guidance on how standards can be used to develop Smart
Grid information security.
In the USA, the PIER (Public Interest Research Program) [PIER] identified an
exhaustive list of information security risks:

Risk of market manipulation (confidentiality): Most of the DR
functions in the smart grid, such as load shedding, time-of-use pricing
(ToU), dynamic pricing, etc. require confidentiality and prevent adversaries
to manipulate the information in the system. Failure to provide integrity
and/or confidentiality could result in the exposure of customer's
information, unauthorized modification and manipulation of the information.

Risk of instability (integrity): Since specifications like OpenADR are
based on the Internet communication, the information transmitted in each
DRAS interface must be protected and prevented from any kind of data
manipulation, such as changing pricing information and DR codes to
maintain the reliability of the grid.
Openness
5/5
The use case is based on open standards and specifications that can be
freely reused.
Actors are aware of the importance to work with open technology and work in
partnerships with national and international organisations.
In Europe, SGCG (Smart Grid Coordination Group composed by CEN-CENELECETSI) developed standards for Smart Grid at different levels but pointed out
that it is a continuing process since the business is changing fast and being
more and more complex. They worked under a European mandate.[20]
In USA, the SGIP (Smart Grid Interoperability Panel composed by tens of
companies of the electricity market) provides a long list of standards applicable
to the electrical market [SGIP] and the OpenSG user group is promoting efforts
for openness [OpenSGUG].
Europe is lagging behind the USA in the development of standards for DR and
European countries starts to adopt American solutions due to that (e.g. EDF in
Page 70 of 94
France uses the
[OpenADRAlliance])
OpenADR2.0
developed
by
the
OpenADR
alliance
OpenADR 2.0 is a set of standards to facilitate common information exchange
between electricity service providers, aggregators, and end users. A specific
application area of interest is demand response.
Legal/
ethical
barriers
3/5
SEDC [SEDC] denunciates the lack of standards and transparent requirements
for how energy consumption reductions are measured and therefore also how
they are valued. Today, this lack can lead to 3 different measurement
standards for consumer’s consumption reduction. For example, it the TSO, the
Balancing Responsible Party (BRP) and the retailer may have each its own set
of criteria.
There are some ethical and/or legal barriers; however, these can in
general be overcome.
Online Ethic Research (OER) pointed out that beyond questions of regulation
and governance, the Smart Grid poses other social and ethical challenges
including:

Protecting the privacy of consumer usage information;

Securing the grid from attacks by foreign nations, terrorists, and
malevolent hackers;

Ensuring social equity both in terms of access and cost of electric power
service; and

Maximizing utilization of energy efficiency.
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers the whole value chain that is formed by
coverage
(predominantly) European organisations for both developing and
10/10
applying the solution.
Many European companies and organisations are well developed in the smart
Energy and smart Grid domains for which the value chain is large and involves:

Distribution System Operators (DSOs);

Transmission System Operators (TSOs);

Traditional
electricity
generators:
nuclear
power
stations,
combined-cycle gas turbine facilities or combined heat and power plants;

RES: Renewable Energy Sources (wind or solar farms and thermal or
hydroelectric power stations);

DRES: Distributed Renewable Energy System;

Electricity consumers: industrial, commercial, residential;

Regulators: national and regional;

Standards bodies: CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, OpenADR alliance, etc. ;

Consortia and alliances: EDSO, ENTSO-E, SGIP, SGCG, etc.;

Electricity exchange platforms: power exchanges platforms are used by
market players to anonymously negotiate same-day or next-day purchases
and sales of electricity;

Demand Response aggregators: intermediaries between operator and
consumers (such as Restore [Restore]);

Service providers: Ancillary Services Providers, Metering Operators, CT
Service Providers, Electric Power Grid Equipment Vendors; and

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.
Attention should be paid to the coordination aspect of the project, to what kind
of company would take the lead of the consortium. Some technology providers
might be too specific. DSOs are very country-specific and there is no real
benefits for DSOs to work with other countries (source: interview Ventyx).
Inter-
Seamless
Sharing
of
Information:
universal
interpretation
of
Page 71 of 94
operability
10/10
information
through
data
processing
based
on
cooperating
applications/using open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs).
Replication
6/10
The interoperability will be ensured by the strategy adopted by all actors in the
development of open and standardized technology.
Some significant challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot
in other settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
The current lack of standards in Europe is a big challenge [SGCG]. However,
efforts are already given in that direction.
SEDC points out [SEDC] that regulatory barriers across almost the entire
European Union halt the ability of third parties to enter the market.
Scale
10/10
Dialogue and close cooperation between demand response providers such as
aggregators, retailers and large consumers is a key factor success as what has
been shown in Belgium, France, Austria and Finland.
The pilot is close to a full-size system.
The large number of actors involved in the value chain, the inherent large
coverage of actors such as TSOs, DSOs and the implication of consumers
required are evidence that the pilot is close to a full-size system.
User
The pilot implies some user engagement, but it is restricted to a small
engagement number of users and/or focuses on limited categories of users.
6/10
The pilot will affect a broad group of industrial organisations, however, as no
end consumers are targeted by industrial smart grid solutions, the pilot does
not involve testing consumer behaviour, nor requires social scientists.
New
business
models
6/10
Solutions developed initially for big consumers (large industries) may also
become appealing for Medium and Small Enterprises. Incentives through the
possibility of being paid for consumption flexibility is attractive for industry
players.
The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional
business models, but does not fundamentally change these business
models.
Industry consumers see their consumption being automatically adapted
following an incentive-based pricing system that foster the reduction of peak
consumption.
VPP allows a more accurate and efficient electricity production which is
synonym of change in the tradition electricity generation and production
business model and foster implication of DRES [RenewableEnergyWord.com].
Crossborder
potential
10/10
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more
than
three
European
countries.
The electricity markets are in transition in Europe:

With big and small service providers, with big and small consumers
(business consumers and individuals).

EDF is already using OpenADR [OpenADRAlliance]

StatKraft launched in Germany the first VPP in 2012 and the success of it (it
is now the largest power plant of Germany) is an example for other
countries.

Many countries and many companies are developing services associated to
Smart Grids [SmartGridNews]
However, SEDC points out [SEDC] that regulatory barriers across almost the
entire European Union halt the ability of third parties to enter the market.
References
[SGCG] Smart Grid Coordination Group: http://www.smartgrids.eu/CEN-CENELEC-ETSI
[EDSO] projects : http://www.edsoforsmartgrids.eu/projects/edso-projects/
Page 72 of 94
[SEDC] Smart Energy Demand Coalition report "Mapping Demand Response in Europe Today":
http://sedc-coalition.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SEDC-Mapping_DR_In_Europe-201404111.pdf
[PIER] Public Interest Energy Research report “Smart Grid Cyber Security potential threats,
vulnerabilities and risks”: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012047/CEC-500-2012-047.pdf
[SGCG] Smart Grid Coordination GroupSmart Grid report on Information Security:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/xpert_group1_security.pdf
[SGIP] Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, catalog of standards: http://www.sgip.org/memberdashboard?request=getcapabilities&service=wms&version=1.1.0e-stable-and-carriage-house
[ESTI] report:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102900_102999/102935/02.01.01_60/tr_102935v020101p
.pdf
[OEC] (Online Ethic Center):
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/Enviro/Energy/EnergyAPPE2012/APPEKostyk2012.aspx
[JRCIET] Joint Research Center Institute for Energy and Transport:
http://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smart-grids-observatory
[ENTSO-E] Demand Side Response policy paper:
https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/14091
5_DSR_Policy_web.pdf
[ENTSO-E] market design policy paper:
https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/14091
5_Market_Design_Policy__web.pdf
[OpenADRAlliance]: http://www.openadr.org/members
[OpenADRAlliance]: article “openADR, not just California technology”:
http://www.fiercesmartgrid.com/story/openadr-not-just-california-technology/2014-07-30
[Electrabel] energy toolbox: https://www.electrabel.be/fr/particulier/prix-gaz-electricitefournisseur/smartenergybox
[Elia] Player description: http://www.elia.be/en/about-elia/electricity-market-players#anchor1
[Statkraft] http://www.statkraft.com/media/news/2014/Germanys-largest-power-plant/
[Cybergrid] VPP cloud solution: http://www.ebadge-fp7.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/cyberGRID-eBADGE-EEM13.pdf
[VAASAETT] Energy Data Store specialist: http://www.vaasaett.com/data/
[Restore] http://www.restore.eu/news/power-stations-of-the-future-virtual-power-plant
[RenewableEnergyWord.com]
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/09/virtual-power-plants-a-newmodel-for-renewables-integration
[SmartGridNews] key players: http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Key_Players/
[OpenSGUG] Open Smart Grid User Group: http://osgug.ucaiug.org/default.aspx
I.10.
Use case
description
Smart public safety
A group of IoT use cases that involve using sensors (including surveillance
cameras) to allow a more secure public environment by the detection of public
safety-specific information from the sensor readings and captured images (e.g.
emotions, behaviour, and other safety-related events) that are used in an
intelligent, semi-automated system by law enforcement agencies and
emergency services. The focus should be on the use of sensors to prevent
crime (e.g. street noise, vandalism) or other calamities (stampedes).
Specific use 
cases




Enable advanced face and behaviour recognition using smart cameras;
Remote controllable surveillance drones;
Crowd monitoring and control to avoid stampedes;
Remote temperature readings of people at airports; and
Increase brightness of street lighting at night, when noise levels increase
(e.g. prevent bar fights).
Interviewed 
organi
sations

City of Santander and Telefonica
City of Ghent (Belgium)
EERA JPSC
Page 73 of 94
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Secure societies protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens” since it covers
challenges related to crime prevention and general safety matters (e.g.
fire, earthquake, flood, accidents) in cities to support the work of the police,
emergency services and law enforcement.
The need for technology in this area is supported by the following facts:

Government expenditure on public order and safety amounted to around
EUR 240 billion in 2012 in the EU-27;

Cities suffer from higher crime statistics and applications exist to support
avoiding certain neighbourhoods17;

Surveillance installations have proven to influence positively preventive
measures, therefore IoT through connected devices can offer one of the
most efficient solution increase public safety.

This area requires public intervention, since the market itself does not focus
on it.
Other areas, such as disasters and accidents are more specific areas, but have
a huge social impact.
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is likely to be used by diverse sectors, since it brings together
public and private sector industries, such as municipalities, police and law
enforcement, emergency services, voluntary neighbourhood watch, private
security agencies and provides insights for insurance and real-estate
companies.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case targets a rather narrow group of end-consumers.
Dimension 2: Attractiveness to users and providers
Technical
maturity
5/5
Technology development and demonstration: ideal timing for a largescale pilot.
There are several use cases that exist and are tested in different cities on a
smaller scale and a limited scope. As a consequence, the use case could
benefit from these experiences and become a large-scale pilot.
Usability
5/5
Technology is available and is not the main barrier. (Source: City of Ghent)
There are few existing commercial solutions and the technology is not fully
developed yet, but in a few years at time of deployment the maturity could be
there. (Source: Smart Santander project)
In general, the actual or potential users would like to use the solution
frequently, find it easy to use, well integrated, and easy to learn how to
use
it.
Unless further application are developed which can be done on voluntary basis,
most of these technologies do not require active end-user involvement.
User
benefits
17
For the intermediaries, such public agencies staff the use of such solutions
would also not require intensive trainings.
Users should not experience any technological barriers since the user friendly
aspect would be developed to foster citizens' participation. (Source: City of
Ghent)
User buy-in might be an issue due to potential privacy concerns which can be
overcome. (Source: Smart Santander project)
The benefits offered by the use case are of fundamental importance to
the user.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/
Page 74 of 94
5/5
The individual scope of the projects needs to be well defined as certain public
spaces might raise no privacy concerns or benefits of a smart environment are
higher for users. Safety and security are fundamental aspects of the society.
Entry
barriers
3/5
End users could find more benefit if services are reflecting personal needs (e.g.
child-tracking wearables for parents combines with other connected objects,
sensors in public spaces or having alternative routes suggested to avoid traffic
jams due to accidents). (Source: Smart Santander project)
There are some barriers to entry; however these can in general be
overcome.
Those barriers are (Source: City of Ghent, Smart Santander project):

Legal and policy barriers: seem to be the critical barriers. They are at
multiple levels and active cooperation would be needed (regional, national,
European). Even at city level it requires the collaboration of many
stakeholder.

Large capital investments will be required and maintenance/hidden costs
are feared.

Lack of infrastructures to involve citizens has also been pointed out.

Responsiveness: emergency services are not equipped to efficiently
respond on this kind of reporting which will require a process and
administrative functioning change
Investment There are some investment risks; however, these can in general be
risks
mitigated.
3/5
The main risk is the return of investment, which is highly questionable. It
could be assumed that public surveillance enhances public safety, but as CCTV
cameras in UK show, that might not necessarily reduce criminality. Potentially it
could tackle illegal waste dumping and thus reduce polluting or even decrease
reaction time (this was a very successful project in Amsterdam for fire
department).
It can bring high operating cost: to maintain the solution. (Source: Smart
Santander project)
Information There are some information security risks; however, these can in
security
general be mitigated (e.g. with clear and auditable rules for privacy
risks
management and handling of personal data).
3/5
This is a complex area, but there should be a clear rules about who can access
the
data.
(Source:
interview
Smart
Santander
project)
A centralised platform and sensitive information available on the Internet
definitely raises security risk concerns. (Source: interview City of Ghent)
Openness There are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) condition
3/5
restrictions on the use.
This is due to the fact that solutions are still not as mature that we could be
talking about standardisation. There are several levels of standards depending
on the technology. Specialized actors in security system are at a high stage of
maturity in Europe and usually have their proprietary technology. Cities might
still impose standards when launching calls but seen in a global system
involving multiple companies, global openness might not been reached.
An LSP can introduce and showcase the need for those standards, especially if
we want to integrate the system in emergency and police services. FI-Ware
could be a solid basis for this. (Source: Smart Santander project).
Legal/
ethical
barriers
0/5
There are significant legal and/or ethical barriers that are difficult to
overcome.
There might be privacy issues but as these practices already exist and general
safety is higher priority concern, it is supposed to be efficiently managed.
Page 75 of 94
Privacy laws in Europe and each country can be a significant barrier for cities.
Privacy is also a big concern of citizens. (Source: City of Ghent)
Citizens might be reluctant to use this solution, from a privacy perspective, but
also in equipping the environment with sensors and camera’s. (Source: Smart
Santander project)
Dimension 3: LSP Potential
Value chain The use case covers parts of the value chain (i.e. combinations of
coverage
individual elements).
6/10
Examples of organisations that could team up are:

Emergency services will be able to respond much faster in case of
emergencies;

Equipment manufacturers: manufacturers of the equipment used to
monitor the public environment, e.g. Libelium;

Network operators: provide the necessary telecommunication services,
e.g. Telefonica/Vodafone, but also the non-telecom MobiquiThings, Lora and
Sigfox;

Real estate and insurance companies can use the analyses on the data
to include in their pricing models, improve their decision making, etc.;

Public sector: local governments, city councils; and

Network operators: companies that can provide the necessary
communication networks, e.g. Telefonica, Vodafone, but also the nontelecom MobiquiThings, Lora and Sigfox.
Interoperability
6/10
Most of the equipment (especially smart cameras) used in manufactured in
Asia, but they can be installed and deployed by European companies. (Source:
Smart Santander project)
This use case allows for seamless sharing of data, based on a common
exchange model.
Depending on the legal framework and standards developed for sharing data on
this matter, interoperability should be of upmost concern.
Replication
6/10
Best way to ensure interoperability is by using open standards, e.g. FI-Ware.
Especially since it consists of information from different levels. (Source: Smart
Santander project)
Some challenges may arise when trying to replicate the pilot in other
settings and locations, but these challenges are manageable.
All components can be re-used and can be replicated in any country, city and
public space.
Scale
10/10
It has a potential, both from the perspective of the concept and from the
potential to reuse the developed framework and make cooperation between
cities. (Source: Smart Santander project)
The scale of this LSP can be considered large enough, since it is close to
a full-size system.
This use case has a large scale potential as all settlements, cities can be
covered in Europe.
User
The pilot implies some user engagement, but it focuses on a limited category
engagement of users.
6/10
This use case can stand by itself with cooperation among different stakeholders
such as public and private organisations. On the other hand, user engagement
potential can increase if more private objects (e.g. cars, wearables) and
applications are developed on the top with collaboration, information purposes
(e.g. accidents and alternative route planning).
Page 76 of 94
New
business
model:
6/10
Crossborder
potential
10/10
The use case provides a basis for some adjustments in traditional business
models, but does not fundamentally change these business models.
New business models for security companies, public sector, etc.(Source: Smart
Santander project). However, no fundamental changes.
In the coming two years, the use case is likely to be taken up by more than
three European countries.
The cross-border potential of such a project would certainly cover more than 3
countries as all cities in Europe can benefit from such IoT solutions. In the
SafeCity [SafeCity] project 15 European countries have been involved.
References
Application for Smart neighbourhoods:
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/
[SafeCity]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwXAsnD_yw
Technology literature: http://disi.unitn.it/~somov/pdf/eurosensors2014-1.pdf
I.11.
Use case
description
Energy savings in production processes
A group of IoT use cases allowing the management of energy usage by
manufacturers and thereby creating cost savings. This includes among others
the following use cases:

Continuous monitoring of temperature and humidity for delicate production
climates;

Get insights in the often hidden total cost of ownership of industrial
equipment; and

Scalable cost-effective resource inflow monitoring on usage and quality.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenges:

“Secure, clean and efficient energy”; and

“Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw material”.
Industry
coverage
0/5
This use case is particularly applicable to the high energy consuming industries
(e.g. metal manufacturing sector).
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case covers a small segment of consumers in the B2B area. Not all
production processes can benefit from IoT technology to realise energy savings.
I.12.
Use case
description
Smart water distribution networks
A group of IoT use cases using a network of sensors and remotely operated
valves to improve leakage detection, purification, and quality control.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenges:

“Secure, clean and efficient energy”; and

“Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials”.
This can be supported by the following facts:

Due to our current water management systems, one in five people on the
planet do not have adequate access to safe, clean drinking water.
Page 77 of 94
This use case ensures more efficient water usage due to purification and reallocation of water, automated quality checking processes and tackles the low
efficiency in water distribution and consumption.
Industry
coverage
0/5
This use case is only applicable to one specific industry sector:
“Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities”.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case targets a rather narrow group of B2B end-consumers.
I.13.
Use case
description
Automated manufacturing
A group of IoT use cases enabling the connection of machinery and systems
within the plant so that manufacturers can automate workflows to maintain and
optimise production systems without human intervention. This includes among
others the following use cases:

Machine-to-machine communication and embedded intelligence;

Intelligent connected tools for operators;

Software to monitor how equipment is performing and automatically make
corrections;

Smart tools that monitor and guide operator work flows; and

Automated pick-up and delivery in large inventories.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
This use case has no direct link with a Horizon 2020 challenge.
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since it relates to almost all
manufacturing sectors that are producing mass-consumer goods or require
zero-tolerance engineering (food industry, car manufacturers, electronics etc.).
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case only covers a small segment in the B2B area.
I.14.
Use case
description
Smart design (maker movement)
A group of IoT use cases that involve researchers, artists, individuals, SMEs,
etc. to (collaboratively or individually) design smart objects using (3D-printed
or traditionally crafted) digitised components and every-day objects. The use
cases typically are on the confluence of different domains such as design,
software programming, and art. Individuals actively and freely participate in
developing connected, personalised products. Outputs are used for cultural,
educational, commercial, or research purposes.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
This use case only has an indirect link with the Horizon 2020 challenge:
"Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies".
Industry
coverage
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, since this cluster aim to develop
products in all types of industries, including for example street lightning, dance
Page 78 of 94
5/5
Market
coverage
0/5
I.15.
Use case
description
floors, furniture, wearables, etc.
This use case covers specific, rather narrow segments of consumers in the B2C
area.
Smart factory
A group of IoT use cases allowing to collect real-time factory data which, in
turn, facilitates management decisions and aiming to minimise equipment
failures by means of collecting actual performance data and monitoring
equipment health.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
This use case has no direct link with a Horizon 2020 challenge.
Industry
coverage
5/5
Applicable to diverse sectors, since all manufacturing sectors can implement a
smart factory solution. All these sectors generate production data that can be
analysed and provide fruit for management, and all these sectors make use of
equipment that requires periodical maintenance.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case is only valuable for a limited market, since only the
manufacturing sectors will benefit from gaining information about production
and maintenance.
I.16.
Use case
description
Smart manufacturing: supply chain
A group of IoT use cases equipping manufactured items with reusable RadioFrequency Identification (RFID) smart tags and/or sensors connecting the
production line to the systems of other actors in the supply chain, making the
entire lifecycle of individual manufactured items visible so that all parties can
understand interdependencies, the flow of materials, and manufacturing cycle
times. This use cases enables among others:

Decentralised manufacturing hubs;

Consistent tracking of goods throughout the distribution chain;

Linking real-time distribution data with real-time production data;

Pervasive visibility: closing the ‘black spots’ or visibility gaps across a
supply chain using RFID chips;

Proactive replenishment of inventory;

Reduce packaging by publishing product specifications, in reusable RFID
tags;

Protect against counterfeiting with secured RFID tags;

Locate products on warehouse shelves;

Automated inventory;

Automated checkout in distribution centres;

Automated waste disposal; and

Automated waste sorting facilities based on information in reusable RFID
tags.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
This use case has no direct link with a Horizon 2020 challenge.
Page 79 of 94
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors, in particular those with complex
supply chains, consisting of many steps and/or partners. This includes nearly all
manufacturing sectors, which is the complete secondary sector of the EU
economy. It also covers sectors such as logistics, retail, wholesale, waste
management, transportation, public services etc.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case is more related to the manufacturing sector.
I.17.
Use case
description
Comfort and security at home
A group of IoT use cases that connect a set of devices to increase the comfort
of the inhabitant by enabling remote control and allow for automated services.
It also includes a group of IoT use cases that involve the use of connected
sensors that can, in real-time, inform the inhabitants, other people (e.g. family
members, neighbours) and emergency services of possible burglaries, fire,
vandalism,... to improve the sense of safety at home.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
This use case has only an indirect link with the following Horizon 2020
challenge: “Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its
citizens.”
Industry
coverage
5/5
This use case is applicable to diverse sectors: home appliance manufacturers,
garden specialists, security system providers, retailers (e.g. real-time shopping
list), emergency sectors, etc.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case is due to the large investments which are needed only applicable
for a small consumer group.
I.18.
Use case
description
Open platforms for the audio-visual industry
A group of IoT use cases for the audio-visual industry that allows content
providers (news agencies, production houses, theatres, television channels,
etc.) to publish their content via multiple content distributors using open
platforms, allowing consumers to access the content on a large set of devices
(smartphone, TV, laptop, tablet, game consoles and others):

Providing storage of content by content providers;

Providing open, streaming optimization techniques for Internet Service
Providers (ISPs);

Streaming of content (video, audio) to various devices by consumers
following different funding sources: advertisement, subscription, pay-perview, etc.; and

Analysis of usage statistics.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
0/5
Industry
coverage
0/5
This use case has no direct link with a Horizon 2020 challenge.
Applicable a narrow group of companies in the "Information and
communication" and "Arts, entertainment and recreation" area, including news
agencies, production houses, theatres, television channels, Internet service
Page 80 of 94
providers, cable distribution companies, etc.
Market
coverage
5/5
I.19.
Use case
description
This use case is applicable to a mass consumer group, since it relates to all
individuals with access to television, laptop or other media which can be
connected to the Internet to play audio-visual content.
Citizen engagement and better public services
A group of IoT use cases aiming to create a platform for bringing closer
citizens' needs and offer interoperable, user-centric public services in cities.
Any decisions or services delivered can be tackled with broader engagement
and better management of resources. It can include community generated
information such as "fix-my-street" type of initiatives (e.g. waste, buildings,
and safety, lost children) combined with use of connected devices received and
treated by the relevant public bodies. Furthermore, engagement can cover
collective open, public sector and social innovation, bringing different
stakeholders together for more efficient service delivery (e.g. schools,
libraries). This can also involve connecting information and ensure
interoperability of different services for more personalised services.
Dimension 1: European Value
Societal
challenges
5/5
This use case covers the following Horizon 2020 challenge: “Europe in a
changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies mainly through
innovative services for citizens”. It also partly covers the Public Services aspect
of the Digital Agenda.
Industry
coverage
0/5
This use case is only applicable to one specific industry sector:
“Public administration and defence; compulsory social security”.
Market
coverage
0/5
This use case only covers a small segment in the Consumer-to-Administration
(C2A) area.
Page 81 of 94
Annex II. Interviews
This annex contains an overview of the 28 interviews that were carried out in the
context of this study. It first indicates the selection procedure and interview structure.
II.1.
Selection of interview candidates
Based on the analysis of the IoT vendor landscape in Europe, we prepared a long list
of organisations and related interview candidates. This long list is included in
the dataset that is associated with this study. For each selected use case a number of
interview candidates were identified and invited for an interview. The selection of
interview candidates was focused on European organisations, with a potential interest
in the use cases. These include large companies, niche players, standards bodies,
industry consortia, and consumer organisations.
II.2.
Interview structure
The interview questions were structured following the criteria of the benchmark
framework explained in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Table 10
contains an overview of the questions that were asked for most interviews. The
interview candidates were first presented the benchmark evidence gathered via desk
research and were asked to validate and supplement the gathered evidence.
Table 10: Interview structure
Interview description
Company
Name of interviewee
Date
Description of IoT activity
Name of cluster discussed
Which specific use cases seem relevant and interesting to you? Are there use
cases in this clusters which are, according to your expertise, not feasible to
include in this LSP.
Benchmark framework: European value
Existing research projects: which existing European-level research projects could support
this use case?
Industry coverage: Which industries will it cover?
Market coverage: How many potential consumers?
Benchmark framework: Attractiveness
Technical maturity: what key technologies will enable this LSP? Will they be mature enough
and not yet out-dated for deployment in a LSP?
Usability: what aspects make the use case attractive to users?
User benefits: what are the key benefits for the users? Which features are of fundamental
importance to the user?
Entry barriers: what restricts this LSP in the ability to allow new (often small) players to enter
and begin operating in this domain, e.g.

Economies of scale are needed

Product differentiation to overcome customer loyalties

Capital investments

Switching cost, one-time cost related to switching from one supplier to another

Access to channels of distribution

Government policies
Investment risks: do you see any key risks associated with investing in this LSP?

Political risks (e.g. change in regulatory system);

Macroeconomic risks (e.g. economic fluctuations);
Page 82 of 94

Technology and operational risks (e.g. risk of emergence of new (replacing) technologies or
operating paradigms; risk of changing customer preferences etc.);

Affordability risks (i.e. a risk that the solution will be too costly for the users);
Capacity risks (e.g. discontinuation of support from key benefactors)
Information security risks: how does this use case relate to sensitive electronic information?
Can the risks easily be mitigated?

Confidentiality: limited data access

Integrity: maintaining and assuring the accuracy and consistency

Authentication: ensure that data is genuine
Openness: which open standards and open solutions can be used to avoid (technology) lockin? Or can they be used under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions?
Legal/ethical barriers: which ethical or legal barriers could arise during deployment?
Benchmark framework: LSP potential
Value chain coverage: what are the different parts of the value chain? Which potential
(European) actors can cover certain parts? Which organisations can be interesting or could be
willing to cooperate in the deployment of this LSP?
Interoperability: how can this LSP allow for (automated) inter-operation between multiple
systems and organisations?
Replication: how can we ensure that this LSP can easily be replicated on other locations or in
different settings, while re-using certain components?
Scale: how can this LSP, according to the barriers (e.g. budget and time), be deployed on a
large scale?
User engagement: which user groups are addressed by this LSP? How can this LSP increase
e-inclusions?
New business models: which new business models could be tested due to the deployment of
this LSP?
Cross-border potential: what could enforce the uptake of the pilot by multiple European
countries?
II.3.
Interviewed organisations
Table 11 provides an overview of the organisations that were interviewed.
Table 11: Interviewed experts
Organisation
Country
IoT
Domain
Case(s)
/
Admesy
NL
Smart manufacturing
University of Bristol
UK
Smart cities
EERA JPSC
EU
European Factories of the Future Research
Association EFFRA
EU
Smart manufacturing
EnergyVille
BE
Smart grid
ENTSO-E
EU
Smart gird
ESMIG
EU
Smart grid
ETSI/OneM2M
EU
Cross-domain
City of Ghent
BE
Smart city
HICT
BE
Smart health
HP/mHealth Alliance
UK
Smart health
I2Cat
ES
Smart city
Use
Smart cities
Smart grid
Page 83 of 94
ITS Belgium
BE
Smart mobility
Libelium
ES
Cross-domain
Lhings
ES
Cross-domain
Manchester
UK
Smart city
Medopad
UK
Smart health
Netatmo
FR
Smart energy
OptiFlex
SE
Smart manufacturing
Optifert project
DE
Smart agriculture
City of Santander
ES
Smart city
Sensolus
BE
Cross-domain
SmartAgriFood/FISpace
NL
Cross-domain
Smart Cities Center
DK
Smart grid
Televic
BE
Smart health
ThingWorx
UK
Cross-domain
TNO
NL
Smart manufacturing
Ventyx
DE
Smart grid
WiThings
FR
Smart Heatlth
Yetu
DE
Cross-domain
Zen Car
BE
Smart mobility
Page 84 of 94
Annex III. Validation workshop
This annex provides an overview of the organisations that participated in the
validation workshop and the received feedback during and after the validation
workshop.
III.1.
Validation workshop participating organisations
The experts listed in Table 12 have been invited to participate in the validation
workshop to be held on 17 December. The 14 experts listed in column 1
(Organisation) in italic and underlined have participated in the workshop.
Table 12: Validation workshop experts
Organisation
Country
IoT Domain
AIT (Austrian Institute of Technology)/
EERA Smart Cities Joint Programme
Austria
Smart Cities and Smart
Energy
Alstom
France
Smart Grid
Anitec
Italy
Cross Domain
Arduino
Italy
Makers community
ARM
UK
Cross Domain
Bastille Networks
Belgium
Cross Domain
Bosch Systems
Germany
Industrial equipment
Centre for IT-Intelligent Energy Systems in
Cities
Denmark
Smart Energy and
Smart Grid
City of Ghent
Belgium
Smart Cities
City of Santander
Spain
Smart Cities
Switzerland
Research and
development centre
Digital Europe
EU
Industry organisation
EERA Smart Cities Joint Programme
Belgium
Smart Cities
Belgium
Smart Energy
EFFRA
EU
Industry organisation
ENTSO-E
EU
Smart Energy and
Smart Grid
ETSI
Europe
Cross Domain
EuMat
Denmark
Technology platform
FabLab - Brussels
Belgium
Fabrication laboratory
community
FIspace/SmartAgrifood
Europe
Smart Agriculture and
Food
Hitachi
United Kingdom
Smart Cities
ITS
Belgium
Smart Transport and
Smart Mobility
CSEM
EnergyVille
Page 85 of 94
Libelium
Spain
Smart Factory and
Smart Manufacturing
Linear project
Belgium
Smart Energy and
Smart Grid
Manchester Digital Development Agency
UK
Smart Cities
Nokia Research
Finland
Networked services
OASIS
EU
Standardisation
organisation
oneM2M (Telecom Italia)
EU
Standardisation
organisation
Philips Research
The Netherlands
Smart Home and Smart
Buildings
PwC
United States
Cross Domain
PwC Technology
United States
Technology strategist
Santander - Telefonica
Spain
Smart Cities
SAP
Germany
Smart Homes
Siemens AG
Germany
Industrial equipment
Sigfox
France
Networked services
Sintef
Norway
Research organisation
Springworks
Sweden
Smart Mobility and
Transport
Telefonica R&D
Spain
Smart Cities
Televic
Belgium
Smart Health
Ventyx
Switzerland
Smart Energy and
Smart Grid
WiThings
France
Smart Health
III.2.
Validation workshop feedback
The following tables list the issues that have been raised during the validation
workshop, for each issue, the tables below indicate whether and how it has been
addressed.
Table 13: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the Benchmark
Framework
Add a benchmark criterion on relevance
Issue: Include a criterion on the relevance of the proposed use case to the IoT.
Remedy: No action. All proposed use cases should be relevant to the area of IoT. Where this
is not the case, they should be revised.
Scoring rule of entry barriers and investment risks
Issue: The LSPs could help to overcome entry barriers and investment risks. This should be
reflected in the scoring rule: the related criteria should give the highest score in the case
where there are some risks/barriers that can be overcome.
Remedy: No action. A counter argument could be given: use cases with limited entry
barriers and investment risk can be more easily replicated and are more likely to be
sustained.
Page 86 of 94
Add a benchmark criterion on organisational complexity
Issue: Include a criterion on the organisational complexity of the proposed use case. For
example, organising the use case on multi-modal mobility with multiple public transport
organisations may be too challenging for the LSPs.
Remedy: No action. This could be taken into account by the Commission when preparing the
call, or by the consortium responding to the call.
Add a benchmark criterion on scalability
Issue: Include a criterion on the scalability of the proposed use case to the IoT, since this will
reflect the capabilities of a use case to expand beyond the scale of the pilot.
Remedy: No action. There is already a criterion on scale included that favours use cases with
a larger scaling potential as one of the key requirements for large-scale pilots. Also criteria
like replicability, and technical feasibility will indicate that the use case is scalable beyond the
pilot.
Add a benchmark criterion on sustainability
Issue: Include a criterion on the sustainability of the proposed use case to the IoT, e.g. some
use cases make use of technologies that are nowadays available, but are likely to be replaced
by new ones in the near future (e.g. routing and networking protocols, communication
networks, energy solutions).
Remedy: No action. In general, sustainability will increase for those LSPs and use cases for
which the investment risks and entry barriers are low. The report also contains a proposed
accompanying measure on sustainability.
Add a benchmark criterion on innovation of IoT components
Issue: It is stated that the benchmark criteria should be consistent with the objectives of
LSP. One of them (the last one) states that they should foster innovation across multiple IoT
technological components, such as devices, networks and applications. This could have
opened a window of opportunity, but somehow it has not found its place among the ‘LSP
potential’ criteria finally considered.
Remedy: No action. This objective of the LSPs, in combination with others, is addressed by
the ‘technical maturity’ criterion.
Benchmark framework: scoring rules
Issue: The scoring system is not fully understood, and the same for some allocation of
points, e.g. regarding societal challenges.
Remedy: The scoring rules are set in Section Error! Reference source not found.. The
scoring of societal challenges reflects the societal challenges on which the Horizon 2020
framework programme focuses its funding.
Benchmark framework: scoring of the ‘user engagement’ criterion
Issue: In the dimension ‘LSP potential’, ‘User engagement’ is the only criterion scored on a
scale of 5 points rather than 10 points. This seems odd.
Remedy: The scoring rule was changed to a scale of 10 points. This did not change the
proposed use cases.
Table 14: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the proposed use
cases
Issue: Label the use cases more consistently, now some of them are means (e.g. load-aware
power generation and demand response) and others are objectives (e.g. smart living
environment).
Remedy: The labels of the uses cases were revised indicating the expected benefit.
Issue: Split up the smart agriculture and food traceability use case. The use case is ranked
artificially higher due to this clustering.
Remedy: No action. Since we focus on interoperability between all players of the value chain,
we believe that there may be a synergy between the production of food and its traceability
through the supply chain. For example, consumers and/or food safety administrations may be
interested to see the link between production processes and supply chain. This requires
Page 87 of 94
putting in place the necessary links between crop and cattle during production and trade
items in the supply chain.
Issue: Include the charging of electrical vehicles in the use cases.
Remedy: The energy management and monitoring and multi-modal mobility use case make
reference to vehicle charging accordingly.
Issue: Make the granularity more consistent; some are broader and some are more specific
which is influencing some of the scores, and thus the outcome.
Remedy: No action. The granularity of the use case differs to obtain the required interaction
between multiple value chain actors.
Issue: Describe the use cases with a more generic terminology to broaden the use case (i.e.
vehicles and not cars).
Remedy: The use case was revised accordingly.
Issue: The use cases seem to be focussing too much on vertically-oriented organisations and
systems.
Remedy: No action. The proposed use cases (e.g. multi-modal mobility) are described in
such a way that they do cross-cut vertically oriented closed systems and applications.
Evidence of this can be found in the scoring of ‘value chain coverage’ criterion.
Use cases: smart water distribution networks and energy savings in production processes
Issue: Two of the proposals that have not been shortlisted could also be useful: smart
water, and energy savings in production. Many European Cities have ageing water pipes.
Burst pipes cause considerable disruption and costs. A smart monitoring system could help
predict pipe weaknesses and encourage proactive maintenance.
Similarly, electric motors are very inefficient in their use of energy. Smart motors could help.
But industry has been slow to take this up, in part because there is a gap between those who
invest the capital in machinery and those who finance the running costs.
Remedy: No action. These use cases have not been shortlisted, as they scored lower on the
selection criteria (European value).
Issue: Include an accompanying measure on evaluation metrics of the deployed LSPs (e.g.
quantitative values to prove hypothesis in user acceptance, benefits, etc.).
Remedy: such a recommendation on accompanying measures was added.
Table 15: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the shortlisted use
cases
Issue: The use cases around (1) Multi-modal mobility – smart road infrastructure, (2) Smart
assisted living and wellbeing, and (3) Energy savings at home were validated by multiple
experts as good candidates for an LSP.
Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure
Issue: Give the security and privacy issues a similar score to the smart public safety use
case.
Remedy: The scores on information security risks were revised across all use cases for more
consistency.
Multi-modal mobility and smart road infrastructure
Issue: The use case is a bit too ambitious, it will not be possible to address everything in the
description, especially if the different aspects are not managed by one single (public
transport) company.
Remedy: The suggested scope restriction was included in the description of the use case.
The proposed use case can be seen as a guideline for the launch of a call in this area.
Smart agriculture and food traceability
Issue: Focus the use case more on small scale solutions for more difficult crop (e.g. olives).
Remedy: The suggested scope was included in the description of the use case.
Smart assisted living and wellbeing
Issue: Clarify the relationship between the ‘assisted living’ and ‘wellbeing’ part of the use
Page 88 of 94
case.
Remedy: The relationship was clarified as follows. The same infrastructure for ‘assisted
living’ can also be used for ‘wellbeing’; and enable to include this data in electronic health
records. The wellbeing part generates (social) behaviour data and vital signs data that can
be relevant for identifying the right persons for clinical trials (enriched patient data records
allow to select better samples for clinical trials), that can be used to lower medical insurance
contributions (proof of a healthy lifestyle), as extra information for caretakers (e.g. a GP
knows your recent average and extreme vital signs at the beginning of a doctor’s visit), etc.
Smart assisted living and wellbeing
Issue: Score the legal and ethical barriers of this use cases lower.
Remedy: The scoring of the use case was revised and compared across all use cases for
consistency.
Smart assisted living and wellbeing
Issue: The risks associated with information security and privacy issues should be similar to
the Smart public safety use case.
Remedy: The scoring of information security risks was revised and compared across all use
cases for consistency.
Smart manufacturing: customisation
Issue: Raised doubts concerning the novelty and level of IoT in this use case. This will mainly
be done by the private sector itself.
Remedy: The novelty aspect was included in the “technical maturity score” of 3 out of 5. The
IoT nature stems for the use of information that is on the product itself to achieve a higher
level of customisation and a better flow of manufactured items through the supply chain.
Worker safety
Issue: Worker safety is seen as an important domain of application for IoT, and is seen in
relation to and as linked with among others Industry 4.0. If applied in a coherent and worker
friendly manner (i.e. respecting privacy of the workers in medical and in wider sense), it has
the potential of reducing accidents, reducing costs (in production and in worker care) and
reducing non-quality. Notifications should not be sent directly to management, first to the
worker himself and others in his vicinity that are directly affected by the actions. Only when
certain incidents are reoccurring and sever safety threats, the medical assistants and in the
end the management can be informed.
Remedy: The description of the use case was changed to reflect who should receive safety
notifications to increase the acceptability by workers and unions.
Smart public safety
Issue: The use case should not focus on smart surveillance cameras, since this is not so
much IoT. It should evolve more towards the use of sensors to prevent crime, e.g. sound
sensors which enable brighter street lighting when the risk on bar fights is higher.
Remedy: The idea was included in the description of the use case.
Smart living environment
Comment: Start with the deployment of a wireless sensor network to control the street
lighting system. The energy cost savings can be used to fund further deployment of a smart
city wide network, on which individuals can connect to gather information (e.g. around last
minute discounts at restaurants, etc.). Tests in the UK show that by using smarter lights (not
even LEDs) there can be energy savings of 30%. This can be invested in using the streetlights
to host the antennae for a wireless network, and various sensors (for traffic management,
calibrating lighting levels etc.). For example it makes it more affordable to have sensors on
manhole covers to detect interference, or in car parking spaces to provide real time
information on parking availability.
Remedy: This idea was included in the use case.
Energy savings at home and in buildings and Balancing the electricity grid use cases.
Issue: Some of the experts suggested to combine the two use cases, since both are quite
similar.
Page 89 of 94
Remedy: No action. After a small discussion, no agreement among experts could be found
and the use case was not merged. The former is an application of a residential smart grid
and the latter is an application of an industrial smart grid.
Energy savings at home and in buildings and energy savings for production
processes
Issue: Put emphasis on the total cost of ownership of electrical equipment, since this is an
aspect the user often forgets about.
Remedy: This was reflected in the description.
Nature of the proposed use cases
Issue: 19 use cases have been somehow pre-selected and then shortlisted. For instance, the
implication of IoT in 6.4 Manufacturing is not clear: customization and 6.15 Smart design. It
is not clear also in how far these already identified cases will set a ‘fixed’ model of reference
application fields for the future ICT vision of IoT developments.
Remedy: This report is one of many inputs to the next H2020 Work Programme. The
proposed use cases are not intended as a ‘fixed’ model of reference application fields. This is
also not implied in the report.
Energy savings at home and in buildings
Issue: Energy management at home and in buildings: This use case seems to be incomplete,
as the whole district performance in terms of energy management is not included (Not even
in another use case). RES generation, district consumption, smart grid integration should be
included also as a use case at district level. Plenty European projects funded by the
commission are working on improving the performance of the district energy management
(as examples, URB-Grade, Ambassador, EPIC-HUB...), and their impact in the IoT should also
be taken into account.
Remedy: The use case description already mentioned a home energy management system
taking into account “dynamic electricity pricing and demand response codes, and availability
of (locally) generated renewable energy”. The additional clarifications were added to the use
case description.
Energy savings in production processes
Issue: It looks like energy saving and resource saving is only of interested for some high
energy industries. Especially when not only looking at electrical energy, this topic is important
for a lot of industrial companies.
Remedy: This feedback seems justified and would require a more in-depth study of the use
case. This was listed as ‘future work’ in the conclusion of the study.
Include device manufacturers in the list of organisations
Issue: Examples list only solution providers. It is proposed to add at least some European
companies clearly involved as device providers in sensors, actuators, communications; this
would be useful to complete the visibility of this European industrial segment, and to give
recognition to its pulling role in achieving spreading IoT knowledge and deployment.
Remedy: This feedback is justified and was suggested as ‘future work’ in the conclusion of
the study.
Smart assisted living and well-being
Issue: Wearables are mentioned but not clearly and mostly inserted in well-being.
Remedy: This was clarified in the smart-assisted living and well-being use case. Wearables
are also clearly mentioned in the ‘worker safety’ use case.
Smart-assisted living and well-being
Issue: There is a strong correlation between assisted living and smart health (which is not
yet addressed), but this is separate from well-being platforms, that address much more
comfort rather than support or monitoring functionality.
Remedy: No action. The same infrastructure for ‘assisted living’ can also be used for
‘wellbeing’; and enable to include this data in electronic health records. The wellbeing part
generates (social) behaviour data and vital signs data that can be relevant for identifying the
right persons for clinical trials (enriched patient data records allow to select better samples
for clinical trials), that can be used to lower medical insurance contributions (proof of a
Page 90 of 94
healthy lifestyle), as extra information for caretakers (e.g. a GP knows your recent average
and extreme vital signs at the beginning of a doctor’s visit), etc.
Smart-assisted living and well-being: risks related to medical devices
Issue: There are major issues to be addressed regarding data security and regulatory, legal
and ethical aspects, including certification as medical devices that cannot be solved as easy
as it seems to be implied in the report.
Remedy: The scoring was revised accordingly.
Smart Manufacturing: customisation
Issue: Flexible and especially additive manufacturing techniques do not seem to qualify as
lighthouse use cases for IoT.
Remedy: The scoring of this use case was revised on criteria such as technical readiness,
replicability, etc.
Automated manufacturing
Issue: The argumentation for 0 points in societal challenge is at least surprising: automation
and technology in every case can be a reason for unemployment, but it can also create
lasting new jobs.
Remedy: Surprisingly, employment is not a societal challenge that is explicitly listed for the
Horizon 2020 framework programme.
Overall comment on selected use cases: focus on IoT platforms rather than IoT
equipment
Issue: The orientation of the study with focus on LSP as a tool for testing actual IoT solutions
at a certain scale, so the focus is more on the demonstration of uses cases in real-life settings
from a deployment feasibility and business model validation perspective rather than in
innovation in the hardware (specially the physical-to-electronic transducers of the nodes).
For the rest of the document then ‘sensors’ are considered dumb or taken for granted.
Sensors are indeed mentioned in many of the examples, but challenges for improving their
functionalities or adapting them to the constraints of uses cases are not considered. They are
succinctly included in the ‘Enablement hardware’ category of the Horizontal Sector as a part
of a ‘processing solution’.
The conclusion could be, that IoT use cases mainly focus on communication and data
processing aspects, and the technology and knowledge to realise the intelligent things is
assumed already available (for example by using electronic boards provided by Libelium).
However, to realise the vision of Internet of Things with many everyday objects equipped
with sensing and communication capabilities together with some data processing intelligence
still requires research in the area of sensing technology and production, system
miniaturization and system integration. Without this key enabling technology and knowledge
of designing and producing intelligent object, the Internet of Things lacks its basis.
Remedy: It is true that study does not focus on challenges for improving sensor
functionalities or adapting them to the constraints and requirements of the use cases. This
was included as future work in the conclusion of the study.
Table 16: Issues raised during the validation workshop regarding the proposed
accompanying measures
Issue: The proposed accompanying measure on the architecture office was well received. It
was further suggested that the architecture office should look at possible interconnections
between the use cases, e.g. sharing information across multiple use cases. LSPs should be
encouraged to exploit cross-LSP synergies.
Remedy: This was included in the proposed accompanying measures.
Issue: Include an accompanying measure on evaluation metrics of the deployed LSPs (e.g.
quantitative values to prove hypothesis in user acceptance, benefits, etc.).
Remedy: This was included in the proposed accompanying measures.
Table 17: General issues on the report
Page 91 of 94
Expected benefits
Issue: “The LSPs will build a critical mass for specifications and standards via the
implementation of open platforms;” Consider to change this text to read: “The LSPs platforms
will build on existing open standards (e.g. oneM2M, ETSI, OASIS, IETF etc.) and shall
influence standards evolutions and maintenance based on lessons learnt from the LSPs.”
Remedy: The examples of standards and specifications were added, together with additional
examples.
LSP Objectives
Issue: “Deliver an open APIs to promote interoperability and creation of standards;”
In general a use case is designed with no architecture or protocols in mind. A use case should
in principle be benchmarked based on a black box approach. In other term a use case cannot
deliver an API, but the implementation of a solution to address the use case can be based on
open API. I would rather remove this criteria or at least change it to read: “Implement open
APIs from the relevant standards to promote interoperability”
Remedy: This objective was set by the European Commission.
Benchmark framework: openness
Issue: Regarding the benchmark criterion for ‘openness’: “Assessing whether the use case
allows for the use of standards, platforms, hardware, and software that can be used in
accordance with fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions.” A use case is
orthogonal to the solution. The actual solution may have IPR dimension.
Remedy: No action. This criterion measures whether there are significant IPR restrictions
that would make solutions that realise the use case have excessive IPR restrictions.
Expected benefits: open standards and specifications
Issue: Conclusions section: “The LSPs should deploy its pilots on interoperable and opensource platforms based on open standards and specifications”. There might be open-source
platforms based on the same standard but that are not interoperable, depending on the
quality of the implementation and the standard. Open source does not guarantee
interoperability. The notion of open source may not apply to all aspects of the LSP: e.g. radio.
There is also a link between open source and IPR which may not be aligned with the FRAND
principle mentioned several times in this report. To be careful, I suggest this text is changed
to read: “The LSPs should leverage where feasible the use of open-source implementation
(e.g. fi-ware, OM2M) of open standards that target applicative cross-domain interoperability
(e.g. oneM2M), for the service layer and API aspects.”
Remedy: The conclusion was altered in this way.
Definition of IoT
Issue: The canonical IoT definition used does not include words like sensors. It focuses on
network infrastructure and seamless interfacing and connectivity of entities. These entities
gain identity by being part of the net, but their presence and relation with their environment
(and the corresponding raw information gathering) is not considered. (Fig. 1 is not selfexplanatory, a ‘sensor’ box is present but arrows do not show any hierarchical order, or
relative importance whatsoever)
Remedy: The canonical definition was kept. Figure 1 was slightly updated to have a closer
relationship with the definition.
IoT market: importance of hardware enablers for the IoT
Issue: There is a weak allusion to ‘More Moore and more than Moore’. It mainly refers again
to information processing, connectivity and computing, and the only comment related to the
hardware is devoid to any added value (just says that is becoming easier and cheaper to
produce).
Remedy: The importance of hardware enablers for the IoT was further emphasised,
acknowledging that IoT devices not only need to be smaller, lighter, reduce power
consumption, and cheaper, but that also further research and development is needed on
sensor devices.
IoT landscape: limited to OEM solution providers
Page 92 of 94
Issue: The description of the landscape seems limited, on the lower part limited to OEM
solution providers. This is motivated by using mature solutions (innovation character) to
sustain ICT development. From a device -industrial perspective, IoT is nodes with sensors,
actuators, and communications and a “community environment”, and these devices are the
technological backbone for systems and OEM solutions, the very front end for the
interconnections between users, machines, and networks.
Remedy: This is listed as future work.
IoT market organisation overview
Issue: The market organisation overview is lacking references to European companies in
several sectors, e.g.

Infineon, NXP

Bosch, ST (worldwide #1 and #2 in MEMS bases IoT sensors)

Siemens, Thales etc.
Remedy: The tables in Section Error! Reference source not found. are mere examples.
ST was added to the dataset of organisations that was created together with the report.
Objective: Focus on SMEs
Issue: Focus on SMEs ok, but then collaborative R&D is not possible without sizable groups.
Remedy: No action, this is an objective of the LSPs set by the European Commission.
Definition of IoT: importance of hardware enablers for the IoT
Issue: It is suggested to make visible both
• Internet of Services (IoS) and
• core IoT (IoT nodes, communications, platforms), as the development of IoS and core
IoT will necessarily take place according to parallel lines, to some extent independently.
The report also takes a strongly application driven approach. However, connection with IoT
technology and need for new IoT infrastructure deployment does not seem to have been
sufficiently taken into account. This in turn risks pilots to end up being mostly ICT
applications, with only a minor role for IoT infrastructure.
Remedy: the importance of hardware enablers was more emphasised in the report. Also, as
future work, it was suggested to continue investment in core IoT, in addition to the LSPs
which promote the market adoption of IoT.
IoT market organisation: horizontal sectors – too strong focus on big data analytics
Issue: In the upper part of the value chain, there is a rather strong focus on big data: the
latter can be a useful tool, but the data analysis part of pilot services should be more related
to the application of services and their interoperability among different “vertical” service
providers (Distribution System Operators, utility business, public councils, etc.; and, we still
should take into account the recent trend of goods companies that are moving towards
market promotion on services enabled by more than on the their products themselves).
Remedy: The definition of ‘service provider’ was indeed too much restricted too big data
analytics. The definition was updated into: “… companies [that] provide services such as
(real-time) (spatial) data services, APIs, data analytics tools, etc.”
IoT market organisation: horizontal sectors
Issue:
The presentation of IoT architecture and components is incomplete, regarding the IoT nodes
themselves as well as regarding communications.

Service Layer only lists data analytics and big data. Such analytic services are quite
general without a big use for end-users. There will be much more useful services
that will combine information from different things providing useful services. Such
useful services combining data from things and maybe other services may be much
more than only data analysis.

IoT nodes are systems; however, in the presentation the system level is absent;
Smart Systems and idem Integration and CPS represent the concepts for tools for
the implementation of IoT nodes.

unfortunately the communications means mentioned are suitable mostly for
consumer products and limited and non-critical applications and use scenarios; for
Page 93 of 94
industrial applications, and for critical application scenarios, e.g. in medical, or for
providing the necessary geographical coverage, e.g. for environmental applications,
the mentioned communications means are too limited or even less suitable, and
instead WAN (e.g. UMTS, GSM, GSM-R, satellite) and specialised radio interfaces
and protocols may be required.

Connectivity does mainly list Telco Providers, not companies providing and
developing the technology, e.g. RFID and NFC are not core competences of telcoproviders; GPS is not communications

There is no reference to the possible adoption of the Architecture Reference Model
(ARM).
Remedy:

Service layer: The definition of ‘service provider’ was indeed too much restricted too
big data analytics. The definition was updated into: “… companies [that] provide
services such as (real-time) (spatial) data services, APIs, data analytics tools, etc.”

IoT nodes are systems: please note that a segmentation of IoT organisations is
provided here, not an IoT architecture.

Communications: UMTS, GSM, GSM-R, satellite were listed as more appropriate
technologies used in ‘enablement networks’.

Companies providing and developing the technology: those organisations are under
the category ‘enablement hardware’ and ‘enablement software’

A reference to IoT-A ARM was added for a more refined view of relevant architecture
building blocks. Please note that a segmentation of IoT organisations is provided
here, not a comprehensive listing of IoT architecture building blocks.
Expected benefits: standardisation
Issue: The importance for standardisation has been pointed at, but not that this
standardisation should be flexible enough to leave room for innovation.
Remedy: this limitation was added to the conclusion on expected benefits.
Page 94 of 94