I recently had the opportunity to interview Mark Lien, LC, HBDP, CLMC, CLEP, LEED BD&C, Industry Relations Manager, Illuminating Engineering Society, about where things stand right now and possibly in the future for the Internet of Things. (Mark was speaking for himself, not the IES.) The responses helped inform an article I wrote about the IoT for the December 2018 issue of ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR.

DiLouie: On a big picture level, where do you see adoption of the IoT right now and in the next three years? Looking at 1) current technology, 2) standardization, 3) cost, and 4) market interest, where are we now, what’s missing, and what’s next?

Lien: Adoption now is in a period of disillusionment. This phase is common to digital technologies before exponential growth. We have heard the promises of what IoT can deliver but so far most of these are unavailable. We heard about human like robots for decades but the first practical application was a Roomba vacuum cleaner. This is anticlimactic and disillusioning.

People started talking about LED lighting as the future when the light was too blue, the products too large and they had too low an efficacy to justify their high cost. As they improved beyond early adopters the economics of scale kicked in, standards evolved, and market disruption occurred. Then prices fell accelerating into exponential growth and within a decade they dominated research and new product offerings.

IoT is poised for launch over the next three years. We are learning to translate the languages of converging industries, developing standards, sorting out how lighting will fit into the IoT and speculating on who the market leaders will be. This vision will be clearer in 2021 but the mist will not have completely dissipated yet.

It is worth noting what happens after prices fall. Costs are stabilizing now for LED lighting but demonetization will similarly trigger IoT growth as products reach market acceptance then get copied. The next phase is miniaturization and integration into the electrical infrastructure of our buildings and city services. Once tech shrinks, some to Nano size, our interactions with IoT will be ubiquitous and eventually subconscious.

DiLouie: What opportunities and threats does IoT pose for the lighting industry, and what might the industry look like in five years as a result of this? In the end, in your view, will IoT be a capability offered by different industries including lighting, or will lighting be a function offered by IoT companies? (Or will the answer be dependent on a new stratification in the market?)

Lien: We are peering through a glass darkly at IoT but cracks of light seep in to reveal glimpses of the lighting industry in 2023. Lighting owns the electrical connection point, providing a unique mesh of symmetrically distributed electrical access for interior and exterior IoT products. The telecom, internet and electronics companies are battling for dominance. Their economic power dwarfs the resources of our lighting community. They are navigating a land grab for our sockets and boxes. It appears that the result will be a digital platform powered by these electrical locations.

Smart cities are determining how interior IoT will evolve. Imagine a smart pole as a digital platform that can accept a cafeteria approach to options including multiple sensors (through the use of standardized sockets) as well as audio and visual gear, drone docking and charging, vehicle charging and oh yeah, lighting. Whatever protocols and companies win the smart city wars will have an edge transforming interior spaces.

The threat is ignorance. The lighting community has talked amongst itself for years. We have our own publications, language, educators and conferences. Decades of insular communication has served to isolate us from general awareness. Most consumers cannot name luminaire manufacturers and believe lighting to be simple to understand. For their purposes it is and arguably should be. We have grown the market in part by removing the complexity from most users. The technical knowledge, standards development and application specific design concerns are isolated from consumers. A dangerous lack of awareness has been our trade off. The consequence is that the telecoms, internet and electronic companies perceive lighting as “easy” compared to their tech.

Quality lighting will be compromised if we do not expand general awareness of the value we bring beyond ROI. That requires a unified effort with our lighting community funding a targeted campaign. The proprietary nature of especially U.S. lighting companies does not inspire optimism for achieving this goal. By not addressing this threat immediately lighting risks becoming a commodity option in the above-mentioned digital platform. If you want to be part of the solution please contact me (mlien at ies dot org) and I will get you connected to address this very real and timely threat.

DiLouie: Standardization is a critical hurdle for IoT adoption. Where does this stand now, particularly with the current IEEE standards and the IoT Ready Alliance specification? What’s the leading protocol with the most promise for IoT? What’s missing? If interoperability is problematic even with open protocols (as they change over time to create new versions), will it be possible to achieve a truly interoperable IoT system, or will there always be a “weakest link” risk?

Lien: Leaping ahead of the science when developing standards is encouraged by an industry so desperately in need of stability through more unified direction. As IoT approaches warp speed we will witness unexpected convergent consequences. Without standardization consumers will suffer, manufacturer resources will be wasted, confusion will be unresolved and our global competitive position weakened.

The anti-trust laws that protect us are not global and they can be a disadvantage when competing with Asia and even Europe. Standard development organizations like IES, ASHRAE and NEMA possess the tools and experience to legally seat competitors at the same table for the betterment of the lighting community. Participation funded directly by companies affects their progress.

Even with these players working together, the process takes time. Compound this delay with a rapidly changing marketplace and what happens is that the market drives the standards instead of the standards driving the market as they typically have in the electrical industry. IoT related standards are evolving. There is also proprietary positioning for control by alliances influencing some of the proposed standardization. Our established standards organizations tend toward self-policing with members shaming corporate shills to ultimately achieve goals benefitting us all.
Regarding hardware, a standardized “socket” that encourages simplified upgrades of sensors and other devices seems inevitable. The software and communication methodologies are in a fierce battle for supremacy. Unprecedented speed of change from the Wi-Fi Alliance, The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Zigbee Alliance and others keeps that aspect of change in flux.

To be effective the terms used in standards must have an agreed to meaning. To validate how early we are in this process consider that it was only in 2017 that many of the necessary definitions were published by the ANSI C137 committee. Not included was a definition of the term ‘internet of things.’ As a result of having no industry agreed to axiom, there are multiple descriptions of what IoT includes. The estimates of market size and forecasts for IoT vary so wildly as to render them useless without qualifying what is included.

Lighting is one of the weakest links now as every communication protocol we use has been hacked. Lighting was implicated in the largest denial of service attack last year that shut down Amazon and others. We can make ‘smart’ lighting safer but the user experience suffers. ZigBee for example allows manufacturers to use two layers of passwords. Open your phone, then your app, then another password to control the lights or flip a switch. The apps are fun but the switch is easier even without the additional password. Lighting manufacturers need to secure our products before cybersecurity issues cause the public to reject connected lighting technologies. Unique biometric markers like fingerprints and facial recognition help but need greater accuracy to be trusted.

DiLouie: More companies are beginning to offer some variation on the concept of light as a service, from financing to acting as a remote lighting management department to extension into what might be considered IoT. Where do you see current adoption and capabilities, and where do you think it’s going?

Lien: When William McDonough addressed the “as a service” approach in his seminal sustainability book, Cradle to Cradle, he envisioned major appliances not being personal possessions. By renting or leasing products he felt that they would become more modular and sustainable. Imagine you leased a washing machine. If it breaks or you want a newer model you call your supplier and they exchange yours, upgrading your old one to resell at a lower cost rather than dump it into a landfill.

Very few lighting products are modular. The cost to redesign is difficult to absorb as the market is demonetizing. The shift with lighting as a service is that finally we have providers that understand our market and are not just number crunchers. They speak our language and understand the dynamics and peculiarities of our industry. Ultimately if they are faced with mounting inventories of outdated products it may become cost effective to incentivize more modular offerings. This could help realize the dream of sustainable lighting product design. LaaS tackles the two major barriers to purchasing a lighting system, cost and the fear that whatever technology you buy will soon be replaced by something better. With LaaS you pay monthly, often offset by energy savings, and have a contractual end date allowing you to upgrade to new tech without being stuck using an outdated system. This model is expanding.

DiLouie: How does everything we’ve talked about relate to the electrical contractor? What are the biggest opportunities and threats, and what do they need to know and do to address each moving forward?

Kien: To bring value to their customers and differentiate themselves for greater profits, the electrical contractor needs to know more than their customer does. The complexity of their job is increasing so this becomes more difficult. Continuous education is critical for both success and survival. Some large electrical firms have recognized this shift and offer in-house training. New tech offers customers advantages but value needs to be communicated to them in a way that they can understand. Sales and human relationship skills are enhanced by specialized courses offered by FranklinCovey and the Dale Carnegie organizations. These can be life changing and transform individuals and corporations. Continuous education in technology and communication skills can eliminate irrelevance and help those floundering to avert disaster.

Craig DiLouie

See Full Bio