Smart Cities

Standards Vs Ecosystems: The Battle for Interoperability

Our physical world is being colonized by digital technology that seeks to sense, interpret, interface, and augment the human experience. Across the built environment, connected devices promise to feed advanced AI systems with all manner of data on the real world to bring about advanced automation and actionable insight. However, the sheer scale of the potential markets in cities and buildings has created large and fragmented industries with diverse selections of players, partnerships, and perspectives. 

Consequently, interoperability problems reign in the fragmented smart cities and smart buildings sectors, resulting in limited market penetration and glacial growth relative to industry ambitions and market potential. The ubiquity of cities and buildings in human life allows us to compare and contrast them with sweeping technological shifts like personal computing, mobile, and smart telephony, or the internet. Had the industries behind those revolutionary technologies not overcome interoperability issues, the world would probably be very different today.

“From the very beginning, he was clear that if the [internet] technology had been proprietary and under his total control, it probably wouldn’t have taken off,” said Gianni Minetti, CEO at Paradox Engineering, about Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s invention of the World Wide Web in the 1980s. “Today, none of us would buy a laptop or a smartphone which could only connect to a legacy network. It is more or less the same for cities on their smart journey: there isn’t much value in being tied to a single vendor or a proprietary technology.”

Be it in smart cities or smart buildings, the IoT has an interoperability problem that is holding back tech adoption, value creation, and our evolution to a smart cyber-physical world. From a hardware perspective, devices made by different manufacturers don’t integrate, connectivity meanwhile presents a range of incompatible protocols, but the most significant challenge comes from the data itself. Without set rules or standards at the application level, it becomes impossible to combine and complement the data gathered from different families of sensors and devices.

“Data is the key asset in smart cities, and it is important to enable data sharing between multiple systems,” wrote Srikanth Chandrasekaran, senior director and foundational technologies practice lead at the IEEE Standards Association. “Frictionless movement of data between multiple physical, digital, and human systems is the holy grail as it generates value.”

By 2025, the world will be fitted with 41.7 billion IoT devices that transmit 73.1 zettabytes of data, according to IDC, but up to $4 trillion per year of the potential economic impact of that data is held back by interoperability issues, according to McKinsey & Co. Buildings and cities should make up a significant proportion of those forecasted devices and zettabytes, but their consumers find themselves in a high-cost maze of compatibility considerations, vendor lock-in issues, and all too often, poor return on investment. 

“It is estimated that smart city projects using proprietary technology cost 30% more than those using interoperable technology and standards like 6LoWPAN,” continued Minetti, in an article for Cities Today. “That is because legacy systems generate more complexity and can lead to duplicated implementation and maintenance costs, as well as incurring impossible or expensive integration with other systems. They also run the risk of obsolescence and ultimately a poor return on investment. Further, 6LoWPAN offers free unlicensed bands with no recurring fees or costs, and it is natively designed to be energy-efficient.”

A range of associations, consortiums, and standards organizations have emerged in both smart cities and buildings, all identifying the same interoperability problem but divided by their choice of solution. From hardware integration to connectivity and data formatting, interoperability is already technically possible. The real issue holding back the interoperability of the IoT in smart buildings and cities is cooperation in the industry & entrenched knowledge silos.

“There are so many competing government organizations, standards bodies, industry coalitions, corporations, academic institutions, and even individual contributors making contributions in this space, with significant variance by industry and even location sometimes in the same industry,” said Shawn Chandler, Former Associate Editor of IEEE Communications Society’s IoT Magazine. “Interoperability does exist, but it is challenged today as a result of sustained innovation outpacing the standards industry, which seeks to provide well-vetted templates of communication, methods, and protocols, to govern information exchange, data privacy, and security.”

“Global standards organizations such as IEEE spend significant effort forming teams of industry experts to evaluate needs as they emerge, forming approaches, developing guides and recommended practices in a hierarchy of increasingly meaningful frameworks, which result in a set of accepted standards,” continued Chandler. “In this way, interoperability for IoT becomes a native expectation across industries, rather than contrived through a collection of devices and artifacts requiring significant customization for every new feature.”

The smart buildings and cities markets continue to attract new vendors, device providers, platform enablers, and service-based ecosystems, further fragmenting the industry and further reducing interoperability. Major players like Google, Apple, Amazon, and Samsung have the ability to create interoperable ecosystems that open up the market to a wide world of third-party solution providers. Instead, each builds their own ecosystem until they feel they are positioned to take the lion’s share of that new open landscape. This battle between open standards and closed ecosystems seems set to continue to strangle market growth until a significant shift in industry cooperation or some disruptive innovation.

9 thoughts on “Standards Vs Ecosystems: The Battle for Interoperability

  1. This is a very good reading. I would like to recommend a platform which has a solution for the interoperability issue. I am very keen to discuss about this with the author. Can I get an appointment with you

  2. Great description of a major problem. I would suggest that BACnet within the the building and MQTT + Sparkplug from bulding to cloud have solved the communications standard. We now need one data model standard – Haystack, Brick, 223P, Real-estate core, etc.

    We also need the BAS vendors to stop perpetuating proprietary controller programming lanuages and tools. And, educate (building owners) to stop buying from vendors who’s main goal is to lock them into their ecosystem.

  3. Well written. I believe another facet of this continuum is the ability to perform and support technologies on a local level. The idea of being fully integrated and being able to capture big data in communities and buildings is valuable, but how many companies have the ability to design, install and manage these systems. There has to be a shift in the industry at a local level focusing on more technology based tradesman. So not only does the technology have to become interoperable, the workforce needs the skills to troubleshoot and support it – otherwise it’s just a bunch of paperweights at the end of the day. So how do we build up the next generation of technical tradesman? Thanks for sharing!

    1. Great Comment, thank you! I note that in some countries there has been a push toward trade-based apprenticeships as opposed to expensive and (in some cases) commercially irrelevant university degrees. This would seem like a step in the right direction. The industry could play its part by funding more apprenticeships.

  4. Haystack, Brick, 223P, Real-estate core are not a solution as they only cover a piece of the data model require. The only solution is to use a middleware which manages the interoperability between the silos through a single source of truth. Again, the single source of truth cannot be Haystack, Brick, 223P, Real-estate core or a new one that will emerge as by definition, you cannot think about all the use cases of a smart city or smart building. Therefore, the only solution we have found at SpinalCom is to integrate BIM data at the heart of our middleware. The BIM files has all information requires like the space description, the list of equipments per space (localization), attributes like the date of installation … SpinalCom has worked now for more than 10 years on that subject, and that is the only solution for the smart building industry. It is not because you have two silos using the same protocol that they are interoperable. It depends on how your equipments have been deployed, meaning with which data normalization.

    Another issue arise when you want to integrate OT silos (BMS, IoT, safety, security …) with IT silos (ticketing, occupant experience mobile app, booking systems …). On one side, you have OT silos running in real time and generating time series when IT silos are non-real-time transactional data. So the next question is : how can you integrate together systems that doesn’t speak at the same frequency? That seems easy, right? Well, it is not all. It means that you need an asynchronous middleware !

    I already see a lot of people saying that they have the solution with a BMS !
    – When you want to use a BMS middleware to do this job, you can’t ! A BMS middleware can only run with real time data, it doesn’t know what a ticket is for instance. As an example, you cannot request a BMS to collect a ticket from a CMMS and then send it to another application !
    – another issue with the BMS middleware is the single source of truth it can manage, that is restricted to the OT world ! So how can you integrate OT & IT silos then? that is the reason for saying that data normalization like Haystack, Brick …are too much limited to cover the entire scope that a smart building or a smart city need.

    Of course, some people will say that you can integrate silos point to point and manage the interoperability without a middleware. They are completely wrong, as the TCO of a spaghettiware is ten times more expensive in the long run. In addition, it provides a very bad user experience. As an example, when the space partitioning change, what happens in a spaghettiware (and even with a BMS one)? Well, you need to modify each description of your asset for each of your silo ! A nightmare and a big cost. Again, here, the only solution is to have a middleware which is able to be responsible for this single source of truth and is able to push a new building description to each of the connected silo to update them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Popular Articles

Schneider Electric Smart Buildings 2023
Smart Buildings

Schneider Electric Smart Buildings Business & Financials 2023 Examined

In this Research Note, we examine the Smart Buildings business of Schneider Electric, based on their 2023 Full Year Results, presentations, Q3 and Q4 earnings calls. Significant partnerships, acquisitions and divestments in the smart buildings space are also highlighted throughout 2023. Schneider Electric Energy Management Division The Buildings end market of Schneider Electric is addressed […]

ABB Smart Buildings 2023
Smart Buildings

ABB Smart Buildings Business 2023 Examined

In this Research Note, we examine the Smart Buildings business of ABB, based on their February 2024 Factsheet and building automation portfolio, acquisitions, divestments and investments throughout 2023. This article updates our 2022 Examined article published in March 2023 and the Capital Markets Day update for Smart Buildings in December 2023. The Smart Buildings division, […]

UK Green Building Council Progress Report
Energy

“Our Industry is Not Moving Fast Enough” – UK Green Building Council

The United Kingdom (UK) is falling behind in its projected green building roadmap according to the UK’s Green Building Council’s (UKGBC) progress report. The initial 2021 roadmap demanded a 19% drop in emissions over the past four years but the latest data shows just a 13% fall, more than 30% short of the target reduction. […]

Subscribe to the Newsletter & get all our Articles & Research Delivered Straight to your Inbox.

Please enter a valid email

Please enter your name

Please enter company name

By signing up you agree to our privacy policy