Smart homes don't build themselves!

Intelligent homes ("smart" homes, automated homes, domotics, home networks etc.) are no longer a design concepts of the future. They are being built now, and they are having a direct impact on the lifestyles of people living in them. Intelligently designed and operated buildings yield dramatic increases in worker productivity and energy cost savings, and administrative savings within work environments as well as domestic ones.

"Smart" Home is the term commonly used to define a residence that uses a home controller to integrate the residences various home automation systems (putting devices together). Integration of the home systems allows them to communicate with one another through the home controller, thereby enabling single button and voice control of the various home systems simultaneously, in pre-programmed scenarios or operating modes.

'Smart Homes' can be used to support older and disabled people, providing safe, secure and empowering environments. The 'Smart Home' can allow the user to control many features or automate the ones that might be required. The user can also be monitored by the 'Smart Home' system to ensure their safety, and alert people should the user be in difficulties.

Although the 'Smart Home' has been embraced by the monied factions, it's utility within the realm of augmenting the standard care packages is slowly evolving. A number of 'Smart Homes' have been developed in the UK that have been specifically designed to demonstrate the technology for older people and people with disabilities. A fundamental stumbling block that has been identified through the development of these sites is that there is no consistent or easy method of developing a 'Smart Home' that meets the true needs of the end user.

As time has gone one, the term 'smart home' has begun to lose its meaning and therefore it is better to consider the technology as assistive. Ideally, appropriate technology should allow people to be free to expand their horizons beyond the limited scope that would have been open to them prior to the installation of the system. The technology can benefit many people, although the most direct beneficiaries are the residents and the carers for who the system is primarily designed around. Appropriate systems can allow carers to spend quality time with residents and allow residents appropriate times of isolation (if they wish) without other parties requiring to check up on them. Systems should also be adaptable and grow with the users. The need to be maintainable and easily modified as the needs of the user change. Most importantly they need to be reliable and dependable. They should do what the person expects them to do, when they expect it, in the manner they expect it.

Often the best systems are the simplest with the least technological intervention. Good building design (inclusive and universal design) can mitigate much of the need for extra technology. It is also the case that it is wise not to attempt to predict a system before undertaking a thorough user needs evaluation as often what the resident might actually require is a system completely different from your initial expectation.

We are at an interesting point in history as smart homes are making way for systems such as telecare and telemedicine which are designed to support people in their homes by monitoring aspects of their daily life. These systems are still in their infancy and in many cases the algorithms are somewhat naive relying on people undertaking the same tasks repeatedly on a daily or weekly basis. Currently the philosophy of their use is that is it better to send an alert to an external call centre than to have a person possibly in difficulties. The issue that we will have to address in the future is what happens when call centres are snowed under by false alerts. Is this invasive of a person's privacy to continually have people checking on them. When should alerts be sent and when should they not be sent. Older people as well as people with disabilities have lives and consequently they will do things that the installers of teh system have not allowed for in the programme. Clearly this could be potentially very embarrasing if a system suggests a person is in trouble when in fact they are just doing something the programers had not accounted for. This is one of the difficulties with presure sensors on beds etc. In a similar vein, how does a system tell the difference between a person lying on the floor in distress due to a fall and soeone who happens to decide to read a book in the bathroom? How do systems cope with behaviour out of the ordinary?