7 minute read
Driver & Scenario Matrix
DRIVER MATRIX
Building upon the findings of the Basic Phase, key drivers and their resulting challenges for the future of Smart Living were identified. From over 100 identified drivers, we focussed on the 10 drivers that have a high exogenous impact on individual stakeholders of the future of Smart Living. As the outcomes of the drivers are highly uncertain, they are modelled with plausible bipolar extreme outcomes.
Advertisement
The adjoining matrix displays the ranking of the identified drivers according to their individual impact and uncertainty of outcome. Based on the ranking, we decided on the two drivers “Degree of Owned Consumer Products” and “Interoperability of Devices & Ecosystems”, marked green in the matrix, to build the base for our future scenarios.
In the following, the two identified key drivers will be described in detail. Also, the derived scenarios will be elaborated on and ranked in the scenario matrix. high
Impact
Demand for Remote Work by Society
Willingness & Scope of Data Sharing
Interoperability of Devices & Ecosystems
Adoption of AR and VR
Government Data Regulations
Adoption of Technology by Older Generations
Preferred Place of Working (employees)
Access to State of the Art Digital Infrastructure
Uncertainty
high
KEY DRIVERS
Low Degree of Ownership
In this extreme outcome, people will rent, subscribe, or share most of their products at home instead of fully owning them. The subscription business models imply that customers pay a fixed fee either monthly or annually instead of paying the entire purchasing price upfront. This allows the consumer to flexibly use products privately with the feeling to still “own” them. Another alternative is sharing products with other people on a Pay-per-use basis. This is especially applicable for household products that are not used that often and thus do not need to be continuously paid for or owned. Overall, this scenario facilitates the transition towards a circular economy much more, as ownership of the products is retained by the providers, who ensure that products are kept in a closed loop by following regulations.
Degree of Owned Consumer Product
Interoperability of Devices and Ecosystems
Will people in 2041 continue to own most of the products they use in their daily lives, or will they prefer to rent or share them flexibly? The share of privately held consumer products by individuals depends on many factors such as the cultural values of a society and existing business models on the market. While the “high ownership” scenario represents the status quo to a large extent, the “low ownership” scenario is an emerging and thus a more complex one. Low ownership not only implies sharing products but can also entail using products via a subscription model, depending on the type of product, the use-case, or the frequency of usage. Finally, both scenarios have very different implications for the sustainable production and consumption of consumer products.
High Degree of Ownership
In this extreme outcome, people will own all of their products used at home. Customers purchase products at a “full price” and acquire full ownership rights. This outcome is especially relevant for durable goods as subscribing to such products results in a higher overall price in the long run. However, owning tangible products means that owners are also responsible for the disposal of a product they no longer need. In contrast, today, possessing a product challenges the circular economy, as it does not guarantee that individuals dispose used products properly.
Isolated Ecosystems
In this extreme outcome, companies will either be restricted by law or refuse to share common standards that could assist third parties to collaborate with them in building smart living technologies. In such a case, companies would work independently to expand their product portfolio in order to provide comprehensive solutions for consumers. On the other hand, smaller companies would find it harder to compete with their counterparts by failing to offer comprehensive solutions due to insufficient resources. This would enable a lock-in effect where consumers would not be able to own products from different ecosystems if they prefer personalized solutions from connected devices. Additionally, large corporations would have the opportunity to dominate the market by erecting entry barriers. Interoperability between ecosystems refers to the connectivity of devices from different brands that interact with each other using shared resources and interfaces. Regardless of the regulations concerning data exchange between organizations, a company’s choice to share its data, and access to its platform is the basic requirement to connect ecosystems from different providers. This could have a big impact on the Smart Living Industry as the core functionality of Smart Living is for various devices to be connected and provide personalized assistance. Since connectivity plays such a significant role, the extent of interoperability would affect the research and development of smart living technologies. More extensive interoperability will widen the scope for development, whereas limited interoperability could dampen the speed of development.
Interoperable Ecosystems
In this extreme outcome, companies will be able to build products that seamlessly interact with each other based on shared standards. New companies will improve on existing technologies and make devices that complement the services provided by other companies. This way, technologies become more nuanced, and large companies do not need to create their product in every domain. By having a common platform to work on, smaller companies can tackle niche problems in the industry and accelerate the overall growth of these technologies. With no limit to interoperability, the scenario suggests a collaborative effort between various organizations to improve the Smart Living Industry.
OTHER IMPORTANT DRIVERS
Limited Adoption
The difference of the adoption rate of digital technology between the younger and older generation remains at the status quo. Older generations adopt digital platforms and services in a similar manner to younger ones.
Decreased demand
The amount of people who are eligible to work remotely and demand to do so decreases. The amount of people who are eligible to work remotely and demand to do so increases.
At Home
Most remote workers work from home. Most remote workers work from co-working spaces/changing places around the world.
Limited
People only agree to share their data to be used for “functional” purposes. People agree that their data can be used for a broad range of purposes.
No reduction of working hours
Average working hours per week remain the same (40h/ week).
Limited Adoption
Augmented Reality devices remain a gadget only for a small population group. Augmented Reality devices become part of our daily routines.
Current Level
Data collection and usage remains at current level of regulation. Regulatory bodies introduce more data collection and usage policies.
Limited Access
Slowly recurring rollout of state-of-the-art digital infrastructure for connectivity access. Rapidly recurring rollout of state-of-the-art digital infrastructure for connectivity access.
Adoption of Technology by Older Generations
Demand for Remote Work by Society
Preferred Place of Working (employees)
Willingness & Scope of Data Sharing
Work-Life Balance
Adoption of AR and VR
Government Data Regulations
Access to State-of-the-Art Digital Infrastructure Increased Adoption
Increased demand
Other Places
Broad
Reduced Working Hours
Significant reduction of average working hours per week.
High Adoption
More Regulation
Widespread Access
SCENARIO MATRIX
The scenario matrix consists of the two key drivers and their corresponding bipolar outcomes. Each key driver represents one of the axes of the matrix. Each of the four built scenarios results from the intersection of two of the drivers’ extreme outcomes (one per matrix quadrant). All scenarios are plausible and internally consistent.
“Garden of Eden”: Most consumer products are not owned anymore, they are rather exchanged through sharing platforms or subscribed to as a Product-as-a-service. Device manufacturers put high emphasis upon perfect integration within their own ecosystem, but do not facilitate any interoperability with third party devices.
“On-Demand Convenience”: Widespread adoption of technology standards enable interoperability of devices from competitors. To increase utilization, current legislation has enabled sharing and subscription as the predominant form of device usage.
“My HomeOS”: Sharing models have not become a widespread success: people value individuality and ownership of their consumer products. As a result of open standards, these devices from various manufacturers are able to communicate with each other in one streamlined ecosystem.
“Smart Home Islands”: The widespread adoption of privately owned IoT devices with a lack of a common standards leads to a fragmented IoT environment at home while device manufacturers focus on the interoperability within their own ecosystem instead of facilitating the integration of other firms.
Garden of Eden
Devices of only one company can be connected within a household
Degree of owned consumer products
Interoperability of devices & ecosystems
Smart Home Islands
People rent, subscribe and share most of their consumer products
On-Demand Convenience
Devices from various companies are incorporated in one streamlined home ecosystem
People own most of their consumer products
