Setting Home Automation Standards

Smart Homes

Creating a smart home involves collusion of diverse disciplines including computers, software, networking, communication, security, entertainment, energy, appliance, ventilation, lighting, and others.  Sensors and monitoring devices located in the dwelling are controlled either with a local interface or remotely, typically by means of apps as shown in Figure 1.  The trend of major manufactures to incorporate intelligence into their home appliance products mirrors the public’s embrace of smart devices.  User-friendly apps assist with monitoring, information, communication, notification, operation, regulation, and diagnostics.  IMS Research (2012) estimated that, “over 25 million ‘smart grid-enabled’ devices, such as smart thermostats, smart energy displays, and smart appliances with the ability to communicate with smart meters, will be shipped in the U.S. in the next five years.”  Strategy Analytics (2013) further estimated that,

The US market for smart home systems and services will reach more than $30B by 2018 as it becomes a major market opportunity for technology and service providers.  Over the next five years to 2018 revenue growth will be driven by the adoption of interactive, professionally monitored security systems.  Professionally installed control and entertainment systems will remain major contributors to smart home revenues, but will decline as percentage of the total market as more mass-market systems are adopted.

 

Large companies in the home improvement industry are beginning to offer low cost smart home products including Sears (GE Brillion™ Connected Appliances), Belkin (WeMo), Sub-Zero® / Wolf® (Smart Appliance Module™), Lowe’s (Iris), Verizon (Home Monitoring and Control) and others.  Larger companies are beginning to enter the market and offer lower priced do-it-yourself smart home products.  One example of this new competition is Lowe’s Iris which is a simple to use kit comprised of a central hub, sensors and smart plugs all controlled from an app and sold for under $300.  There are two primary factors that have significantly influenced the smart home market:

·   Financial.  SMARThome (2009) estimated that whole home smart system installation costs can reach over $200 per square meter not including actuators and recurring monthly service provider fees; the estimated costs also supported by Kern (2012).  However, the improved efficiency of home energy, lighting, appliance run times may result in some cost payback.  Also, better control systems are generally modular, allowing incremental expansion of subsystems over time so that the entire home need not be provisioned all at once.  By comparison, the cost for installation of the same traditional (non-smart) devices was estimated at about $125 per square meter.  As more retailers and customers enter the market as previously noted, economy of scale will result in lower costs.

·   Technological.  High speed broadband Internet is available in most areas of the developed world.  Home area network standards are consolidating around Z-Wave and ZigBee wireless.  The ZigBee Alliance is a consortium of more than 220 member companies and other organizations supporting the development of the standard and promoting its use.  The Z-Wave Alliance, consortium of more than 160 companies that design and sell wireless home control products based on the Z-Wave standard, plays a major role in the Z-Wave system.  Currently, more than 575 interoperable products are available in 22 countries.

Even as smart home habitats remain very much embryonic it is clearly evident that there will be significant market penetration and companies want to take early leadership positions to expand their market share.  Sherden (2011) described the Bandwagon Effect in which, “The continued process of success breeding success can escalate to a point where an irreversible pathway of future events determines the victor” (p. 67).  Even in the absence of an official standard, if any of the major vendors lock-in a large share of the market then their protocol will become the de-facto standard, which is why Z-Wave and ZigBee have not agreed to a single standard.  Similar historical examples include Apple Computer versus Microsoft operating systems and Betamax versus VHS VCR videotape formats. 

Intelligent Homes

Looking ahead, the next innovation in home automation will be employment of an inference capability that applies artificial reasoning to make intelligent decisions.  Researchers have been cataloging various types of home activities such as sleeping, cooking, and bathing based upon sensor monitoring.  Studies have documented a normal range of time and space to accomplish the activities, which then permits an intelligent system to make adjustments or send notifications when there is abnormal activity.  Such profiling and support are particularly advantageous for infirmed, disabled and elderly individuals.  Cook, Crandall, Thomas and Krishnan (2012) summarize such home intelligence by stating,

In the home environment, computer software that plays the role of an intelligent agent perceives the state of the physical environment and residents using sensors, reasons about this state using artificial intelligence techniques, and then takes actions to achieve specified goals. (p. 62) 

Because the domiciliary artificial intelligence capability is not yet commercially available, no marketplace leader has emerged.  However, there will surely be significant competition to set the standard for the proliferation of The Internet of Things within the extensive residential market.  Just as with the basic smart home environment, the financial and technological factors will have a significant impact.  Any company that seeks to establish itself as a market leader must develop a sociotechnical plan that takes these factors into consideration, hoping that others will then jump on their bandwagon. 

References

Cook, D., Crandall, A., Thomas, B., & Krishnan, N. (2012). CASAS: A smart home in a box. Computer, 46(7), 62-69.  IEEE, DOI: 10.1109/MC.2012.328

IMS Research. (2012, March 1). Over 25 million ‘smart’ energy management devices will be shipped to us consumers in the next five years. Retrieved 25 August 2013 from: http://www.imsresearch.com/news-events/press-template.php?pr_id=2668

Jones, M. (2013, May 23). Smart homes. Retrieved 25 August 2013 from: http://safetycomesfirst.info/smart-homes/

Kern, T. (2012). Home automation used to be for the wealthy—but not anymore. Retrieved 25 August 2013 from: http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/smart-homes-average-joe?page=0,1

Sherden, W. A. (2011). Best laid plans: The tyranny of unintended consequences and how to avoid them. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

SMARThome. (2009). How much does a smart home system cost? Retrieved 25 August 2013 from: http://www.smarthome.eu/a/how-much-does-a-smart-home-system-cost.html.

Strategy Analytics. (2013, May 22). Smart home systems and services forecast: United States. Retrieved 25 August 2013 from: https://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=reportabstractviewer&a0=8526

Future Artificial Intelligence

Though the progress has not met earlier predictions, development of artificial intelligence is advancing.  Generally acknowledged as the seminal event for artificial intelligence as a field, McCarthy, Minsky, Rochester, and Shannon (1955) proposed a Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence.  The study was based upon the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that they could be simulated by a machine.  For over 60 years research into artificial intelligence has sought to augment human reasoning and decision-making ability.  Artificial intelligence (AI) makes use of a broad assortment of integrated competencies to achieve systems that perceive their environment and inform the user, or take informed actions on behalf of the user, to maximize their probability of success.  Owing to the continuing development in smart phone, sensor, and miniaturization capability there has been a flourishing of wearable microelectronic, computing, and networked devices.  Within this wide ranging setting the proliferation of intelligent (smart) devices such as wearable technology supported by expert system modules will present further opportunities to meld Internet appliances with sense-making tools.

Extrapolating further, AI will begin to interface both autonomously and under user direction with the external sensor-rich environment, over time becoming increasingly familiar with the user’s preferences.  By monitoring the user’s daily activities, AI will learn the intimate details associated with the user’s life patterns.  When directed, AI will then assume the role for user identity representation in virtual reality scenarios.  The essence of the user’s personal history, developed and reflecting changes over time will become an enduring electronic identity legacy beyond the user’s biological lifetime, the accumulated data making a permanent contribution to larger public bodies of knowledge.

In the distant future, human and artificial life forms will merge, allowing the essence of humanity to progress beyond an inevitable terminal conclusion.  Within this scenario one question looms large:  Which life form would dominate?  Social and ethical forces will become predominate themes as humans determine the role and rights of artificial life in society, as well as the extent to which humans may assume artificial technology within their organic bodies.

I created a 30 second video and a 30 second audio file for my Animoto site at http://animoto.com/play/t1i76CPohsT5Ez2TvlmAmg

 

References

McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N., &  Shannon, C. (1955, August 31). A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. Annals of Mathematics, 27(4), Publisher: AAAI American Association Of Artificial Intelligence, Pages: 1.

World Association of Newspapers Scenario Planning

Background

Wade (2012) presented a case study, The Newspaper Industry, which examined how the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) undertook a scenario planning initiative to determine how competition from new technologies and altered reading habits might create new opportunities in the newspaper sector.  A non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1948, WAN merged in 2009 with the IFRA to represent over 18,000 publications, 15,000 online sites and over 3,000 companies in more than 120 countries.  The stated mission of WAN (2013) is, “To be the indispensable partner of newspapers and the entire news publishing industry worldwide, particularly our members, in the defense and promotion of press freedom, quality journalism and editorial integrity and the development of prosperous businesses and technology.”  The declining reader base and reduced advertising revenue, exacerbated by the economic downtown beginning in 2008, resulted in many newspapers scaling back their operations or going out of business.  To assist its organization in preparing for future consumer demand, in 2007 WAN examined what the future of the newspaper business might look like in 2020.

Scenario Planning

Led by Kairos Future international consulting and research, WAN (2008) mined eight selected publishing leaders for their vision as to the most important trends that would shape their industry by 2020 and how the leaders could adjust to those trends.  Based upon those results WAN then gathered together 19 newspaper executives from 15 countries and mapped out four possible scenarios each accompanied by a vignette describing the future environment depicted in the quad chart shown in Figure 1 and summarized as follows:

• Scenario A: Disruptive media dominate / Targeted audiences

• Scenario B: Traditional media dominate / Targeted audiences

• Scenario C: Traditional media dominate / Mass audiences

• Scenario D: Disruptive media dominate / Mass audiences

The fundamental question arising from the scenario planning effort was, “How to transform the existing business model in order to survive as a newspaper company?”  The goals were to clarify future uncertainties, identify options, and manage risk so as to remain solvent.  As an analytical planning method each scenario therefore sought to illuminate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) affecting the newspaper business brought about by innovation.

Significant Forces

The forces involved are predominately an amalgamation of both social and technological trends where the consumer audience has an unprecedented proliferation of choice regarding news sources and delivery methods.  In this case these forces are disruptive, directly impacting the traditional, one-size-fits-all printed newspaper typically published and distributed daily.  Because the product is news content, the primary issues are summarized as:  delivery of content via the Internet to a wide variety of user devices, stratification of content into individual segments rather than compiled within a composite package, availability of content from virtually any source worldwide, and tightly focused content based upon identified user preferences.  Resolving these issues would enable newspapers to tailor their strategies to their unique market challenges and opportunities.

However, the slow decline of printed newspapers will continue as the propagation of consumer mobile smart devices expands unabated.  Worldwide sales of tablet computers are forecast at nearly 191 million units in 2013 and worldwide smartphone sales projections for the period 2010-2015 anticipated at 2.3 billion units (ITU, 2013).  Shevchi (2013) notes that  consumers have embraced smartphones as evidenced by an average of 41 apps per smartphone, using those apps for 127 minutes per day, checking their phones 150 times a day or every 6.5 minutes, watching television for 168 minutes per day, or browsing the Web for 70 minutes.  Other technological advancements also loom on the horizon such as the Semantic Web or some derivative thereof.  The Semantic Web will identify each data item within webpages and couple it with an inference capability, allowing consumers to pull and integrate ever more precise material across different content, information applications, and systems.  Moreover, in the broader context of intelligent systems machine-to-machine communication will seek data relevant to the users which will then be made useful by reasoning algorithms and sense-making tools, perhaps in the form of wearable technology such as Google Glass.  As I presented in previous postings, wearable technology such as Google Glass will further enhance the consumer’s embrace of receiving rich media content anywhere and at any time.

Conclusions

The WAN scenario planning technique mustering senior newspaper industry representatives represented a sound premise to explore and conjecture about both advantageous opportunities and unfavorable threats to the corporate newspaper mission and business objectives.  The four scenarios were essentially abbreviated problem statements and the accompanying vignettes held the unstated hypotheses for varying consequences as a form of ‘what-if’ analysis.  Realistically imagining how highly dynamic social and technological forces might combine to alter the newspaper publishing trade 12 years hence was an extremely challenging but necessary endeavor.  One only has to consider that after 244 years the Encyclopedia Britannica stopped its printed version in 2010, largely due to the availability of online information sources such as Wikipedia.  The newspaper organizations are wise to beginning adjusting their business model as early as possible to the new social and technological factors before the income opportunities are overtaken. 

References

Shevchi, L. (2013, March 13). Mobile APPeal: Exploring the mobile landscape. Retrieved August 4, 2013 from http://blog.newrelic.com/2013/03/13/mobile-appeal-why-the-future-is-mobile/ 

Wade, W. (2012). Scenario Planning: A Field Guide to the Future. John Wiley & Sons. 

World Association of Newspapers (WAN). (2008, April). Scenario planning for newspaper companies (STRATEGY REPORT Volume 7 N°5 APRIL 2008). Retrieved August 2, 2013 from http://www.wan-press.org/IMG/pdf/SFN_7_5-Final.pdf 

WAN-IFRA. (2013) About WAN-IFRA. Retrieved August 4, 2013 from http://www.wan-ifra.org/about-wan-ifra

Horizon Report for Higher Education: Wearable Technology

Introduction.

The modified Delphi method was used by the New Media Consortium (NMC) to prepare the 2013 Horizon Report.  As stated on the NMC homepage, the Horizon Report,

Charts the landscape of emerging technologies for teaching, learning, research, creative inquiry, and information management.  Launched in 2002, it epitomizes the mission of the NMC to help educators and thought leaders across the world build upon the innovation happening at their institutions by providing them with expert research and analysis. (NMC, 2013). 

Technology and Trend.

Within the report, ‘Wearable Technology’ is further detailed as one of the six trends identified as most important for the next four to five years.  The 2013 NMC Horizon Report notes that, “The benefit of wearable technology is that it can conveniently integrate tools, devices, power needs, and connectivity within a user’s everyday life and movements.  Google’s ‘Project Glass’ features one of the most talked about current examples” (p. 32).  Because of the continuing development in smart phone, sensor, and miniaturization capability there has been a flourishing of wearable microelectronic, computing, and networked devices.  A further distinction is the ‘Quantified Self’, a term accredited to Wolf (n.d.), which seeks self-monitoring and self-sensing and is being manifested by means of a diverse range of products exemplified by:

* Misfit’s Shine – a waterproof, wireless coin-sized disk worn by an individual to track activities such as walking, cycling, and swimming.

* Jawbone’s Up – a tracking wristband that synchs with an iPhone app (Figure 1).

* Nike’s FuelBand – a wristband activity tracker that integrates with the Nike+ online community and phone application.

*Maxvirtual’s Cynaps – a hat that functions as a Bluetooth voice command headset. 

The trend to further amalgamate autonomous self-tracking and communication devices into our daily lives portends ever increasing data collection, connection, and analysis that will have significant cultural and technological implications.

Cultural Force

Though intended as somatic monitoring, quantified self has wider significance within a social context stemming from lifestyle adjustments.  The sharing of one’s bio information may lead to communities of interest centered on compatible activities or needs.  Similarly, such commonality could enable companies to better align their marketing strategy and promote their products directly to individuals more inclined to be interested in sports vitamins, energy drinks, therapeutic treatments, running shoes and the like.

Technological Force

Crowd sourcing of individual biometrics may reveal min, max, median, and variances on a macro big data scale typically not available to medical researchers studying population health trends.  In addition, the devices could easily be adjusted to receive broadcast health warnings which could trigger signals for individuals whose biometrics merit such sensitivity, such as air quality announcements that alert asthma or bronchitis sufferers.  Detecting and recording events will impact the legal system in ways not yet defined.  For example, Whiton and Nugent (2007) demonstrated wearable computer system embedded in apparel that recorded forces exerted on the body in an effort to identify physical abuse.  A public where citizens don facial recognition and video capture devices could become a distributed surveillance state, abdicating privacy.  In addressing urban computing, Cranshaw (2013) examines the relationship between new technologies and societal processes to better understand the unforeseen ethical and moral implications.  Capturing still and video images also holds potential for strengthening law enforcement practices, such as the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing social media images and video taken by marathon spectators.  Bryant (2013) reports on a more advanced and ubiquitous police tool which mounts a video camera on Google Glass to captures evidence which is transmitted via Bluetooth to a mobile device and streamed over 3G to a cloud platform for later playback.

As observed by the New Media Consortium, wearable technologies offer a compelling potential to improve educational productivity.  On a broader scale and longer timeline, personal and ambient intelligent technologies will morph society and the challenge will be to ensure responsible usage and appropriate regulatory guidelines. 

References

Bryant, M. (2013, April 5). Google Glass for cops: How Taser plans to bring wearable, real-time tech to the police frontline. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/04/05/taser/

Cranshaw, J. (2013). Whose “City of Tomorrow” Is It? On Urban Computing, Utopianism, and Ethics. On Urban Computing, Utopianism, and Ethics.

New Media Consortium. (2013). NMC Horizon Project. Retrieved on 30 July 2013 from http://www.nmc.org/horizon-project

Ricker, T. (2011, November 6). Jawbone Up fitness band review. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/6/2541783/jawbone-up-review

Whiton, A., & Nugent, Y. (2007, October). A wearable for physical abuse detection. In Wearable Computers, 2007 11th IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 119-120). IEEE.

Wolf, Gary. (n.d.). Quantified Self. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from http://aether.com/quantifiedself

The Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi Method

Today I am introducing going to discuss two group methods for gathering and evaluating subject matter expertise are the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and the Delphi method.  The NGT offers a more immediate result which can then be refined through additional meetings as necessary.  The Delphi, adaptive to networked data calls, is conducive to gathering a wider and more reflective response however the technique is more time and labor intensive.  Though the intent and goals are similar, each approach has its supporters and critics.  Before recommending one process over another, Table 1 details the significant parallels and differences between NGT and Delphi. 

Table 1 - Compare and Contrast NGT with Delphi
Nominal Group Technique	Delphi Method
Compare
group brainstorming
forecast oriented
structured group of individuals
encourage contribution
facilitator moderated
solution ranking
seek group consensus
Contrast
Session time limit	Process stopped based upon predefined criteria
Each member writes their ideas in free form	Each member completes a questionnaire and comments
No discussion, questions, or clarification allowed	Participants are physically separated
Participants do not initially consult or discuss their ideas with others	Participants remain anonymous
Each member reads aloud their idea	Facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the each members’ contribution
Each member in turn states one idea	Participants remain anonymous
Wording may be changed only when the idea’s originator agrees	Participants may change their earlier answers
One round in one session	Two or more rounds over longer duration
Similar to up or down vote, therefore may be better for more narrow problems	May be better for more significant issues because of more time to research and respond

Delphi should be used if polling is appropriate and sufficient time is available.  The Delphi input may also be more candid than with the NGT.  However with Delphi there is more procedural work involved in gathering, evaluating, and repeating the session.

Despite the possibility of group influence upon individual participants, the NGT has the advantage of immediacy.  Prior knowledge of the subject can also be injected by means of the weighted rankings – this is helpful to get to the relevant results more quickly.  While not well adapted to larger groups, a smaller group is actually a strength if the participants are well versed in their respective areas.  However, the NGT requires an authoritative facilitator to instill discipline into the process, ensure a balanced representation of ideas, and arrive at a valid conclusion.  For an example of how NGT may be used Vella, Goldfrad, Rowan, Bion and Black (2000) formed a group of 10 doctors and 2 nurses to establish clinical and health services research priorities in critical care in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.  Of the 1000 suggestions submitted for research, the expert group, considers 106 of the most frequently suggested topics of which 37 attracted strong support, 48 moderate support and 21 weak support.  The group’s views represented the views of the wider community of critical care staff (r = 0.73, P < 0.01).  The statistically valid results indicate that NGT was a feasible method to establish priorities for clinical and health services research in critical care based on the views of a small selected group of the principal clinicians involved – doctors and nurses.

With either NGT or Delphi there is administrative overhead associated with collecting the input and managing the participants; these are not simply brainstorming sessions and should be used appropriately to ensure the best results.  Yet if the investment in time and resources to create an NGT program yields supportable results, then the effort may actually prove to be an economical collection model over time if reused.

References

Vella, K., Goldfrad, C., Rowan, K., Bion, J., & Black, N. (2000). Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 320(7240), 976.

Google Glass - Another Step Towards Intelligent Services

I again viewed “Why Google Glass” presented by Sergey Brin (2013) at a TED conference.  Brin who is a cofounder of Google, introduced the Google Glass and the motivation behind its creation which took about two years.  Essentially, Glass is a wearable, WiFi-connected computer with an optical head-mounted display to capture photos and record 720p HD video.  In addition to third-party developed apps, Glass incorporates Google applications such as Google Now, Google Maps, Google+, and Gmail.  The intent was to have information come to the individual as needed, mirroring the original vision for the Google search engine.  Glass, shown in Figure 1, brings low-cost, hands-free Internet access useful for any number of safety and productivity functions such as law enforcement (recording arrests), email, directions, and video chat.

 

Google Glass represents a seed endorsed by the public; the YouTube video “One Day…” that announced Glass on April 4, 2012 has logged more than 21.6 million viewers.  Pedersen and Trueman (2013) summarized the technological and social forces impacting this innovation, “Glass’s birth is not only a marketing phenomenon heralding a technical prototype, we also argue and speculate that Glass’s popularization is an instigator for the adoption of a new paradigm in human-computer interaction” (p. 2089).  The fundamentals of a connected society are in place to support the graduated deployment of more sophisticated social networking devices and contextual intelligent support.  In particular, two forces stood out to me as impacting the innovation illustrated in the video:  technological and social.

Technological Force:

As noted by Baldwin (2012), currently there are several glasses with integrated displays, though the technology will continue to advance significantly to offer more sophisticated and comprehensive capabilities such as 3D hologram display and contextual information.  The innovation continues due a deeper integration among the individual, the physical device, and the social environment.  These factors are indicative of the forces that are shaping how people want to embrace their personal computing experience (addressed separately as a Social Force), as well as the wider infrastructure implications.  Greenfield (2010) provided the concept of Everyware to describe ubiquitous computing.  A more encompassing, progressive approach embeds degrees of reasoning support into the environment.  As stated by Augusto (2007), “The basic idea behind AmI [ambient intelligence] is that by enriching an environment with technology (mainly sensors and devices interconnected through a network), a system can be built to make decisions to benefit the users of that environment based on real-time information gathered and historical data accumulated” (p. 214).  The backend support for the transmission, storage, and security for ever-growing amounts of data is a concern.  Hyman (2013) observed that, “If cloud security is an issue to be reckoned with today, the problem will only worsen as more and more data is saved and backed up to the cloud” (p. 18).  Koning (2013) further noted the contradiction between the autonomic behavior of ambient computing systems hidden from the user and a central objective of data protection to precisely and fully identify purpose limitations, stating that, “As a rule, the purposes need to be specified prior to, and in any event, not later than, the time when the collection of personal data occurs” (p. 10).

Social Force:

Unlike some innovations that may be subtle or require time to discern, the Glass is clearly distinguishable not unlike the introduction of the Sony Walkman or the Apple iPod though more so for the later due to the online support represented by the iTunes application and store.  Similar to other portable personal electronic devices, wearable heads-up displays are beginning to realize a form, capabilities, and price that consumers may find attractive, perhaps leading to either supplementing or as an alternative to other types of mobile handhelds.  A survey by BiTE interactive (2013) found that 10 percent of American smart phone users would buy and regularly use Google Glass if they could afford it.  Fung (2013) also noted that compared with the iPhone’s deployment history, “In the first quarter of its existence [beginning June 2007], the iPhone made just 270,000 sales.  It took another two years for it to break the 31-million mark.”  Cumulative iPhone sales since 2007 will reach over 318 units in 2013.  But unlike smart phones which are refined versions of cell phones, Glass is a different type of product not previously seen in the marketplace, making it challenging to gauge the consumers’ acceptance.  However, given the success of other social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, people readily seek social connectivity.  Glass therefore represents the union of ubiquitous computing and an information-driven society immersed in an augmented reality environment.

What I found most interesting about the video was the fact that we can identify a demarcation point, one of those rare moments when in the future we will be able to look back and singularize an Internet-era milestone not unlike the first Web browser (1990), Wi-Fi (1991), the one billionth Facebook user (2012), and greater than one petabits per second transmission over optical fiber (2013).  As a wearable personal computer, in Google Glass we can observe a synergy of cloud and communication systems in support of an individual’s immediate information demands within a dynamic environment.  With future enhancements that take into consideration a user’s stored preferences and data history, Glass would provide the precursor to a basic personal expert system by offering the user timely, customized recommendations.  The Glass template might not make people smarter would be enable them to make more informed choices. 

References

Augusto, J. C. (2007). Ambient intelligence: the confluence of ubiquitous/pervasive computing and artificial intelligence. In Intelligent Computing Everywhere (pp. 213-234). Springer London. 

Baldwin, R. (2012, November 4). 6 glasses with integrated displays that you can buy today. Retrieved on 12 July 2013 from http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/6-glasses-with-integrated-displays-that-you-can-buy-today/ 

BiTE interactive. (2013, May 15). Only one in 10 American smartphone owners would wear google glass regularly. Retrieved on 12 July 2013 from http://www.bite-interactive.com/blog/only-one-10-american-smartphone-owners-would-wear-google-glass-regularly 

Brin, S. (2013, May). Why Google Glass? In presentation at TED conference (filmed February 2013), www. ted.com/index. php/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass. html 

Fung, B. (2013, May 30). A staggering share of americans would use google glass if they could. Retrieved on 12 July 2013 from http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/a-staggering-share-of-americans-would-use-google-glass-if-they-could-20130515 

Google. (2012, April 4). Project Glass: One day... Retrieved on 12 July 2013 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4 

Greenfield, A. (2010). Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. New Riders .

Hyman, P. (2013). Augmented-reality glasses bring cloud security into sharp focus. Communications of the ACM, 56(6), 18-20. 

Koning, M. E. (2013) Purpose limitation and ambient computing. Retrieved on 12 July 2013 from http://www.pilab.nl/ifip-summerschool-2013/submissions/Koning.pdf 

Pedersen, I., & Trueman, D. (2013, April). Sergey Brin is Batman: Google’s project glass and the instigation of computer adoption in popular culture. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2089-2098). ACM.

Future Generation – Towards a Personal Expert System

While experimental and commercial specialized expert systems have been created for several decades there has been no examination of the requirements associated with an expert system that is tailored to an individual user.  A more comprehensive assemblage entails an adaptation of a rule-based expert system architecture in which the facts, rules, and inference capabilities reside on the client device.  A personal expert system (PES) of this type would be dedicated to:

- Learning the user's preferences.

- Increasing in knowledge through interactions with the operator.

- Acquiring facts from the external environment.

- Applying knowledge libraries made available by businesses and organizations.

The PES would enhance the user’s decision-making ability by learning the user’s inclinations and providing focused recommendations in specialized knowledge areas, further enhanced by feedback from information retrieval.  With the user’s consent commercial vendors and other organizations would provide properly formatted content through a controlled gateway to expand the system’s knowledge base.  The seminal knowledge core would enlarge according to the dynamics of the user, ameliorating the user’s communication with the world in ways distinctively beneficial to the user.  The PES would dynamically evolve within the confines managed by the user.  This approach is contingent upon common data format and ontology standards among participants.

Such a personal expert system would interface both autonomously within parameters and under user direction with the external environment, over time becoming increasingly familiar with the user’s preferences.  It would provide the user’s preferences to external processes as permitted and appropriate.  It would also capture the user’s human behavior and recognize its evolution over time.  The PES could essentially represent the user as a virtual presence based upon identity, status, location, and other predefined preference parameters.  This intelligent learning system would in effect become the user’s enduring companion, retrieving and providing information from external sources, interacting with ambient sensors for identification and adjustments, and offering recommendations based upon past experiences and current data as shown in the illustration below.  A PES, transferrable among devices, could become a pivot point around which future interaction between the owner and society would be individualized.