0
The Smart Home: How Consumers Craft New Service Networks by
Combining Heterogeneous Smart Domestic Products
Abstract
Service research suggests homes are becoming increasingly connected as consumers automate
and personalize new forms of service provision. Yet large-scale empirical evidence on how and
why consumers automate smart domestic products is lacking. To address this knowledge gap we
analyze 13,905 consumer-crafted, automated combinations of smart domestic products, totaling
1,144,094 installations, across 253 separate service providers on the Web service IFTTT.com.
An exploratory network analysis examines the topology of the network and an interpretive coding
exercise reveals how consumers craft different styles of human-computer interaction to co-create
value. The results reveal the smart domestic product network is disassortative, imbalanced, has a
long-tailed degree distribution, and that popular services have high centrality across all product
category combinations. We show that popular combinations of smart domestic products are
primarily motivated by utilitarian value seeking enacted through a preference for automated tasks
outside of conscious attention, though more individualistic combinations are slightly more likely
to be hedonistically inclined. We conclude by showing how these consumer-crafted forms of
service provision within domestic environments reveal design redundancy and opportunities for
service innovation.
Keywords
Smart Home; Internet of Things; Craft Consumers; Big Data; Service Design;
, 1
―The purpose of a computer is to help you do something else. The best computer is a quiet,
invisible servant.‖ (Weiser 1996)
Service research highlights the importance of smart technologies and artificial intelligence in
transforming frontline service delivery (Huang and Rust 2018; van Doorn et al. 2017; Jörling,
Böhm, and Paluch 2019). Early literature (Meuter et al. 2000; Bitner, Ostrom, and Meuter 2002)
describes self-service technologies (SSTs) situated in commercial locations (e.g. ATM machines
in a bank, self-checkout services in a supermarket, or service robots in hotels) or alternatively
accessed via telephone or online. However, as computing devices have become ubiquitous,
always ―on‖, and embedded in a widening range of products, the scope for ―smart interactive
services‖ (Wünderlich, Wangenheim, and Bitner 2013) or ―frontline service technology infusion‖
(de Keyser et al. 2019), has blurred the boundaries of service encounter. The domestic
environment has not escaped these pervasive technologies and the home is now the physical
frontline for many forms of service innovation, where smart products compete for the role of
―quiet, invisible servants‖ (Weiser 1996).
Service innovation research is an area of expanding interest (e.g. Gustafsson, Snyder, and
Witell 2020; Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll 2018; Hollebeek and Andreassen 2018). This
article focuses on ―smart home‖ service innovation and its relationship to smart domestic
products (SDPs). We follow Woodall, Rosborough, and Harvey‘s (2018) definition of SDPs "as
technological interfaces that provide or support any type of home service and are embedded into
domestic routines". SDPs – also called ―smart home technologies‖ (Wilson, Hargreaves, and
Hauxwell-Baldwin 2017), or ―smart home objects‖ (Stojkoska and Trivodaliev 2017) - are
―smart‖ because they differ from ―dumb‖ or ―operand‖ (Vargo and Lusch 2004) resources as
technologies that act rather than waiting to be acted upon. Instead, they perform as independent
relays or catalysts with the potential for facilitating long chains of causal connections between
functions inside and outside the home. Connections may be between systems owned solely by
, 2
one consumer, between different consumers, or between consumers and service providers (e.g.
companies, charities, or governments).
Recent literature reviews (Gram-Hanssen and Darby 2018; Marikyan, Papagiannidis, and
Alamanos 2019; Alam, Reaz, and Ali 2012) have shown there are broadly four types of study
currently deployed in smart home research. Gram-Hanssen and Darby (2018) characterize these
as: Conceptual – where meanings are ascribed to ―smartness‖, the ―home‖, and the relation
between technology and myriad actors; Technical – how distinct elements communicate with one
another and how hardware/software is designed; Prospective – future smart home potential: what
is possible, and how it might be configured for optimal benefit; and lastly, Evaluative – which
smart devices are connected, and how smart homes work in practice. Of the four types, they note
Evaluative is the least studied, primarily due to a lack of available data. These reviews highlight
the lack of large-scale or longitudinal empirical research into how smart technologies actually
work in domestic environments. We aim to address this gap using a massive observational dataset
of consumer-led service innovation (1,144,094 instances) to investigate the value derived by craft
consumers in smart home improvement. We evaluate (1) how such consumers connect smart
domestic products into broader networks of service provision; and (2) how these connections
translate into functionalities co-created from connecting heterogeneous smart domestic products.
We begin by surveying the literature on smart homes, smart domestic products, service
innovation and craft consumers. Subsequently we discuss application programming interfaces
(APIs) as a way that organizations provide modular access to services that consumers can modify.
We then introduce online service platform IFTTT.com, the source of data for this study, to
illustrate how consumers combine heterogeneous smart domestic products using APIs to create
new forms of service provision. After this we outline our research approach which deploys: (1)
an exploratory network analysis on the smart domestic product network; and (2) an interpretive
coding exercise to analyze the types of human-computer interaction and the values expressed by
consumers on IFTTT when crafting new forms of service provision. Our results are derived firstly
, 3
from a range of analyses focused on a topological analysis of a network of 253 separate services.
Next, we explore why craft consumers connect smart domestic products in the way they do, by
analyzing the benefits that users derive from connecting devices via IFTTT. Our results are
expressed as a series of ―key insights‖. By combining both approaches our insights identify
directions for SDP service research and design, and we present these in the final section.
Smart Homes and Smart Domestic Products (SDPs)
The term ―smart‖ in natural speech is used to convey quick-wittedness or high intelligence
(Cambridge Dictionary 2019). Transposing this term into the field of domestic service innovation
implies the use of products beyond direct householder intervention. Human involvement is
required for the installation of the products concerned, but once set-up these operate
autonomously and are independent of the reflective mind. Such products take care of a wide range
of domestic concerns ranging from energy use, comfort, leisure, healthcare, safety and security
(Alam, Reaz, and Ali 2012). For ―smart‖, in domestic terms, it is conventional to think of (a)
smart homes - the context on which ―smartness‖ is focused; and (b) smart objects (or products) -
the technologies used to embed smartness in the home (Wünderlich et al. 2015). Beyond this
though, the smart products within the smart home integrate with other smart contexts – smart
grids, smart communities and smart cities - interconnected via the Internet of Things (IoT -
Ashton 2009). The Internet of Things is a computer-mediated network of distributed artificial
intelligence existing in parallel with the regular Internet. It has been estimated that by 2020, this
network will comprise 25 billion separate smart products (Miranda et al. 2015).
A home becomes smart when it has ―a high level of device connectedness within and
beyond the home, along with a reliance on that connectivity for everyday operations‖ (Gram-
Hannsen and Darby 2018, p.96). ―Context awareness‖ (Gu, Pung, and Zhang 2015) is critical for
interaction between a home and any smart products it contains, and Figure 1 demonstrates how
context awareness can be configured. This illustrates an idealized smart home, showing both
The Smart Home: How Consumers Craft New Service Networks by
Combining Heterogeneous Smart Domestic Products
Abstract
Service research suggests homes are becoming increasingly connected as consumers automate
and personalize new forms of service provision. Yet large-scale empirical evidence on how and
why consumers automate smart domestic products is lacking. To address this knowledge gap we
analyze 13,905 consumer-crafted, automated combinations of smart domestic products, totaling
1,144,094 installations, across 253 separate service providers on the Web service IFTTT.com.
An exploratory network analysis examines the topology of the network and an interpretive coding
exercise reveals how consumers craft different styles of human-computer interaction to co-create
value. The results reveal the smart domestic product network is disassortative, imbalanced, has a
long-tailed degree distribution, and that popular services have high centrality across all product
category combinations. We show that popular combinations of smart domestic products are
primarily motivated by utilitarian value seeking enacted through a preference for automated tasks
outside of conscious attention, though more individualistic combinations are slightly more likely
to be hedonistically inclined. We conclude by showing how these consumer-crafted forms of
service provision within domestic environments reveal design redundancy and opportunities for
service innovation.
Keywords
Smart Home; Internet of Things; Craft Consumers; Big Data; Service Design;
, 1
―The purpose of a computer is to help you do something else. The best computer is a quiet,
invisible servant.‖ (Weiser 1996)
Service research highlights the importance of smart technologies and artificial intelligence in
transforming frontline service delivery (Huang and Rust 2018; van Doorn et al. 2017; Jörling,
Böhm, and Paluch 2019). Early literature (Meuter et al. 2000; Bitner, Ostrom, and Meuter 2002)
describes self-service technologies (SSTs) situated in commercial locations (e.g. ATM machines
in a bank, self-checkout services in a supermarket, or service robots in hotels) or alternatively
accessed via telephone or online. However, as computing devices have become ubiquitous,
always ―on‖, and embedded in a widening range of products, the scope for ―smart interactive
services‖ (Wünderlich, Wangenheim, and Bitner 2013) or ―frontline service technology infusion‖
(de Keyser et al. 2019), has blurred the boundaries of service encounter. The domestic
environment has not escaped these pervasive technologies and the home is now the physical
frontline for many forms of service innovation, where smart products compete for the role of
―quiet, invisible servants‖ (Weiser 1996).
Service innovation research is an area of expanding interest (e.g. Gustafsson, Snyder, and
Witell 2020; Helkkula, Kowalkowski, and Tronvoll 2018; Hollebeek and Andreassen 2018). This
article focuses on ―smart home‖ service innovation and its relationship to smart domestic
products (SDPs). We follow Woodall, Rosborough, and Harvey‘s (2018) definition of SDPs "as
technological interfaces that provide or support any type of home service and are embedded into
domestic routines". SDPs – also called ―smart home technologies‖ (Wilson, Hargreaves, and
Hauxwell-Baldwin 2017), or ―smart home objects‖ (Stojkoska and Trivodaliev 2017) - are
―smart‖ because they differ from ―dumb‖ or ―operand‖ (Vargo and Lusch 2004) resources as
technologies that act rather than waiting to be acted upon. Instead, they perform as independent
relays or catalysts with the potential for facilitating long chains of causal connections between
functions inside and outside the home. Connections may be between systems owned solely by
, 2
one consumer, between different consumers, or between consumers and service providers (e.g.
companies, charities, or governments).
Recent literature reviews (Gram-Hanssen and Darby 2018; Marikyan, Papagiannidis, and
Alamanos 2019; Alam, Reaz, and Ali 2012) have shown there are broadly four types of study
currently deployed in smart home research. Gram-Hanssen and Darby (2018) characterize these
as: Conceptual – where meanings are ascribed to ―smartness‖, the ―home‖, and the relation
between technology and myriad actors; Technical – how distinct elements communicate with one
another and how hardware/software is designed; Prospective – future smart home potential: what
is possible, and how it might be configured for optimal benefit; and lastly, Evaluative – which
smart devices are connected, and how smart homes work in practice. Of the four types, they note
Evaluative is the least studied, primarily due to a lack of available data. These reviews highlight
the lack of large-scale or longitudinal empirical research into how smart technologies actually
work in domestic environments. We aim to address this gap using a massive observational dataset
of consumer-led service innovation (1,144,094 instances) to investigate the value derived by craft
consumers in smart home improvement. We evaluate (1) how such consumers connect smart
domestic products into broader networks of service provision; and (2) how these connections
translate into functionalities co-created from connecting heterogeneous smart domestic products.
We begin by surveying the literature on smart homes, smart domestic products, service
innovation and craft consumers. Subsequently we discuss application programming interfaces
(APIs) as a way that organizations provide modular access to services that consumers can modify.
We then introduce online service platform IFTTT.com, the source of data for this study, to
illustrate how consumers combine heterogeneous smart domestic products using APIs to create
new forms of service provision. After this we outline our research approach which deploys: (1)
an exploratory network analysis on the smart domestic product network; and (2) an interpretive
coding exercise to analyze the types of human-computer interaction and the values expressed by
consumers on IFTTT when crafting new forms of service provision. Our results are derived firstly
, 3
from a range of analyses focused on a topological analysis of a network of 253 separate services.
Next, we explore why craft consumers connect smart domestic products in the way they do, by
analyzing the benefits that users derive from connecting devices via IFTTT. Our results are
expressed as a series of ―key insights‖. By combining both approaches our insights identify
directions for SDP service research and design, and we present these in the final section.
Smart Homes and Smart Domestic Products (SDPs)
The term ―smart‖ in natural speech is used to convey quick-wittedness or high intelligence
(Cambridge Dictionary 2019). Transposing this term into the field of domestic service innovation
implies the use of products beyond direct householder intervention. Human involvement is
required for the installation of the products concerned, but once set-up these operate
autonomously and are independent of the reflective mind. Such products take care of a wide range
of domestic concerns ranging from energy use, comfort, leisure, healthcare, safety and security
(Alam, Reaz, and Ali 2012). For ―smart‖, in domestic terms, it is conventional to think of (a)
smart homes - the context on which ―smartness‖ is focused; and (b) smart objects (or products) -
the technologies used to embed smartness in the home (Wünderlich et al. 2015). Beyond this
though, the smart products within the smart home integrate with other smart contexts – smart
grids, smart communities and smart cities - interconnected via the Internet of Things (IoT -
Ashton 2009). The Internet of Things is a computer-mediated network of distributed artificial
intelligence existing in parallel with the regular Internet. It has been estimated that by 2020, this
network will comprise 25 billion separate smart products (Miranda et al. 2015).
A home becomes smart when it has ―a high level of device connectedness within and
beyond the home, along with a reliance on that connectivity for everyday operations‖ (Gram-
Hannsen and Darby 2018, p.96). ―Context awareness‖ (Gu, Pung, and Zhang 2015) is critical for
interaction between a home and any smart products it contains, and Figure 1 demonstrates how
context awareness can be configured. This illustrates an idealized smart home, showing both
