A structured and user-friendly method to conduct an all-round evaluation of Smart Products

Abstract

The Internet of Things market is rapidly increasing and offers a wide variety of Smart Products (SPs) apparently similar but with different potentialities that the average user fails to perceive. In order to reduce purchase risks, consumers rely on online product reviews, which do not often reflect the effective quality of the products. For this aim, this paper proposes a systematic method to objectively evaluate SPs in a comprehensive way to support the consumer in choosing the product that most satisfies his/her needs. It has been implemented on three different SPs categories: body scales, blood pressure monitors, and activity trackers.

Keywords

Internet of Things systematic evaluation method products reviews smart products ratings customer satisfaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Balta-Ozkan,

Davidson,

Bicket and

Whitmarsh, Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes, Energ. Policy 63 (2013), 363–374. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043.

Bevan, What is the difference between the purpose of usability and user experience evaluation methods? in: Workshop on User Experience Evaluation Methods in Product Development During Interact 09 Conference, 2009.

Bevilacqua,

Ceccacci,

Germani,

Iualè,

Mengoni and

Papetti, Smart object for AAL: A review, in: Ambient Assisted Living,

Longhi,

Siciliano,

Germani and

Monteriù, eds, Springer, Cham, 2014, pp. 313–324. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01119-6_32.

Bonino and

Corno, What would you ask to your home if it were intelligent? Exploring user expectations about next-generation homes, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 3 (2011), 111–126.

Braun,

Wichert,

Kuijper and

D.W.

Fellner, Benchmarking sensors in smart environments – Method and use cases, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 8 (2016), 645–664. doi:10.3233/AIS-160402.

Caire,

Moawad,

Efthymiou,

Bikakis and

Le Traon, Privacy challenges in ambient intelligence systems, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 1 (2014), 1–23. doi:10.3233/AIS-160405.

Capitanelli,

Germani,

Landi and

Papetti, A methodology to design a knowledge-based tool for residential buildings simulation, in: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings (IMECE), Vol. 11, 2015. doi:10.1115/IMECE201550999.

L.K.

Chan and

M.L.

Wu, Quality function deployment: A literature review, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 143(3) (2002), 463–497. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00178-9.

Chan,

Campo,

Estève and

J.Y.

Fourniols, Smart homes – Current features and future perspectives, Maturitas 64(2) (2009), 90–97. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.014.

10.

Y.K.

Chen, Challenges and opportunities of Internet of Things, in: Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, 2012, pp. 383–388. doi:10.1109/ASPDAC.2012.6164978.

11.

Dar,

Taherkordi,

Baraki,

Eliassen and

Geihs, A resource oriented integration architecture for the Internet of Things: A business process perspective, Pervasive Mob. Comput. 20 (2015), 145–159. doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2014.11.005.

12.

Dawid,

Decker,

Hermann,

Jahnke,

Klat,

König and

Stummer, Management science in the era of smart consumer products: Challenges and research perspectives, Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 25(1) (2017), 203–230. doi:10.1007/s10100-016-0436-9.

13.

C.A.

Detweiler and

K.V.

Hindriks, A survey of values, technologies and contexts in pervasive healthcare, Pervasive Mob. Comput. 27 (2016), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2015.09.002.

14.

R.M.

Dijkman,

Sprenkels,

Peeters and

Janssen, Business models for the Internet of Things, Int. J. Inform. Manage. 35(6) (2015), 672–678. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.07.008.

15.

T.H.

Engler,

Winter and

Schulz, Understanding online product ratings: A customer satisfaction model, J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 27 (2015), 113–120. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.07.010.

16.

H.W.

Gellersen,

Schmidt and

Beigl, Adding some smartness to devices and everyday things, in: Proceedings – 3rd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, WMCSA 2000, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 3–10. doi:10.1109/MCSA.2000.895376.

17.

Gutiérrez,

Garbajosa,

Diaz and

Yagüe, Providing a consensus definition for the term “Smart Product”, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer Based Systems, 2013, pp. 203–211. doi:10.1109/ECBS.2013.26.

18.

Ha,

Beijnon,

Kim,

Lee and

J.H.

Kim, Examining user perceptions of smartwatch through dynamic topic modelling, Telemat. Informat. 34(7) (2017), 1262–1273. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.011.

19.

Hassenzahl, The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products, Hum-Comput. Interact. 19(4) (2004), 319–349. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2.

20.

Hong,

Xu,

G.A.

Wang and

Fan, Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation, Decis. Support Syst. 102 (2017), 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.06.007.

21.

Hornbæk, Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research, Int. J. Hum-Comput. St. 64(2) (2006), 79–102. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002.

22.

ISO 9241-10, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 10: Dialogue principles. Beuth, Berlin, Germany, 1996.

23.

ISO 9241-210, Human-centred design process for interactive systems, 2010.

24.

Jin,

Ji and

Gu, Identifying comparative customer requirements from product online reviews for competitor analysis, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel. 49 (2016), 61–73. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2015.12.005.

25.

Kalra and

S.K.

Sood, Secure authentication scheme for IoT and cloud servers, Pervasive Mob. Comput. 24 (2015), 210–223. doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2015.08.001.

26.

R.A.

Krueger and

M.A.

Casey, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage Publications, 2015, p. 215.

27.

Lu, Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues, Journal of Industrial Information Integration 6 (2017), 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005.

28.

Maguire, Methods to support human-centred design, Int. J. Hum-Comput. St. 55(4) (2001), 587–634. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0503.

29.

Marikyan,

Papagiannidis and

Alamanos, A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 138 (2019), 139–154. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015.

30.

Market Research Future, Smart home appliances market research report – Global forecast 2023, 2018.

31.

Maslowska,

E.C.

Malthouse and

S.F.

Bernritter, The effect of online customer reviews’ characteristics on sales, Advances in Advertising Research VII (2017), 87–100. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-15220-8_8.

32.

Mordor intelligence, smart wearable market – Segmented by product type (eyewear, footwear, neckwear), by application (fitness and healthcare, general consumer electronics, gaming and recreational, corporate, and industrial), by technology (sensing technology, display technology, computing technology), and region – Growth, trends and forecasts (2018–2023), 2018.

33.

Nielsen and

T.K.

Landauer, A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’93, New York, 1993, pp. 206–213. doi:10.1145/169059.169166.

34.

Nielsen and

Molich, Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, in: ACM CHI’90 Conference, Seattle, 1990, pp. 249–256. doi:10.1145/97243.97281.

35.

Papetti,

Iualé,

Ceccacci,

Bevilacqua,

Germani and

Mengoni, Smart objects: An evaluation of the present state based on user needs, in: Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions, Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 359–368. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07788-8_34.

36.

Park and

K.J.

Kim, Determination of an optimal set of design requirements using house of quality, J. Oper. Manag. 16(5) (1998), 569–581. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(97)00029-6.

37.

Pereira and

Gomes, Minimalist architecture to generate embedded system web user interfaces, in: Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 239–249.

38.

M.E.

Porter and

J.E.

Heppelmann, How smart, connected products are transforming competition, Harvard Bus. Rev. 92(11) (2014), 64–88. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

39.

M.E.

Porter and

J.E.

Heppelmann, How smart, connected products are transforming companies, Harvard Bus. Rev. 93(10) (2015), 53–71. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

40.

Preuveneers and

Joosen, Security and privacy controls for streaming data in extended intelligent environments, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 8 (2016), 467–483. doi:10.3233/AIS-160384.

41.

Qi,

Yang,

Min,

Amft,

Dong and

Xu, Advanced Internet of Things for personalised healthcare systems: A survey, Pervasive Mob. Comput. 41 (2017), 132–149. doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2017.06.018.

42.

Rauschenberger,

Schrepp,

M.P.

Cota,

Olschner and

Thomaschewski, Efficient measurement of the user experience of interactive products. How to use the user experience questionnaire (UEQ), Int. J. Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 2(1) (2013), 39–45. doi:10.9781/ijimai.2013.215.

43.

Shin, A socio-technical framework for Internet-of-Things design: A human-centered design for the Internet of Things, Telemat. Informat. 31(4) (2014), 519–531. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.02.003.

44.

D.H.

Shin, Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the Internet of Things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users, Information & Management 54(8) (2017), 998–1011. doi:10.1016/j.im.2017.02.006.

45.

M.G.

Violante and

Vezzetti, Kano qualitative vs quantitative approaches: An assessment framework for products attributes analysis, Comput. Ind. 86 (2017), 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2016.12.007.

46.

Visiogain, Internet of Things (IOT) market forecast 2015–2020, 2015.

47.

Wang,

Törngren and

Onori, Current status and advancement of cyber-physical systems in manufacturing, J. Manuf. Syst. 37(Part 2) (2015), 517–527. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.008.

48.

Xiao,

C.P.

Wei and

Dong, Crowd intelligence: Analyzing online product reviews for preference measurement, Information & Management 53(2) (2016), 169–182. doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.09.010.

49.

Yang,

Yu,

Zo and

Choi, User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value, Telemat. Informat. 33(2) (2016), 256–269. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007.

50.

D.H.

Zhu,

Y.P.

Chang and

J.J.

Luo, Understanding the influence of C2C communication on purchase decision in online communities from a perspective of information adoption model, Telemat. Informat. 33(1) (2016), 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.001.