Shaping the European pervasive/ubiquitous computing system of innovation

Does an European pervasive/ubiquitous computing system of innovation exist? Which are the actors and how these actors are networked? If this system exists, what is its performance? How is European technology policy contributing to the development of such a system? These are some of the questions, which I am addressing in my current research.

Regarding a definition of pervasive/ubiquitous computing, it is very difficult to find a consesus on this topic among scholars. Pervasive and ubiquitous computing represents a new computing paradigm. Analyzing different interpretations of this paradigm, we can find a common consideration. This is the following: talking of pervasive and ubiquitous ICT means seeing physical objects and spaces linked to the digital world. Information abou the physical world can be then used to augment human functionality and experience. To sum up, the real world has intelligence embedded in it in order to support human activities. This idea is present in almost all the pervasive and ubiquitous computing literature: Weiser, intelligent spaces literature, ambient intelligence (EU 6th Framework Programme).

Taking this vision as our definition of pervasive/ubiquitous computing, it is possible to identify the following types of pervasive/ubiquitous applications:

• Digital objects embedded in the physical world such as RFID (Radio Frequency ID) tags and sensor networks to probe events in the physical world.
• Communication devices at global and local level.
• Mining and processing data.
• Interdisciplinary applications such as digital architecture, digital ecology.

The system of innovation will be composed of actors (companies, universities, research institutes, policy making bodies) actively involved in the development of pervasive/ubiquitous solutions. The geographical boundary of the system is the European Union.

 

Renaissance: visions of ubiquitous environments

Renaissance is a French animation film directed by Christian Vockman. It is a black and white picture of Paris in 2054 where a dark and corageous cop, Karas, “from the Kasba”, is looking for a bright researcher kidnapped by unknown forces. The researcher has discovered the “secret of the immortality”. The unknown force is a well known biotechnology multinational, Avalon, which wants to possess the power of deciding life and death.

The script is nothing new. It is part of the sci-fi genre between Blade Runner and Matrix. The animation is definetely fantastic. But these are judgements of an amateur. However, there are some frames which describe a digitally-connected Paris where big screens start delivering information when people pass near them, electronic voices and faces welcome you in buildings, computer are practically invisible and laptop and pager as well. Everyone is connected on the network through and ubiquitous device, called E-call, that is more than a mobile device. It is an access point to the network and so to all the information and communication systems available. Karas is walking in the Kasba talking with his colleagues in the office and checking information on an invisible screen. It seems that technology is integrated in the architecture and environment of the city and it is just another “invisible but useful” element of everyday life. In addition, the black and white animation makes me thinking of an architect, which does not only design buildings and spaces, but also digital spaces. Digital spaces are not virtual, but part of a real and functional environment. We are not so far from this “ubiquitous environment”. The description of Singapore and South Korea by Bell and Dourish illustrates urban environments very close to the Paris in Renaissance (See Bibliography – Ubiquitous Computing section). Investigating the interaction between architecture and ubiquitous computing, urban planning and ubiquitous computing, spaces and ubiquitous computing is extremely interesting. And I wonder if we can speak of “rural ubiquitous environment” and in what sense and what for.

 

Ubiquitous or not ubiquitous

I am reading a lot of stuff on ubiquitous computing. I do not really know if it is possible to say what is ubiquitous computing and what is not. At the moment for me, it is easier to think the ubiquity as the next computing paradigm, which can shape developments in different areas of information and communication technologies and not only.
Consequently, the definition of a technological boundary seems to be a titanic task, maybe impossible. However several sources seem to identify four main areas of ubiquitous technologies/applications: automatic identification, sensor and actuator networks, location sensing, and service provision as a consequence of the previous one.
Some contributors and scholars also mention mobile networks (3G and Systems Beyond 4G) as an example of pervasive/ubiquitous computing.
At the OECD conference on Next Generation Networks (NGN) (2006), some of the participants argue that NGN is the base for ubiquitous paradigm in the sense that without them we cannot speak of ubiquitous computing.
All this to say that the scenario is much more complicated than the one my imagination was expecting! The challenge is to define the technological boundary of this set of technologies. The classification, listed previously, could be a way because it seems to be a common one among researchers.
Another possible solution comes from the fact that my analysis wants to investigate the existence or not of an European path of innovation in these technologies and if an European policy for these technologies exists or not. At EU level ubiquitous/pervasive technologies are part of the so-called Emerging Technologies group. The “Disappearing Computer” initiative has been the main group of European (not only) projects on ubiquitous computing (FP5/FP6). The idea could be to study this initiative and see which technologies are in and which are out. I understand that there are some limitations in doing that, but it could be a way of make things clear (a little bit)!

 

Blog structure

 This is not really a post. Just to describe the strucuture of the blog. It is divided in six main categories:

• Research diary: thughts and ideas on the entire research.
• Ubiquitous Computing: literature review and ideas on ubiquitous computing.
• Sectoral Systems of innovation: literature review on this framework.
• Social Shaping/Construction of Technology: literature review on this framework.
• Analysis of emerging technologies: review of methods and frameworks to analyse and forecast emerging technologies (i.e. TechMining by Alan Porter).
• Policies on emerging technologies: analysis of policies and strategies on emerging technologies with particular attention to ICT in Europe.

Other categories can be added.

 

First findings on innovation literature

Regarding literature review on innovation literature, I am moving on two directions. The first one is related to technological/sectoral system of innovation approach with articles by Bo Carlsson, Franco Malerba, CESPRI researchers, and SPRU researchers. I have found an interesting book by Charles Edquist, “The Internet and Mobile Telecommunications System of Innovation: Developments in Equipment, Access and Content”. The second path is related to the studies on analysis of emerging technologies. The journal “Technology Forecasting and Social Change” is a great source. TechMining approach by Alan Porter is attracting me.

 

Ubiquity of ubiquitous and pervasive computing

I have finished to read an entire issue of IBM Systems Journal (Vol 38, No 4, 1999) on ubiquitous and pervasive computing. The impression is that we are not speaking about a specific technology, but different applications and solutions built using different technologies. In fact, the issue discusses of personal area networks, wearable computing, devices controlling, social networking tools, mobile networks and so on. It seems to be in Mark Weiser’s world: “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it” (In “The Computer for the 21st Century”, September 1991). Consequently, the question is: which level of analysis? Product level? Applicatios level? Technological component level? If I want to use sectoral system of innovation approach, the choice of the level of analysis is the crucial point of all the research (See Carlsson B. et al. 2005. Analyzing the Dynamics and Functionality of Sectoral Innovation Systems – A Manual).

This argument has been confirmed by George Roussos’ email: “Basically pervasive computing is not one technology from a business perspective, so I doubt it if you can group everything under one title. Perhaps it would be better if you looked at particular enablers. You need to pin it down to more managable components".

George Roussos is Senior Lecturer of Ubiquitous and Mobile Computing at Birkbeck College.

 

The research is on

The desired and uncertain PhD is on. There are some critical things, which need to be take into account, but I am there and I am researching about innovation system in the pervasive and ubiquitous computing in Europe.

I have been lazy and I did not apply for any scholarship or sponsorship. Maybe it is not just lazyness, but also the idea to work during the PhD. In fact, the big challenge is working and researching. Only the time is able to say if PhD and jobs can cohabit. A part from this, I have planned the work for the next two months. I will do literature review in three areas of research:

• Frameworks and approaches in analysing innovation in emerging technologies. I think about sectoral systems of innovation, social shaping/construction of technology and other approaches from marketing studies, of which I am not really aware at the moment.
• Analysis of technologies and applications in the area of ubiquitous and pervasive computing. I have sent an e-mail to George Roussous, Senior Lecture in Ubiquitous Computing at Birkbeck College, for an help on this.
• Analysis of policies and strategies in the area of emerging technologies, particularly information and communication technologies, at EU level. However, I think that I should study also some other cases such as USA and Japan.

This literature review should help me in better defining my research. My hope is to reduce the boarders of the topic and able to define the level of analysis of my work.