Consumer dimension of smart home in the perspective of Society 5.0 development

• Autorzy: Kalińska-Kula Magdalena

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2023.173.19

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The aim of the article was to determine how intelligent solutions in the field of smart home are perceived by the consumers and to identify smart home systems considered to be the most valuable consumer solutions, for the user convenience and safety. Design/methodology/approach: In order to achieve the aim of the article, a study was conducted on a sample of 741 respondents. The CAWI technique was used in this research and the measurement tool was electronic questionnaire. Findings: In the light of the obtained results, very positive attitudes of consumers towards smart home solutions were revealed. The highest rated systems were multifunctional sensors, monitoring systems and heating or air conditioning control systems. The vast majority of the respondents confirmed their knowledge of smart home solutions, but not more than one in three respondents admitted to owning such systems. The perception of smart home solutions correlates negatively with the age of consumers and positively with the financial situation and place of residence, while the possession level correlates positively with the consumers’ financial situation. Research limitations/implications: A limitation of the study is the non-random sample, which makes it impossible to relate the results to the general population. Furthermore, the conducted study was carried out in accordance with the descriptive function of scientific research. Such a nature of the study enables the description and recording of the occurrence of a specific phenomenon. It is therefore worth undertaking in the future further research of an explanatory nature, the results of which would make it possible to draw conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships in the perception of smart home systems, taking into account the variables mediating and moderating the studied relationships. Practical implications: The way of perceiving smart home systems correlates positively both with the degree of customers’ knowledge and the state of ownership, and the correlation strength in both cases is at a comparable level. Therefore, the perception of smart home systems does not necessarily result from having personal experience with their use, but also can only be based on the customers’ acquaintance. It can therefore be concluded that marketing communication strategies aimed at increasing the awareness of smart home systems will allow to gain recognition of their usefulness and, as a result, will be effective in increasing the smart home market. Originality/value: The undertaken research attempts to fill the gap in determining the consumer's optics regarding the predilection of smart home systems. The user's perspective allows us to understand the cognitive component of buyers' attitudes towards smart homes, taking into account the local dimension of the study (opinions of Polish consumers).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

smart home; intelligent buildings; society 5.0

PL

inteligentny dom; inteligentne budynki; społeczeństwo 5.0

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: z. 173
• Strony: 295--314
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 29 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kalińska-Kula Magdalena

• University of Lodz, Faculty of Management, Department of Marketing

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4809-1901

Bibliografia

• 1. Amiribesheli, M., Benmansour, A., Bouchachia, A. (2015). A review of smart homes in healthcare. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 495-517.
• 2. Balta-Ozkan, N., Amerighi, O., Boteler, B. (2014). A comparison of consumer perceptions towards smart homes in the UK, Germany and Italy: reflections for policy and future research. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/ 09537325.2014.975788.
• 3. Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 775-786, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.
• 4. Chan, M., Campo, E., Esteve, D., Fourniols, J.-Y (2009). Smart Homes - Current Features and Future Perspectives. Maturitas, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 90-97, doi: 10.1016/ j.maturitas.2009.07.014.
• 5. Davidoff, S., Lee, M.K., Yin, C., Zimmerman, J., Dey, A.K. (2006). Principles of Smart Home Control. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4206, pp. 19-34. Retrieved from: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnz/pubs/2006_UBICOMP.pdf, 15.09.2022.
• 6. De Silva, L.C., Morikawa, C., Petra, I.M. (2012). State of the art of smart homes. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 1313-1321, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2012.05.002.
• 7. Deguchi, A., Hirai, C., Matsuoka, H., Nakano, T., Oshima, K., Tai, M., Tani, S. (2020). What Is Society 5.0? In: Hitachi-UTokyo Laboratory, Society 5.0, A People-centric Supersmart Society (pp. 1-23). Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com, 15.09.2022.
• 8. Diegel, O., Lomiwes, G., Messom, Ch., Moir, T., Ryu, H., Thomsen, F., Yoganathan, V., Zhenqing, L. (2005). A bluetooth home design @ NZ: four smartness. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, pp. 87-99. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237298257_A_Bluetooth_Home_Design_NZ_F our_Smartness, 15.09.2022.
• 9. Falkowski, A., Tyszka, T. (2009). Psychologia zachowań konsumenckich. Gdańsk: GWP.
• 10. Ferreira, C.M., Serpa, S. (2018). Society 5.0 and Social Development: Contributions to a Discussion. Management and Organizational Studies Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 26-31, doi: 10.5430/mos.v5n4p26.
• 11. Gregor, B., Kalinska-Kula, M. (2016). Market Intelligence - a conceptual approach. Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie. Polityki Europejskie, Finanse i Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 64, pp. 42-54, doi:10.22630/PEFIM.2016.15.64.4.
• 12. Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J. C.-C. (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 516-527, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.023.
• 13. Kaczmarczyk, S. (2011). Badania marketingowe. Podstawy metodyczne. Warszawa: PWE.
• 14. Kim, Y., Park, Y., Choi, J. (2017). A study on the adoption of IoT smart home service: using Value-based Adoption Model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 28, No. 9-10, pp:1-17, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1310708.
• 15. King, N. (2003). Smart home - A definition. Milton Keynes: Intertek Research & Testing Center. Retrieved from: https://www.housinglin.org.uk, 15.09.2022.
• 16. Lin, T.C., Wu, S., Hsu, J.S.C., Chou, Y.C. (2012). The integration of value-based adoption and expectation-confirmation models: An example of IPTV continuance intention. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 63-75, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.04.004.
• 17. Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E. (2019). A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 138, pp. 139-154, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015.
• 18. Matsuoka, H., Hirai, C. (2020). Habitat Innovation. In: Hitachi-UTokyo Laboratory, Society 5.0, A People-centric Super-smart Society (pp. 24-42). Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com, 15.09.2022.
• 19. Modliński, A., Gwiaździński, E., Karpińska-Krakowiak, M. (2022). The effects of religiosity and gender on attitudes and trust toward autonomous vehicles. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1016/ j.hitech.2022.100426.
• 20. Mourtzis, D., Angelopoulos, J., Panopoulos, N.A. (2022). Literature Review of the Challenges and Opportunities of the Transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0. Energies, Vol. 15, 6276, pp. 1-29, doi: 10.3390/en15176276.
• 21. Nath, H.K. (2017). The Information Society. Space and Culture India, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 19-28, doi: 10.20896/saci.v4i3.248.
• 22. Pepermans, G. (2014). Valuing Smart Meters. Energy Economics, Vol. 45, pp. 280-294, doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2014.07.011.
• 23. Reinisch, C., Kofler, M.J., Iglesias, F., Kastner, W. (2011). Thinkhome Energy Efficiency in Future Smart Homes. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1155/2011/104617.
• 24. Scott, F. (2007). Teaching Homes to be Green: Smart Homes and the Environment. London: Green Alliance.
• 25. Shin, J., Park, Y., Lee, D. (2018). Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 134, pp. 246-253, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.029.
• 26. Srinivasa, K.G., Siddesh, G.M., Manisekhar, S.R. (2022). Society 5.0: Smart Future Towards Enhancing the Quality of Society. Singapore: Springer.
• 27. Straub, D., Keil, M., Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Information and Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00026-8.
• 28. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 157-178.
• 29. Wiktorowicz, J., Warwas, I., Kuba, M., Staszewska, E., Woszczyk, P., Stankiewicz, A., Kliombka-Jarzyna, J. (2016). Pokolenia - co się zmienia? Kompendium zarządzania multigeneracyjnego. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.