Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 709–723 | Cite as

Lessons from SmartCampus: External Experimenting with User-Centric Internet-of-Things Testbed

  • Michele Nati
  • Alexander Gluhak
  • Jaroslaw Domaszewicz
  • Spyros Lalis
  • Klaus Moessner


Creating Internet-of-Things (IoT) solutions that can be deployed at scale requires adequate experimentation environments. In the area of experimentation, two trends can be observed. First, there is a shift from lab-based, controlled experiments to experimenting “in the wild”: researchers tend to augment the users’ natural environments and observe how people integrate a new solution into their everyday lives. Second, when a substantial investment in setting up an experimentation infrastructure has been made, it makes sense to open it to a wide community of researchers; the concept of Experimentation-as-a-Service (EaaS) is emerging along these lines. SmartCampus, an IoT testbed developed at the University of Surrey, fits the both trends very well. It involves real users in a natural setting, as IoT devices are deployed in the users’ offices. Further, several user-centric experiments conducted in the SmartCampus were driven by external researchers, i.e., people who do not belong to the team that developed the testbed. In this paper we report on lessons learned from such IoT experiments. After a brief overview of SmartCampus and the experiments themselves, we offer a simple experiment stakeholder model, which identifies key actors and interfaces between them. We then focus on issues related to the external experimenters who take advantage of the experimentation “service.” That focus is motivated by our realization that EaaS, while attractive in principle, gives rise to a number of non-trivial challenges.


Internet of Things User-centric Testbed Experimentation Experimentation-as-a-Service 



This work has been supported by the European Union under Contract Numbers ICT-2009-257992 (SmartSantander) and ICT-610477 (IoT Lab) and by the REDUCE project Grant EP/I000232/1 under the Digital Economy Programme run by Research Councils UK.


  1. 1.
    Rogers, Y. (2011). Interaction design gone wild: Striving for wild theory. ACM Interactions, 18(4), 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Future Internet Research & Experimentation.
  3. 3.
    Nati, M., Gluhak, A., Abangar, H., & Headley, W. (2013). SmartCampus: A user-centric testbed for Internet of Things experimentation. In Proceedings of the 16th international symposium on wireless personal multimedia communications, WPMC’13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gluhak, A., Krco, S., Nati, M., Pfisterer, D., Mitton, N., & Razafindralambo, T. (2011). A survey on facilities for experimental internet of things research. IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(11), 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Werner-Allen, G., Swieskowski, P., & Welsh, M. (2005). Motelab: A wireless sensor network testbed. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on information processing in sensor networks, IPSN05.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Handziski, V., Köpke, A., Willig, A., & Wolisz, A. (2006). Twist: A scalable and reconfigurable testbed for wireless indoor experiments with sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on multi-hop ad hoc networks: from theory to reality, REALMAN06 (pp. 63–70).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chatzigiannakis, I., Fischer, S., Koninis, C., Mylonas, G., & Pfisterer, D. (2010). Wisebed: An open large-scale wireless sensor network testbed. Sensor Applications, Experimentation, and Logistics, LCNS, 29, 68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawson-Haggerty, S., Ortiz, J., Jiang, X., Hsu, J., Shankar, S., Culler, D. (2010). Enabling green building applications. In Proceedings of the 6th workshop on hot topics in embedded networked sensor, HotEmnets’10.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karagiannis, M., Chantzis, K., Nikoletseas, S., & Rolim, J. (2011). Passive target tracking: Application with mobile devices using an indoors WSN future internet testbed. In Proceedings of international conference on distributed computing in sensor systems, DCOSS’11 (Vol. 6, pp. 27–29).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The PlaceLab: A living laboratory.
  11. 11.
    De Ruyter, B., Van Loenen, E., & Teeven, V. (2007). User centered research in ExperienceLab. In Proceedings of the 2007 European conference on ambient intelligence (Am I’07), (pp. 305–313). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Domaszewicz, J., & Lalis, S. (2013). Soft actuation for home and office. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent environments, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    SmartSatander Project.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Nati
    • 1
  • Alexander Gluhak
    • 2
  • Jaroslaw Domaszewicz
    • 3
  • Spyros Lalis
    • 4
  • Klaus Moessner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Communication Systems (ICS)University of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Intel Corporation (UK) LimitedSwindonUK
  3. 3.Institute of TelecommunicationsWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland
  4. 4.University of Thessaly & CERTHVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations