The research work within the M-Zones programme can be best displayed by
means of axis diagrams. These diagrams show the interest of partners for a
variety of research topics from the original M-Zones proposal (Figure 1), the
actual M-Zones work programme and the finalised deliverables (D0, Figure 2) and
the characteristics of Smart Space Management (Figure 3). The axis diagrams
indicate the progress of the M-Zones programme and indicate the individual
developments/expertise per partner as well as they give an overview of the
combined interest and developments of the overall programme.
Figure one shows the expertise per partner of the research areas
described in the original M-Zones proposal. The expertise is give by means of
weak, weak-medium, medium-strong and strong competence. As the diagram shows,
there is a reasonable distribution of strong interest among the five research
areas. Each of these areas is covered by one partner with strong interest. WIT
and TCD focus mostly on software related work items, whereas CIT brings in a
strong interest into hardware supported by WIT’s strong
interest into networking issues.
Figure 1 – Research Interest, original
proposal
Figure 2 shows
the axis’s with regard to the three major work
packages of the M-Zones work plan. Each of the work packages has been further
divided into two main areas, such as Business/Organisational and
Logical/Structural for work package 2. The axis’s are
characterised with the similar to figure 1, providing information about the
partners interest by means of weak, weak-medium, medium-strong and strong.
As this diagram shows, the work package leader have the strongest
interest in their area (e.g. TCD for WP2, WIT for WP3 and CIT for WP4), though
all WPs are supported by at least one more partner
with strong or medium-strong interest. This overlap was used during the first
two years to initiate and to conduct joint research across the boundaries of
partner institutions (as can be seen by joint publications and specific joint
research projects).
Figure 2 – Research Interest, work plan
and deliverables
Figure 3 provides information about how the M-Zones partners would
characterise Smart Space Management. This diagram depicts four main aspects of
this management, namely the Organisational Model, the Management System, the
Technical Infrastructure and the Location of intelligence.
Looking at figure 3 only, we can see that:
·
The most settlement is in the location of intelligence
and in the technical infrastructure
·
The most disagreements are within organisation models
and the characteristic of the actual management system
·
All partners think about Smart Spaces in terms of
heterogeneous systems, basically of a small to large scale
·
The intelligence is located either on the user side
or, to a certain degree, embedded within the Smart Space
Looking at this diagram having figure 1 in mind (research areas from the
original proposal) it can be summarised as follows:
·
WIT perceives that organisational models are more
tightly defined than loosely defined (looking mostly on office environments),
that the management system is less distributed than centralised (coming from a
telecommunications perspective), that the technical
infrastructure is heterogeneous on a small scale and that the intelligence is
mainly located at the users’ end.
·
TCD perceives that the organisation models are
completely loosely defined (looking mostly on e-learning environments), that
the management system is completely distributed (coming from a software
perspective), that the technical infrastructure is heterogeneous on a small
scale and that the intelligence is more embedded within Smart Spaces.
·
CIT perceives that organisational models are neither
tightly nor loosely defined (looking mostly on home environments), that the
management system is more distributed than centralised (coming from a hardware
perspective), that the technical infrastructure is heterogeneous on a small to
large scale and that the intelligence is located at the users’ end or might be
embedded within a Smart Space.
Analysing these views we ca see that:
·
Organisational models are loosely defined within
software systems, tightly defined within telecommunication management systems
and defined to a certain (appropriate) degree within hardware and networks.
·
Management systems are distributed within software
systems, more centralised within telecommunication management (but not totally
centralised anymore) and more distributed within hardware and networks (but not
yet totally distributed).
·
The technical infrastructure is heterogeneous on any
scale independent of the research area.
·
The intelligence is located more towards the user
(specifically for telecommunications management) and even for hardware and
networks not completely embedded.
Figure 3 – Research Interest, Smart
Space Management characteristics
Concluding the contemplation of the axis diagrams we can say that:
·
Organisational model and logical structure of Smart
Space management have their strongest interest from software/knowledge system
and telecommunication management.
·
Information modelling and semantic information are
mostly supported by software/knowledge systems and telecommunication management
·
Simulations and test beds are equally important for
all research areas and for all partners.
