Review of the theory, principles, and design requirements of human-centric Internet of Things (IoT)

TLDR

The rapid evolution of IoT has spurred efforts to align next‑generation systems with human‑centric values, yet the meaning, interpretation, and implementation of “human‑centric” remain poorly understood. This study systematically reviews the theory, principles, and design requirements of human‑centric IoT. We analyzed 84 peer‑reviewed papers through a systematic literature review. The review reveals that “human‑centric” is largely a label rather than a transformative practice, with no shared definition, a dominance of technology‑oriented fields, limited interdisciplinary and user involvement, and a gap between claimed human‑centric framing and actual impact, underscoring the need for research that genuinely centers human values.

Abstract

Abstract The rapid evolution of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, with ever more profound implications for humans and societies, has triggered visions and initiatives to re-align the Next-Generation IoT with what works for humans and humanity first. However, despite the increased push towards “human-centric” IoT, it is still poorly understood what “human-centric” actually means in this context, how it is interpreted and embedded into the design, by whom, and for which purposes. To address these questions, we conducted a systematic literature review (N = 84) on the theory, principles, and design requirements of human-centric IoT. A key observation is that, despite the recent increase in research on humane perspectives for IoT, “human-centredness” often still seems to be used primarily as a label and overarching paradigm, not leading to a profound change in the underlying practices. We found no shared understanding of what “human-centric” implies in this context or common agreement on which principles human-centric IoT should be built upon. Furthermore, our analysis confirmed the predominance of technology-oriented fields, with a traditional approach towards user involvement and limited involvement of other disciplines. Overall, our findings point towards an apparent discrepancy between how contributions are positioned and framed (“human-centric”), the practices and assumptions they are based on, and their actual impact and ability to orient existing efforts towards genuine human-centric outcomes and key values. Based on the results, we formulate directions for future research aimed at building a more human-centric and empowering IoT.