User adoption of smart home systems remains below projections due to a disconnect between technologydriven developments and user requirements. This research systematically investigates user requirements across seven categories using card sorting methodology with diverse user segments: functionality; value and usefulness; security, privacy and trust; legal regulations and ethics, integration and i nteroperability, accessibility and user empowerment as well as sustainability. By distinguishing between mandatory “dealbreaker” requirements and optional“value-adding” requirements, this study contributes a multidimensional understanding of factors shaping user acceptance and long-term engagement. Expected findings will inform the refinement of theoretical models (e.g., technology acceptance, privacy calculus, digital ecosystem participation) and provide actionable guidance for practitioners to strategically allocate resources, prioritize development roadmaps, and design trustworthy, empowering smart home services.
Smart home systems envision a dynamic living environment that anticipates and responds to the
needs of its inhabitants, promising to transform domestic life in fundamental ways. Spanning
adaptive energy management, home security, assisted living support, a nd personalized comfort,
these systems are designed to represent not merely a technological upgrade over traditional home
appliances but a genuine paradigm shift in how people inhabit and interact with their homes [
However, mainstream adoption of smart home systems has not met industry projections, largely
due to a disconnect between technology-driven offerings and the nuanced requirements of users[
For smart home services to be sustainable and successful, businesses must deliver solutions that
reflect what users truly need and value [
Smart home systems differ fundamentally from conventional digital services. Most digital services
rely on episodic, user-initiated interactions. Smart home systems, by contrast, operate continuously
and autonomously within the private home, a space afforded a heightened expectation of privacy in
both moral and legal terms [
This makes persistent data collection not an ancillary feature but a functional prerequisite, which
means that smart home systems may introduce privacy risks that fundamentally exceed those of
traditional digital services. While individual smart home data points may appear innocuous in
isolation, their aggregation across multiple devices enables the inference of deeply personal
behavioral profiles [
This unique context gives rise to a rich and multidimensional set of user requirements that extend well beyond the functional capabilities of individual smart home devices [8,12,13]. Still, research consistently indicates that users are primarily motivated to adopt smart home systems when they perceive a clear functional advantage over existing non-smart alternatives, when the technology aligns with their established routines and lifestyle, and when it delivers tangible hedonic or social value [14–16].
At the same time, research shows that potential and actual smart home users often state clear demands around security, privacy, and control over their data . These requirements are not merely considered desirable features but, for many users, preconditions for smart home system adoption altogether [10,13,17]. Compliance with legal and ethical standards, including transparency about data practices and adherence to regulatory frameworks such as the GDPR, further shapes what users expect from smart home companies [13,18,19].
Beyond these foundational concerns, users require seamless interoperability across smart home devices and brands to avoid vendor lock -in and fragmented experiences, as well as accessible and empowering interfaces that accommodate diverse levels of technical literacy [20,21].
Furthermore, sustainability consideration s including energy efficiency and responsible resource use are an emerging requirement dimension, particularly among environmentally conscious user segments [22,23].
Nevertheless, despite the growing articulation of these diverse requirements by users in both
research and practice,the smart home industry has remained largely technology-driven, focusing on
feature development rather than systematically eliciting and prioritizing what users actually want
and need [
This research adopts a card sorting design to capture and prioritize citizen requirements for smart home services [25,26], following precedents where card sorting effectively captures information needs and transparency preferences in management research or research on complex systems (e.g., [27] or [28]). Card sorting is particularly suitable for user requirements research because it allows participants to organize concepts based on their mental models, revealing natural groupings and priorities that might not emerge through traditional survey methods. Participants from diverse, heterogeneous user segments will be asked to group and rank a set of cards, each representing a specific user requirement, which allows for the elicitation of user priorities in a structured yet flexible manner. The card sorting process is structured as follows: 1) Scope Definition: Based on a comprehensive literature review and our prior qualitative fieldwork, we identified seven core categories of smart home user requirements as presented in Table 1: 1) Functionality, 2) Value & Usefulness, 3) Security, Privacy & Trust , 4)Legal Regulation and Ethic s, 5) Integration & Interoperability, 6) Accessibility & User Empowerment and 7) Sustainability . 2) Card Creation: For each category, we developed a set of requirement statements as cards, for instance “end-to-end encryption for all data transmission” or “users must have control over how their data is aggregated and profiled”. 3) Participant Engagement: Users sort these cards into the predefined categoriesand rank them by importance. They also discuss potential trade-offs, conflicts, and synergies between requirements, especially in areas where commercial interests and user expectations may diverge (e.g., data monetization vs. privacy). 4) Analysis: The results are analyzed quantitatively (ranking, clustering) and qualitatively (thematic analysis of user reasoning).
Energy -efficient systems design considering environmental consciousness, circular economy principles, and responsible resource use
This study has significant implications for smart home research and practice. By systematically prioritizing end -user needs across functional, ethical, and experiential dimensions, the findings should contribute toa richer understanding of the various factors shaping user acceptance, adoption, and long-term engagement with smart home systems.
In particular, by potentially distinguishing between mandatory “deal-breaker” requirements without which users will not adopt and optional “value-adding” requirements that serve as differentiators that enhance satisfaction, this research should support the development of new models for betterunderstanding users. The prioritization data and qualitative reasoning surfaced by this study can directly inform the refinement of theoretical models , such as technology acceptance [29] or trust calibration [30], privacy calculus [31], or digital ecosystem participation frameworks [32]. It could also provide a foundation that future research can adapt for comparative studies across user groups, geographic regions, or business models, thus helping to unify research often fragmented by disciplinary and industry silos.
For practitioners, the prioritized requirements offer actionable guidance for smart home companies, software engineers, and ecosystem designers alike. By structuring requirements into clear categories and surfacing both conflicts and synergies, this resear ch aims to support the co creation of smart home systems that are genuinely empowering, trustworthy, and sustainable. A better understanding of user priorities, and in particular the hierarchy of mandatory versus optional requirements, enables companies to strategically allocate resources, sharpen their development roadmaps, and craft marketing messages that resonate with the core values and expectations of their users.
This research was sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space in the project Opt-IN (Ref. num. 16KIS1935K).
[8] M.R. Reisinger, S. Prost, J. Schrammel, P. Fröhlich, User Requirements for the Design of Smart Homes: Dimensions and Goals, in: I. Chatzigiannakis, B. de Ruyter, I. Mavrommati (Eds.), Ambient Intelligence, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp . 41–57. [9] D. Beverungen, O. Müller, M. Matzner, J. Mendling, J. vom Brocke, Conceptualizing smart service systems, Electron Markets 29 (2019) 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1252-0517-0270-5. [10] N. Apthorpe, Y. Shvartzshnaider, A. Mathur, D. Reisman, N. Feamster, Discovering Smart Home Internet of Things Privacy Norms Using Contextual Integrity, Proc. ACM Interact. Mob.
Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2 (2018) 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214262. [11] P. Menard, G.J. Bott, Artificial intelligence misuse and concern for information privacy: New construct validation and future directions, Information Systems Journal 35 (2025) 322–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12544. [12] M. Chen, M. Chen, Privacy Relevance and Disclosure Intention in Mobile Apps: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Privacy Calculus and Temporal Distance, Behav. Sci. (Basel) 15 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030324. [13] S. Zheng, N. Apthorpe, M. Chetty, N. Feamster, User Perceptions of Smart Home IoT Privacy,
Proc. ACM Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2 (2018) 1–20. [14] S. Chang, K. Nam, Smart Home Adoption: The Impact of User Characteristics and Differences in Perception of Benefits, Buildings 11 (2021) 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11090393. [15] D.B. Shank, D. Wright, R. Lulham, C. Thurgood, Knowledge, Perceived Benefits, Adoption, and Use of Smart Home Products, International Journal of Human –Computer Interaction 37 (2021) 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1857135. [16] X. Wang, T.J. McGill, J.E. Klobas, I Want It Anyway: Consumer Perceptions of Smart Home Devices, Journal of Computer Information Systems 60 (2020) 437–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1528486. [17] E. Zeng, S. Mare, F. Roesner, End user security and privacy concerns with smart homes, in:
Thirteenth symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2017), 2017. [18] C. Chhetri, V. Genaro Motti, User -Centric Privacy Controls for Smart Homes, Proc. ACM
Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6 (2022) 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555769. [19] M. Tabassum, T. Kosinski, H.R. Lipford, "I don't own the data": End User Perceptions of Smart Home Device Data Practices and Risks, in: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, 2019, pp. 435–450. [20] E. Becks, P. Zdankin, V. Matkovic, T. Weis, Complexity of Smart Home Setups: A Qualitative User Study on Smart Home Assistance and Implications on Technical Requirements, Technologies 11 (2023) 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies11010009. [21] V. Miori, D. Russo, L. Ferrucci, Interoperability of home automation systems as a critical challenge for IoT, in: 2019 4th International Conference on Computing, Communications and Security (ICCCS), Rome, Italy, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2019, pp. 1–7. [22] S. Chang, K. Nam, Exploring the Sustainable Values of Smart Homes to Strengthen Adoption,
Buildings 12 (2022) 1919. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12111919. [23] W. Gu, P. Bao, W. Hao, J. Kim, Empirical Examination of Intention to Continue to Use Smart
Home Services, Sustainability 11 (2019) 5213. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195213. [24] B. Basarir -Ozel, H.B. Turker, V.A. Nasir, Identifying the Key Drivers and Barriers of Smart Home Adoption: A Thematic Analysis from the Business Perspective, Sustainability 14 (2022) 9053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159053. [25] L.Y. Conrad, V.M. Tucker, Making it tangible: hybrid card sorting within qualitative interviews, JD 75 (2019) 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/J-D06-2018-0091. [26] L.Y. Conrad, A. Demasson, T. Gorichanaz, A. VanScoy, Exploring card sort methods: Interaction and implementation for research, education, and practice, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 56 (2019) 525–528.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.81. [27] C. Loos, K. Spraul, 2024. The Why, How, and When of CSR Managers’ Internal Legitimation
Strategies. J Management Studies, joms.13145. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13145. [28] J.R. Wood, L.E. Wood, Card sorting: current practices and beyond, Journal of Usability Studies 2008 (2008). [29] Gefen, Karahanna, Straub, Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model, MISQ 27 (2003) 51. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519. [30] A.P. Pavlou, Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7 (2003) 101–134. [31] T. Dinev, P. Hart, An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E -Commerce Transactions,
Information Systems Research 17 (2006) 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080. [32] M. Papert, A. Pflaum, Development of an Ecosystem Model for the Realization of Internet of Things (IoT) Services in Supply Chain Management, Electron Markets 27 (2017) 175 –189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1252-0517-0251-8.