Recommendations for responsible IoT adoption: A human-centered approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37497/revistafapad.v5id.article.93Keywords:
IoT Adoption, Responsible Innovation, Human-Centered Design, Industry 5.0Abstract
Objective: To explore how organizations can adopt the Internet of Things (IoT) responsibly and human-centrically, embedding ethical principles throughout the product and service lifecycle.
Method: A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining a comprehensive literature review with semi-structured interviews with ten experts across fields such as engineering, software development, business, and ethics. Thematic analysis was used to identify practical insights and recurring themes.
Results: Findings highlight the importance of transparent data practices, privacy-by-design, human-AI collaboration, and continuous ethical assessments. Experts emphasized technical challenges, user-centered business models, and concerns with fairness, inclusiveness, and sustainability. Based on these insights, a roadmap for responsible IoT adoption was proposed.
Conclusion: Responsible IoT adoption requires a holistic approach that integrates technical innovation with ethical accountability. The proposed roadmap provides practical guidance for human-centered innovation aligned with the core principles of Industry 5.0.
Downloads
References
Bertino, E., & Islam, S. (2021). Privacy and security in IoT: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(4), 2862–2873.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer.
European Commission. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. Policy Brief.
Fisher, E., Selin, S., & Wetmore, J. M. (2006). Embracing reflexivity: Opening up nanotechnology assessment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(2), 163-172.
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. Pitman Publishing Inc.
Ghassemi, M., et al. (2023). Challenges and opportunities in machine learning for healthcare. The Lancet Digital Health, 5(4), e267–e268.
Lee, J. (2019). Human-in-the-loop cyber-physical systems. CRC Press.
Longo, F., Padovano, A., & Umbrello, S. (2020). Value-oriented and ethical technology engineering in Industry 5.0. Applied Sciences, 10(5), 1545.
Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., MacLeod, M., & Wallace, P. (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 117-134.
Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5. 0. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things. Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible innovation: framing responsible innovation. In Responsible innovation (pp. 27-47). John Wiley & Sons.
Román, J. A. M., Barrientos, J. A., & Prado, D. (2022). Human-centered approach in Industry 5.0: Literature review and perspectives. Applied Sciences, 12(19), 9719.
Shin, D., Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2021). A human-centered framework for IoT-based smart environments. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(10), 7915–7927
Shin, D., Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2021). A human-centered framework for IoT-based smart environments. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(10), 7915–7927.
Solove, D. J. (2013). Privacy self-management and the consent paradox. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1880-1903.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.
Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
Weber, R. H., & Weber, R. (2010). Internet of things. Computer Law & Security Review, 26(6), 589-595.
