There are a range of alarm systems within the home. Currently households may or may not have a number of differing alarms that detect a number of hazards. Current alarms operate in an isolated manner, these alarms may be misinterpreted or completely ignored leading to a lack of action on the occupier’s side. Home Shield will have the capacity to detect a number of alarms and onwardly communicate those hazards to the occupier and a ‘key contact’ of the occupier leading to proactive action to make the situation safe. Home Shield is a ‘fit for all’, inclusive, battery or mains powered alarm.
Benefits
As this is a research and development project, then there will be no financial benefits to capture at this stage. However, this project will aim to produce a prototype of an active acoustic monitoring device that could be a potential solution to be adopted and put into production, establishing an effective way of communicating if an alarm goes off in the home of a consumer in a vulnerable situation, alerting and their named contact, benefits of this will include:
· Consumer - Reassurance of correct alarm identification, allowing a device to be within the home. Promoting Independent living for consumers in vulnerable situations.
· Safety- Alert the consumer in vulnerable situations and key contact in the event of emergency
Learnings
Outcomes
Across Phases 1 and 2, Home Shield progressed from initial scoping and paper-based concepts to a functioning and stakeholder-tested proof of concept. The project has generated technical, user and commercial learning that provides a credible basis for a final development phase.
Prototype and technical outcomes
• Validated proof of concept. The final solution reached TRL 6 and demonstrated acoustic monitoring, local visual indication and remote alerting in a relevant test environment.
• Five physical units. Five proof-of-concept devices were manufactured and distributed to the participating networks and the Energy Innovation Centre for testing and stakeholder demonstrations.
• Iterative design. Design 6 was selected through stakeholder engagement and refined through successive test cycles. The work improved microphone characterisation, noise reduction, calibration and notification sequencing.
• Indicative production specification. The anticipated production form factor was approximately 11 cm high by 7 cm wide by 7 cm deep, including the plug, with a proposed 1000 mAh backup battery. These figures remain subject to final design and certification.
Stakeholder, accessibility and commercial outcomes
• Positive need and use-case evidence. Charities, GDNs and wider stakeholders recognised strong potential for Deaf and hard of hearing users, vulnerable households, nominated contacts and carers, particularly where alerts can be sent to phones or smart watches.
• Clear accessibility requirements. The evidence established the need for simple English, consideration of British Sign Language and translation tools, carefully controlled alert frequency, non-app setup options and appropriate onboarding support.
• Indicative cost evidence. The supply-chain work indicated that a hardware cost of around £80 including VAT may be achievable at the assumed production stage, with potential reductions at volume. Stakeholder expectations ranged from approximately £40 to £85, with some support for a higher bundled price that includes a defined service period.
• Low-cost connectivity model. The current model estimated a SIM-related subscription of approximately £0.50 per month when collected annually, with potential volume reductions. Stakeholders nevertheless warned that any recurring cost can limit uptake among low-income users.
Overall outcome
The project successfully established technical feasibility and a strong stakeholder rationale for further development. It did not produce a certified production device or quantify network, carbon or financial benefits at deployment scale. The principal outcome is therefore a validated TRL 6 prototype, an evidence-based requirement set and a defined programme of work to reach TRL 8 and BAU readiness.
Lessons Learnt
• Engage intended users early and repeatedly. Early charity engagement improved the concept, but later feedback continued to identify important requirements. Co-design should continue throughout development rather than being treated as a single initial activity.
• Allow sufficient lead time for voluntary-sector engagement. Changes in personnel, limited partner capacity and travel constraints affected the programme. Future projects should use a mixed engagement plan, include remote and local options and allow contingency for recruitment and scheduling.
• Design for digital inclusion and supported onboarding. An app can simplify contact management for some users, but not all intended customers have a smartphone, stable internet access or confidence using digital tools. A web-based or assisted route, simple English, BSL/translation support and training for frontline staff should be designed into the operating model.
• Build affordability into the product architecture and commercial model. Stakeholder price expectations varied from approximately £40 to £85, depending on features and whether service costs were bundled. Even a low recurring subscription can be a barrier for vulnerable households, so hardware simplification, volume pricing, funded deployment and bundled service periods should be evaluated early.
• Validate power and communications resilience. Future testing should quantify battery life, behaviour during power loss, mobile-signal dependence, reconnection and the consequences of failed communication. These are critical to user confidence and safe operation.
• Plan the certification and BAU route before the final build. Product standards, conformity assessment, onboarding, customer support, point of sale, data/service arrangements and ownership of ongoing maintenance should be defined early enough to influence the production design.
