Yale uses modules to extend smart-lock functionality

Article

Use of a user-installable module allows these Yale smart locks to work with different connected-home systems

Yale Expands Assure Lock Line With New Smart Lever Lock | Z-Wave Alliance

My Comments

Yale have implemented the smart-lock approach in a very interesting way ever since that company released their Real Living Connected Deadbolt in to the North-American market.

Here, they designed an electronic lock as a basic platform device but built an expansion-interface arrangement in to this lock’s design. Here, users could install a retrofit module in to the battery compartment on the door’s inside to add on Zigbee, Z-Wave or August smart-lock connectivity to their lockset.

This approach has been rolled out to the Assure range of electronic deadbolt locks and lever locksets with the use of the same module type for the whole range. It also applies to the Lockwood Secure Connect product range offered in Australia which is based on the Yale designs.

A similar approach has been implemented in the UK for some of the Yale electronic door locks sold in that market. But the modules used with the UK locksets are different to the North-American modules due to the regional differences that affect how Z-Wave and Zigbee operate and the country’s preferred building-hardware form factors. One of these units is infact designed to replace the outside cylinder on a rim-mounted nightlatch or deadlatch to enable “smart lock” functionality to this common class of door lock.

All these modules are expected to be installed in a “plug-and-play” fashion where they simply add the extra functionality to the lock or bridge it to the smart-home ecosystem once you install the module. After you install these modules in the lockset, the only thing you need to do is to pair them with the smart-home or integrated-security ecosystem.

Even within the same form-factor, the electrical interface for these modules may be varied for later products which can raise compatibility issues. Similarly, some of the home-automation integrators tend to presume that a particular module will only work with their system.

They also work on a particular “Internet-of-Things” wireless interconnection rather than an IP-based home network, requiring them to use a network bridge to work with an online service. This bridge is typically provided as part of a security-and-home-automation ecosystem whether offered by a telco, security services firm or similar company.

What have I liked about this approach is the use of user-installable modules that are designed to work across a particular Yale smart-lock range. Here, these modules interlink with Yale or third-party smart-home setups with the ability to be replaced should you decide to move to a better home-automation system that uses a different Internet-of-Things interface.

It underscores the fact that, once installed, a door lock is expected to be in service for a very long time and this same requirement will be placed upon smart locks. This is even though new smart-home or smart-building technologies will appear on the horizon.

It is similar to how central-heating systems are being enabled for smart-home operation through the use of a room thermostat that has the “smarts” built in to it. These thermostats are designed to be powered by the host HVAC system and connect to that system according to industry-standard wiring practices that have been determined and evolved over a long time.

This approach can be taken further with other devices like major appliances that are expected to serve us for a long time. Even if a manufacturer wants to create an ecosystem around its products and accessories, it needs to keep the specifications for interlinking these products and accessories the same to allow users to implement newer devices in to the system.

It can also work properly with a self-install approach where the customer installs the necessary aftermarket modules themselves or a professional-install approach which involves a technician installing and commissioning these modules. The latter approach can also work well with manufacturers who offer “functionality” or “upgrade” kits that enable the use of these modules.

The ASSA Abloy approach to making sure your smart lock works with the smart-home system by using user-replaceable modules makes sense for this class of product. Here, you are never worried about the smart-lock ability being “out of date” just because you install a home-automation setup that suits newer needs.

What needs to happen with the retrofit approach is that the physical and electrical interface for add-on modules has to be consistent across the product range or device class for the long haul. There also has be be some form of compatibility should any design revisions take place. Similarly, using a common application-level standard can work well with allowing the same device and retrofit module to work with newer systems that adhere to the relevant standards.

These expectations may not really work well with system integrators, telcos and the like who prefer to be the only source for products that work with a smart-home system.

Here, it is the first time I have noticed a smart-home device designed to be upgraded over its long service life.

Send to Kindle

Leave a Reply

*