Patrick Durand stated that open standards-based lighting control can effectively address the concerns of lighting OEMs regarding system complexity, scalability, interoperability of luminaires and control components, and flexibility in indoor commercial lighting applications. When lighting OEMs bid for projects, they are often required to include a compatible lighting control system—typically from a third-party supplier—in their proposals. However, many OEMs have not developed a proactive strategy for integrating lighting control into their offerings.
Should we wait for a global standard? The main reason behind this passive approach is confusion. Lighting OEMs are unsure which technology to adopt or which supplier to invest in, especially in the context of indoor commercial and office environments. Most OEMs lack the time, resources, and expertise to evaluate all available lighting control technologies thoroughly.
In residential lighting (such as smart bulbs), the dominant standard is clear: ZigBee Light Link has emerged as the leading protocol, with multiple OEMs supporting it. However, in commercial and office settings, the landscape remains fragmented. There are numerous lighting control technologies in use, and the number continues to grow. Many OEMs prefer to wait for a dominant standard to avoid making an early technological commitment.
Figure 1 illustrates the wide array of lighting control options, which can be overwhelming for OEMs seeking compatibility. The lack of a single global standard stems from several factors. First, regional differences in dimming signals and building automation protocols create challenges. For instance, North America uses 0-10V, while Europe relies on DALI, and Japan on PWM. Even within building automation, BACnet is widely used, but KNX dominates in Europe. This regional diversity makes it difficult for OEMs to rely on a single technology globally.
Second, the complexity of lighting control systems varies significantly. Some systems are simple, using basic sensors to turn lights on or off based on occupancy. Others are highly complex, managing entire buildings or cities through centralized control. These systems often require different technologies, adding another layer of difficulty for OEMs.
Third, the decision on which lighting control technology to use typically lies with architects, building owners, or managers—not the OEMs themselves.
Given these challenges, what should OEMs do when selecting a lighting control technology? Many choose to wait, hoping that standards will clarify the path forward. However, the reality is that there are many options, and the best solution depends on specific application requirements. OEMs should evaluate lighting control technologies based on five key criteria: flexibility, interoperability, simplicity, scalability, and proven performance.
Flexibility and interoperability are crucial. Lighting control technologies fall into two categories: proprietary and open. Proprietary systems are limited to products from a single supplier, while open systems use public standards, allowing multiple vendors to interoperate. Open technologies like EnOcean and ZigBee offer greater flexibility by enabling OEMs to mix and match solutions from different suppliers.
EnOcean is an ISO/IEC-certified wireless standard optimized for ultra-low power and energy harvesting. It allows wireless switches and sensors to operate without batteries, using mechanical energy from user actions. With over 350 members and 1,300 interoperable products, EnOcean provides a strong foundation for OEMs.
ZigBee, based on IEEE 802.15.4, is more complex and less interoperable between vendors, except when a gateway is used. While it offers robust networking capabilities, it may limit choice for OEMs in terms of gateway providers.
Figure 3 highlights the variety of specifications that architects and building managers might impose, such as support for BACnet, occupancy sensors, or smartphone control. If an OEM’s chosen technology lacks flexibility, it may be forced to use multiple vendors, increasing resource demands.
Simplicity and scalability are also important. Some end users prefer straightforward, standalone systems that don’t require gateways or complex infrastructure. EnOcean supports both simple and scalable systems, allowing seamless upgrades to larger networks without replacing existing components. In contrast, ZigBee-based systems require gateways from the start, even for small installations.
Finally, proven technology and support matter. Building owners often prefer mature, reliable solutions. EnOcean has been deployed in over 350,000 buildings worldwide, offering a strong track record. While ZigBee and 802.15.4 are also reliable, EnOcean’s global availability gives OEMs a competitive edge in international markets.
For more information, please visit LEDinside.
Flat Cable,Tpe Flat Data Cable,Usb Data Charging Cable,4-Core Usb Data Cable
ShenZhen Puchen Electronics Co., Ltd. , https://www.szpuchen.com