Patrick Durand highlights 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 applications.
When lighting OEMs submit bids for projects, they are often required to include a compatible lighting control system—typically from a third-party supplier—in their proposals. These requirements are explicitly assigned to the OEM, but many have responded passively without developing a proactive strategy for integrating control systems into their offerings.
Should we wait for a global lighting control standard?
The primary reason for this lack of active implementation is confusion—OEMs are unsure which technology to adopt or which supplier to invest in, especially for indoor commercial and office lighting systems. Most OEMs lack the time, resources, or expertise to evaluate all available lighting control technologies thoroughly.
In residential settings, such as smart bulbs, the market has largely settled on ZigBee Light Link as the dominant standard, with multiple OEMs supporting it. However, in commercial and office environments, the landscape remains fragmented, with many emerging technologies still evolving (see Figure 1). As a result, many OEMs are waiting for a clear industry standard to avoid making premature technological choices.
Figure 1. The variety of lighting control options can be overwhelming for OEMs seeking compatibility.
There are three main reasons why a single global standard has not yet emerged. First, regional differences in lighting control technologies and LED driver dimming signals exist. For example, North America primarily uses 0-10V, while Europe favors DALI, and Japan relies on PWM. In building automation, BACnet is widely used, but KNX is more popular in Europe. This makes it challenging for OEMs to choose a single technology that works globally.
Second, the complexity of lighting control systems varies greatly. Some systems use simple sensors to detect occupancy and control lighting, while others require centralized systems capable of managing entire buildings or even cities. These different needs mean that the technologies used for simple versus complex systems often differ significantly, presenting another challenge for OEMs relying on a single solution.
Third, and most importantly, lighting OEMs do not typically decide on the control technology for a project. That responsibility usually falls on architects, building owners, or managers.
Given these challenges, what should lighting OEMs do when choosing a lighting control technology to develop an active strategy? Many opt to wait, hoping that standards and clarity will emerge. However, the reality is that there are many options, and depending on the application, OEMs can evaluate certain criteria to determine the best solution and increase their chances of winning the bid. These criteria include flexibility, interoperability, simplicity, scalability, and proven technology.
Flexibility and Interoperability
Lighting control technologies fall into two main categories: proprietary and open. Proprietary solutions are limited to products from a single supplier, while open technologies are based on public standards, allowing multiple vendors to create interoperable products (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Open standards enable integration of products from different suppliers using the same protocol.
Two major open technologies for commercial and office lighting are EnOcean and ZigBee. EnOcean is the first ISO/IEC wireless standard optimized for low-power and energy-harvesting solutions. It allows wireless switches and sensors without batteries, using mechanical energy from user interactions. With over 350 members and 1,300 interoperable products, EnOcean offers strong support for OEMs.
ZigBee, based on IEEE 802.15.4, defines network and application layers. However, most ZigBee-based systems are not fully interoperable between vendors, except for those that incorporate additional intelligence into gateways. This limits the choice of gateway vendors for OEMs.
Figure 3 illustrates the various options that architects and building managers might specify, including dimming control, communication protocols, and building automation systems. If an OEM's chosen technology lacks flexibility, they may end up using multiple vendors, increasing resource demands and complexity.
Figure 3. Open technology enables flexible and interoperable lighting control using existing components.
Simplicity and Scalability
Some end users prefer simple, standalone lighting control systems without the need for gateways or complex networks. These systems typically use LED drivers, switches, and sensors like 0-10V relays or DALI controllers. EnOcean and well-established proprietary suppliers offer such simple solutions, while ZigBee and 802.15.4 systems usually require gateways.
EnOcean stands out by offering seamless scalability. A simple standalone system can easily evolve into a larger network without replacing existing infrastructure (see Figure 4). ZigBee systems can also scale across buildings, but they always require gateways at the start.
Figure 4. EnOcean supports both simple and scalable lighting control with one technology.
Proven Technology and Support
Building owners often prefer mature, proven technologies rather than untested solutions. ZigBee and 802.15.4 have been deployed in hundreds of thousands of buildings, while EnOcean has been installed in over 350,000 globally. This track record increases OEMs’ confidence in selecting these technologies for international projects.
As more OEMs expand into global markets, having access to a single, widely supported technology simplifies product development and marketing. This reduces the need to adapt to different regional standards and technologies.
For more information, please visit LEDinside’s official website or follow their WeChat public account (LEDinside).
JIANGSU BEST ENERGY CO.,LTD , https://www.bestenergy-group.com