Open Access

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the enabler for new innovations in several domains. It allows the connection of digital services with physical entities in the real world. These entities are devices of different categories and sizes range from large machinery to tiny sensors. In the latter case, devices are typically characterized by limited resources in terms of computational power, available memory and sometimes limited power supply. As a consequence, the use of security algorithms requires of them to work within the limited resources. This means to find a suitable implementation and configuration for a security algorithm, that performs properly on the device, which may become a challenging task. On the other side, there is the desire to protect valuable assets as strong as possible. Usually, security goals are recorded in security policies, but they do not consider resource availability on the involved device and its power consumption while executing security algorithms. This paper presents an IoT security configuration tool that helps the designer of an IoT environment to experiment with the trade-off between maximizing security and extending the lifetime of a resource constrained IoT device. The tool is controlled with high-level description of security goals in the form of policies. It allows the designer to validate various (security) configurations for a single IoT device up to a large sensor network.

Im Modul Algorithmen und Datenstrukturen ist das Inverted Classroom Modell mit der Scrum-Methodik kombiniert. Die Studierenden erarbeiten die Inhalte des Moduls im Lernmanagementsystem mithilfe von Videoaufzeichnungen, digitalem Skript und interaktiven Übungseinheiten. Der Wegfall der klassischen Vorlesung ermöglicht mehr Zeit zur Beantwortung von Fragen, Diskussionen sowie der Reflexion des Erlernten durch Hörsaal-Quizze. Die Themen der Veranstaltung werden vorgegeben, aber die Bearbeitung erfolgt individuell und die Studierenden gestalten ihre eigenen Lernprozesse. Theorie und Praxis der Veranstaltung werden analog zur Scrum-Methodik in mehrwöchigen Sprints im Team bearbeitet. Die Aufgaben sind in den Kontext einer virtuellen Betriebssystemumgebung eingebettet und bauen aufeinander auf. Das Softwareprojekt wird hierzu als GitLab-Repository zur Verfügung gestellt. Die Verwendung von Git und integrierten Test-Routinen entsprechen einer realitätsnahen Vorgehensweise, wie sie in der Softwareentwicklung allgemein gängige Praxis ist.

In modern times, closed-loop control systems (CLCSs) play a prominent role in a wide application range, from production machinery via automated vehicles to robots. CLCSs actively manipulate the actual values of a process to match predetermined setpoints, typically in real time and with remarkable precision. However, the development, modeling, tuning, and optimization of CLCSs barely exploit the potential of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper explores novel opportunities and research directions in CLCS engineering, presenting potential designs and methodologies incorporating AI. Combining these opportunities and directions makes it evident that employing AI in developing and implementing CLCSs is indeed feasible. Integrating AI into CLCS development or AI directly within CLCSs can lead to a significant improvement in stakeholder confidence. Integrating AI in CLCSs raises the question: How can AI in CLCSs be trusted so that its promising capabilities can be used safely? One does not trust AI in CLCSs due to its unknowable nature caused by its extensive set of parameters that defy complete testing. Consequently, developers working on AI-based CLCSs must be able to rate the impact of the trainable parameters on the system accurately. By following this path, this paper highlights two key aspects as essential research directions towards safe AI-based CLCSs: (I) the identification and elimination of unproductive layers in artificial neural networks (ANNs) for reducing the number of trainable parameters without influencing the overall outcome, and (II) the utilization of the solution space of an ANN to define the safety-critical scenarios of an AI-based CLCS.

The energy transition involves various challenges. One key aspect is the decentralization of power generation, which requires new actors. In order to integrate these into the system in the best possible way, there are various approaches e.g. in cooperation in citizens' initiatives or cooperatives (Dorniok, 2016). Cooperation in general can enable the implementation of certain business models or can increase profitability by the exploitation of economies of scale (Skovsgaard & Jacobsen, 2017; Theurl, 2010). Synergy effects result from the utilization of know-how, different technologies or resources of the partners involved to complement the own competencies and services (Eggers & Engelbrecht, 2005; Sander, 2009). Cooperation exists in various industries and enable the participating companies to compensate their size-related resource deficits (Glaister & Buckley, 1996; Todeva & Knoke, 2005). This creates the opportunity to develop innovations, open up new markets, exploit newly created economies of scale and share costs and risks (Franco & Haase, 2015). In agriculture, cooperation in the form of cooperatives have been of essential importance for a long time, especially with the aim of exploiting synergy effects (Bareille et al., 2017). In the field of renewable energy development, cooperation in form of citizen cooperatives make a significant contribution to the participation of citizens in political, social and financial aspects of the energy transition (Huybrechts & Mertens, 2014). Energy cooperatives are frequently discussed as a potential actor in the energy transition and are increasingly being established to advance the common interests of stakeholders. For example, the joint operation of decentralized power generation plants can involve new actors in the energy transition through regional cooperation (Walk, 2014). Existing biogas plants in Germany need new business models after the 20-year Renewable Energy Sources Act feed-in tariff expires. For continued operation, a business model innovation is needed, which can be realized based on the different technical utilization pathways. Cooperation can have a significant impact on the profitability of the different business models, especially by exploiting synergy effects (Karlsson et al., 2019). In addition, cooperation can help to ensure that existing plants continue to operate at all. Currently, the most widespread use of biogas in Germany is in the coupled generation of electricity and heat. Additionally, there is the possibility of upgrading biogas to biomethane or biogenic hydrogen path (Mertins & Wawer, 2022). Different options for cooperative business models that exist in the biogas utilization pathways are presented. The focus is on explaining the advantages of a joint approach compared to single-farm business models and identifying the relevant actors. Subsequently, drivers and barriers for the different cooperative business models are identified and classified based on 20 semi-structured interviews with plant operators in the administrative district of Osnabrück. The aim is to identify drivers and barriers for cooperative post-EEG operation. As a result, political instruments are to be found that make it possible to involve relevant actors and thus stimulate the best possible continued operation from the point of view of the energy system. The results are structured according to the PESTEL analysis. This assigns drivers and barriers to the categories political, economic, sociocultural, technological, ecological and legal (Kaufmann, 2021). The analysis of the interviews is supplemented and validated by a literature review. Drivers and barriers for cooperative business models are manifold and can vary mainly depending on the plant and the operator. Drivers • Political o Promotion of renewable energies: reduce dependence on fossil (Russian) fuels • Economic o Expectation of synergies (information sharing, shared risk, economies of scale) o Planning security (fixed supply or purchase contracts) o Access to new markets (not accessible by single-farm business models) o Cost savings by sharing infrastructure, technology o Positive return expectation • Sociocultural o Motivating, innovative environment o Lowers barriers to participation in new markets o Target-oriented partnerships o Better use of capacities and strengths o Strengthening regional value creation • Technological o Economies of scale (efficiency) o Available, mature technology o Storable, transportable gas o Well-developed infrastructure • Ecological o Increase in plant efficiency o Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions o Promotion of the circular economy by utilization of organic waste and agricultural residues o Improving soil quality (fermentation residues as fertilizer) Barriers • Political o Competition to other renewable energies • Economic o Uncertainty about future development of energy markets o Disagreements between the cooperation partners o Lack of flexibility due to longer-term contractual obligations o Allocation of profits • Sociocultural o Cooperation with current competitor o Cultural differences and lack of trust o Acceptance by the general public (e.g. overproduction of maize) • Technological o Different technology that is difficult to combine o Data protection • Ecological o Competition for agricultural land o Use of monocultures o Emissions from plant o Pollution from transport • Legal o Legal requirements and regulations o Unfavorable regulatory environment, e.g. long permitting process One finding is that uncertainty is a major barrier for plant operators. This includes uncertainty about regulatory frameworks and political requirements, as well as about the general development of the energy markets. In addition, social factors such as lack of reliability and disagreement about revenue sharing are a potential barrier. A key driver for the implementation of cooperative business models is the expectation of synergy effects. In addition, operators are driven by a positive expectation of returns and the responsibility for securing the energy supply in times of crisis. The drivers identified can now be used to develop strategies to advance cooperative business models. In particular, synergy effects should be exploited so that operators can benefit from cooperation. The advantages can also be highlighted and communicated to increase acceptance among the general public. Another important step is to reduce the barriers discussed above. In order to reduce social barriers in particular, it may be advisable to include an external partner in the cooperation, such as a municipal utility that operates an upgrading plant and concludes purchase agreements with the individual partners. In addition, it would be politically expedient to provide the operators with a clear framework for the future in order to reduce uncertainties. As a further aspect, knowledge transfer on new technologies and markets should take place.

Currently, soil nutrient analysis involves two separate processes for soil sampling and nutrient analysis: 1. field soil sampling and 2. laboratory analysis. These two - separate - main work processes are combined and conceptualised for a mobile field laboratory so that soil sampling and analysis can be carried out simultaneously in the field. The module-based field laboratory "soil2data" can carry out these two main work processes in parallel and consists of 5 different task-specific modules that build on each other: app2field, field2soil, app2liquid, liquid2data and data2app. The individual modules were designed and built for the sub-process steps and adapted to the special features of the mobile field laboratory "soil2data". The biggest advantage is that the analysis results are available immediately, and a fertiliser recommendation can be generated instantly. For further analyses, the results are stored in the data cloud. The soil material remains in the field. In the ongoing project "Prototypes4soil2data", the mobile field laboratory soil2data is being further developed into a prototype with a modular structure.