How to manage the software lifecycle

IEC eTech 

article here

Software and AI systems become less secure with age. The issue is gaining increasing momentum with the IEC developing much needed standards.

As digital systems age, they become harder to secure, harder to maintain and increasingly vulnerable to exploitation. In sectors where outages or cyber attacks can threaten public safety, the question of how to retire software safely is now an issue of national resilience. While AI systems are much more recent than old software packages, the issue still must be dealt with as it could become a huge problem sooner than later. (For more on the decommissioning of AI Systems, read this interview in e-tech.) IEC and ISO have prepared standards dealing with both.

The scale of the problem is huge

A study published in November 2025 by WPI Strategy, commissioned by Cisco, highlights the scale of the problem across critical national infrastructure (CNI). According to WPI Strategy: “In 2020, nearly half of business network infrastructure globally was estimated to be obsolete or ageing, making it harder to patch, harder to secure, and easier to exploit.”

The report compares end‑of‑life (EOL) exposure across the US, UK, France, Germany and Japan. It found that the UK has the highest relative exposure to EOL systems. Japan exhibited the lowest exposure, reflecting sustained investment in lifecycle management. In the US, 80% of federal IT spend goes to maintaining existing systems.

Healthcare sector at risk from using outdated systems

Healthcare is one of the most exposed sectors. A 2025 report from one local trust within the UK’s National Health Service outlines the risks: “The network infrastructure… has become obsolete, lacking vendor support. This increases the risk of failure.” The report confirms that legacy issues affect electronic patient records (EPR) and the electronic prescribing and medicines administration (EPMA) as well as clinical decision support systems.

It warns that failure of certain EOL components could be “catastrophic” by impacting the whole of the organization. It is not without precedent. A 2024 cyber attack demonstrated how outdated systems amplify ransomware attacks, leading to cancelled surgeries and huge financial losses.

This case is emblematic of a broader trend. Institutions like hospitals often rely on outdated network hardware, unsupported operating systems and legacy applications that cannot easily be patched or upgraded.

Legacy problems for critical infrastructure

Legacy systems can put public infrastructure at risk. While grid systems increasingly rely on new AI models for processes such as load forecasting and predictive maintenance by ingesting vast amounts of telemetry from substations, sensors and grid assets, they also rely on legacy software systems. If these are not retired appropriately, they can play a part in producing inaccurate predictions that cascade into operational instability. They also can be easily hacked, especially if they are older systems that are not kept up to date with security patches and updates.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an enforcement alert in May 2024 urging water system operators to conduct cyber security risk assessments. Software systems do not simply expire. Instead, they become misaligned with new systems and data inputs. They may continue operating long after they become outdated or their performance degrades.

In hospitals, this could mean a triage model that once performed well begins making unsafe recommendations. In electricity networks, a forecasting model may become unreliable as consumption patterns shift.

Keeping the machine running

Retiring software isn’t a matter of deleting files or shutting down servers. It’s a question of preserving national capabilities whose functionality must endure long after the hardware they are operating on has been replaced.

Hardware ages quickly; software, at least conceptually, does not. But the two are inseparable. And in that tension lies one of the most pressing challenges for modern infrastructure. “Even though software designers try to reduce hardware dependency through abstractions, and standards help with that, there is always some dependency. Changing hardware often forces changes in software,” explains Sundeep Oberoi, Chair of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7, the joint subcommittee between ISO and IEC responsible for software and systems engineering standards.

While hardware churns, software persists: servers are replaced every few years, networking technologies leapfrog one another, mobile phones are frequently discarded because they can’t support the latest operating system. “This is where technology debt accumulates,” Oberoi says. “Legacy systems, such as COBOL-based tax platforms for instance, continue to perform essential functions, but the ecosystems around them move on. Re‑architecting them becomes risky, expensive and unavoidable.”

The industry’s answer is evergreening: treating software renewal as a continuous process rather than a crisis-driven overhaul. “We’re nowhere near that ideal, but it’s the direction of travel,” Oberoi agrees. The hope is that AI will assist in evergreening by identifying dependencies, mapping impacts, and guiding change. “Conceptually, software has always had the ability to examine itself, self-replicate and change. This is inherent in the idea of a universal machine. AI sharpens those techniques and makes them much more powerful,” Oberoi adds.

But there are limits he acknowledges. “We’re nowhere close to the point where AI decides something needs to change - such as requiring a different processor - and can build that processor on its own,” he says. “Biological systems contain enough information to assemble themselves but AI systems do not. AI may help us realize what needs to be done. But the ecosystem still has to do it.”

Standards are essential for decommissioning both AI and software systems

International standards supported by rigorous lifecycle management, proactive investment and transparent governance are one of the ways of ensuring that critical infrastructure remains resilient, secure and trustworthy, as technology evolves.

ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 brings structure and consistency to the way organizations engineer and manage AI systems from concept through maintenance and evolution, including disposal. Recently published ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 is to software what ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 is to AI systems and deals with retiring software rather than disposal. ISO/IEC 5338 describes the lifecycle of AI systems based on machine learning and heuristic systems. It is based on ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 and ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207 with modifications and additions of AI-specific processes. These internationally recognized guidelines define clear decommissioning triggers which could be due to regulatory changes; replacement by a validated successor; end of business need; risk of cyber security exposure; and model drift.

Yet another standard, ISO/IEC 8183, defines explicit “data decommissioning” and “system decommissioning” of an AI systems’ stages to manage data and model artefacts responsibly.  This is essential in hospitals, where patient data must be retained for legal reasons but protected from exposure. ISO/IEC 42001 requires organizations to: “plan and manage the decommissioning of AI systems in a controlled manner… ensuring that data and model artefacts are disposed of appropriately.”

These documents define how engineered systems evolve from conception to retirement. But even they have limits. Oberoi explains, “SC 7 models systems only to the extent they can be represented as information. It doesn’t model the physics of a hard disk, only the way data is stored on it. As a result, the committee has not yet confronted the question of what to do with obsolete equipment - only how to preserve the information it contains.”

Of course, software is no longer the domain of large corporations with deep process expertise. It’s built everywhere into startups, micro-businesses and small development shops. That’s why SC 7 developed ISO/IEC 29110-7-1:2026 for Very Small Entities (VSEs). “Smaller entities don’t necessarily have the competence or resources that large organizations do,” Oberoi explains. The VSE work takes existing SC 7 standards for testing frameworks and lifecycle models and scales them down without diluting their intent.

Together, these standards give critical infrastructure operators a structured way to plan for end‑of‑life and manage AI drift, to retire systems safely and reduce cyber security exposure. Those charged with decommissioning software must leave a clear audit trail for how the system operated including its known limitations, the reasons for retirement plus evidence of safe disposal.

How standards are powering a second life for batteries

IEC eTECH

article here

The case for reusing batteries is more relevant than ever and the IEC is providing the framework to make it happen.

Batteries sit at the heart of the clean energy transition. They enable the electrification of transport, support the integration of renewable energy and underpin the digital systems that shape modern life. Yet the growing wave of batteries reaching the end of their first life poses a challenge in terms of their disposal and an opportunity as they can be given a second life.

The surge in electric vehicle (EV) deployment in particular means millions of batteries will soon reach the end of their automotive life. Yet these batteries retain substantial residual capacity and offer precious resources. As the International Energy Agency (IEA) notes, battery recycling has the potential to be a significant secondary source of supply of critical minerals that is more sustainable and less geographically concentrated than primary supply. But more than that, repurposing and reusing them offers a powerful opportunity to reduce waste, conserve resources and support the energy transition.

Without reuse or recycling, however, these batteries risk becoming a significant source of hazardous waste. IEC TC 21 is the IEC technical committee responsible for the standardization of all types of rechargeable cells and batteries. “Batteries at the end of their life can release toxic pollutants if not disposed of correctly, generally contribute to the problem of e‑waste if not reused, recycled or repurposed,” warns Thomas Dittrich, the Chair of IEC TC 21.

The environmental cost of battery production is already substantial. As outlined in e‑tech: Are batteries the weak link in a circular economy?, mining lithium, cobalt and nickel carries heavy environmental and social burdens. Manufacturing batteries is also energy‑intensive, with supply chains still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. These factors make the case for extending battery life even stronger: every additional year of use reduces pressure on mining, manufacturing and recycling systems.

Batteries can be repurposed for many uses

The market for second life batteries is expanding rapidly. According to recent analyses, the global market for these is projected to grow from USD 1,24 billion (bn) in 2025 to reach USD 8,93 bn by 2035. This growth is driven by rising EV adoption, increased reliance on renewable energy and regulatory frameworks encouraging circularity. 

Second life batteries are finding applications across a wide range of sectors. Their most common use is in stationary energy storage, where lower power demands and predictable cycling (for more on battery cycling read: What is battery cycling? Energy storage guide for 2026) make repurposed EV batteries ideal. Aachen, North Rhine-Westphalia houses Europe’s largest second-life battery storage factory with up to 1 Gigawatt/hour (GWh) production capacity.

Some pundits have estimated that EV batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand by as early as 2030, creating a new value pool for the power sector. These second life batteries can be used to store excess solar and wind energy, provide backup power for hospitals and data centres and support microgrids in remote communities. They  can also help commercial and industrial facilities reduce peak demand charges, improving resilience and lowering energy costs.

Beyond stationary storage, second life batteries are increasingly used to support the EV charging infrastructure. The EV charging segment is expected to grow at a compound  annual growth rate (CAGR)  of 43,9%  until 2031, according to this 2024 report, driven by the need to buffer grid demand at fast‑charging stations. Repurposed batteries can store energy during off‑peak hours and release it during high demand periods, reducing strain on local grids and enabling charging hubs to operate in areas with limited grid capacity.

Commercial and industrial back-up power is another major growth area. Businesses are adopting repurposed batteries to enhance resilience, reduce reliance on diesel generators and support sustainability goals. Residential storage is also expanding quickly, with homeowners using second‑life batteries to store solar energy and provide backup power during outages.

Second life batteries are not limited to storage applications. They are increasingly used in automated guided vehicles (AGVs), street lighting, off‑grid systems, telecom base stations and portable power units. EVs with reduced performance needs such as golf carts and forklifts is another market for second-life batteries. These applications demonstrate the versatility of repurposed batteries and their potential to support a wide range of industries.

Challenges for second life batteries

Despite their promise, second life batteries face several challenges. Assessing battery health, for example, is not straightforward. Repurposers must evaluate metrics including internal resistance, capacity fade, thermal stability, mechanical integrity and battery management system compatibility.

This highlights the need for robust testing and certification. IECEE (IEC System of Conformity Assessment Schemes for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components) is one of the four conformity assessment systems administered by the IEC. It runs a scheme which tests the safety, performance, component interoperability, energy efficiency, electromagnetic compatibility and hazardous substance of batteries. Since used batteries come from different manufacturers and have different chemistries and form factors, integration into new systems can be tricky without harmonized standards.

Economic viability is another concern. Repurposing must be cost‑competitive against recycling or the purchase of new batteries. While commercial and industrial markets show strong promise, business models are still evolving. Nonetheless, the combination of regulatory pressure, technological advances and growing demand for affordable storage is creating favourable conditions for second life deployment.

IEC is leading the way on standards for reuse

The IEC has developed a comprehensive suite of standards addressing reuse, repurposing, safety and environmental performance. “One of the roles of TC 21 is to standardize second life aspects of batteries, including preparation for dismantling and recycling,” explains Dittrich.

The recently published IEC 63338 provides general guidance on the reuse and repurposing of secondary cells and batteries, covering safety risks associated with lithium‑ion and nickel systems, suitability assessment and manufacturer warnings, as well as sets out general requirements for repurposing secondary cells, modules, packs and systems. IEC 62933‑4‑4 addresses environmental requirements for battery‑based energy storage systems using reused batteries, while IEC 62933‑5‑3 specifies safety requirements for grid‑integrated energy storage systems.

“We also have worked on IEC TR 63330‑2, a technical report on the repurposing of secondary batteries,” Dittrich adds. “That work focuses on classifying batteries for second life applications and determining whether they are safe enough to be reused. The challenge is that you often don’t know what happened to a battery during its first life, so the group is developing non‑destructive methods to assess condition.”

Down the road, the TC is looking at developing another potential standard. “We are also planning a quality management standard for companies dismantling EV batteries down to module level and reassembling them for applications such as stationary energy storage. It is still at a preliminary work item stage. Before moving forward on this work, we need to expand our scope as it currently doesn’t include management systems,” Dittrich says.

IEC example of battery reuse on the ground

The IEC Impact Alliance is partnering with organizations which can help the IEC turn the value of the work it does in electrical, electronic and ICT standards and conformity assessment into tangible benefits for the communities who need them most. An example is the work with Differ Community Power (DCP), an international provider of solar energy services. The project in rural Kenya repurposes used electric car batteries to revive dead or dormant solar panels at local schools and health centres. This scalable project connects communities and reduces e-waste at the same time. It brings long-lasting benefits to everyone, empowering local people to maintain their solar systems by training them on best practices through the use of international standards and conformity assessment.

Enforcing digital transparency

Digital passports are a separate approach which could potentially give all the information required about the first life of a battery. The IEC and ISO have established a joint committee, ISO/IEC JTC 5, to develop the global framework for Digital Product Passports (DPPs). A DPP is a digital record that stores key information about a product’s origins, repairability, and recycling instructions. (Read more on this topic in the interview with IEC/ISO JTC 5 Chair.)In Europe, the EU Batteries Regulation (2023/1542) embeds circularity across the battery lifecycle and mandates Digital Battery Passports for EV and industrial batteries from 2027 onwards.

The Global Battery Alliance Battery Passport initiative complements this work, providing ESG benchmarks, carbon footprint methodologies and digital infrastructure for supply chain transparency.

“The DPP requires two things,” explains Dittrich. “First, an IT system capable of handling all the data: access rights, data storage, who can read or write what. The European Commission issued a standardization request for this and the European standardization organization CEN-CENELEC has now published five standards covering the IT architecture for DPPs across multiple sectors - not just batteries, but textiles, construction and more.

“Batteries are the first product category being used to test the concept. The second part is battery‑specific data. For that, there is no standardization request. The Commission has instead issued guidance documents describing the required data points for the battery passport. A key element of the passport is the state of health of the battery, which is essential for determining whether a battery can transition from first life to second life.”

Evolution of the technology

Technological advances are improving the feasibility of second life deployment. AI‑driven diagnostics enable faster and more accurate grading of used batteries. Modular pack designs simplify disassembly and repurposing. 

Advanced battery management systems improve safety and performance in second‑life applications. Hydrometallurgical and direct recycling methods are becoming more efficient, reducing the environmental impact of end‑of‑life processing. Hybrid energy systems combining batteries with hydrogen or thermal storage offer new pathways for resilience and sustainability.

Other IEC Technical Committees play important roles relating to battery standards. IEC TC 120, responsible for electrical energy storage systems, developed IEC 62933-5-4, which specifies safety test methods for lithium‑ion battery‑based systems. IEC TC 111, which focuses on environmental standardization, has issued IEC 63395, addressing sustainable e‑waste management and extended producer responsibility. The IEC Advisory Committee for Environmental Aspects (ACEA) monitors key environmental challenges, including material efficiency and e‑waste, ensuring that standardization keeps pace with emerging issues.

Second‑life batteries are poised to become a cornerstone of the circular economy. They extend battery life, reduce waste, support renewable energy and unlock new value pools across the power sector. Standards developed by IEC TC 21 and its subcommittee, SC 21A, provide the technical foundation for repurposing across global markets. They ensure that repurposed batteries meet stringent safety, performance, and environmental criteria, enabling manufacturers, integrators and operators to deploy second‑life systems with confidence.

 

Improving the circularity of MedTech

IEC eTECH

article here

Standards are helping the medical sector to move to more circular practices but ensuring that patients remain safe is the foundational principle behind these changes.

The global healthcare sector is under mounting pressure to reduce its environmental footprint. Medical devices themselves are a major contributor to waste, carbon emissions and resource depletion. As demand for healthcare rises, so does the volume of disposable products, electronic waste and high‑value equipment prematurely discarded.

According to a report by strategic consultancy EY, “approximately 90% of medical device waste comprises disposable, one‑time‑use products or components”. At the same time, healthcare accounts for “five percent of overall worldwide carbon emissions,” a figure that underscores the urgency of rethinking how medical devices are designed, used and recovered.

“Healthcare systems worldwide are under increasing pressure to reduce waste, carbon emissions and resource consumption, while improving efficiency and delivering safe, high‑quality patient care, despite growing demand and constrained resources,” says Kristina Lönnqvist, Global Corporate Sustainability Director at a Swedish MedTech company specializing in sustainable solutions. “The narrative has broadened beyond environmental concerns and is increasingly about resource security and supply‑chain resilience. So it's also becoming business critical as well.”

Circularity, which can be described as the principle of designing products and systems to eliminate waste, extend their material life and regenerate resources, is emerging as a powerful problem-solving framework. But unlike consumer electronics or industrial equipment, medical devices operate in a uniquely sensitive environment. Patient and medical staff safety, sterilization, biocompatibility and regulatory compliance are paramount.

“Designing for circularity is about creating products and solutions that maximize the value of resources, minimize waste and help improve patient outcomes,” says Lönnqvist. “This means that, where safe and appropriate, products are designed to be recycled or recirculated in a way that supports a circular economy where resources are kept in use for as long as possible.”

The growing problem of medical waste

The MedTech industry is dominated by single-use disposable products and, as EY notes, these “play a significant role in generating large amounts of non-recycled waste.” The COVID‑19 pandemic accelerated this trend, with single‑use PPE, testing kits, and consumables driving unprecedented waste volumes.

The environmental consequences are severe. Single‑use devices generate a high level of carbon emissions due to manufacturing, sterilization, packaging and transport. Take just one product: single-use catheters which are made of synthetic plastics such as Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). The UK’s National Health Service uses 100 million each year, at an estimated cost of GBP 200 million, and throws them all away - though new research into reusable catheters is expected to challenge this.

Harvard Medicine Magazine estimates that between 4,4% and 5,2% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are directly traceable to the healthcare sector. Research published by the National Library of Medicine in the US found medical devices accounted for 6-10% of national health systems’ carbon footprints. 

Increasing volumes of digital devices (comprising sensors, monitors, batteries) and products like smart catheters also contribute to growing e‑waste streams. In addition, poor disposal practices expose communities to toxic materials, infectious agents and pollution. The World Health Organization  (WHO) reports that 15% of healthcare-related waste is judged hazardous because of biological, chemical or radioactive contamination. For example, there are 16 billion injections administered every year, but not all needles and syringes are disposed of safely, “creating a risk of injury and infection.”

Despite the environmental cost, single‑use devices remain attractive to clinicians and hospital administrators for reasons of safety, workflow and regulation. Single‑use devices simplify logistics, enabling hospitals to avoid the need for a sterilization infrastructure, tracking systems, maintenance schedules and staff assigned to reprocessing. Furthermore, a lack of clear and consistent guidelines has resulted in “confusion around standards for reusable device reprocessing,” according to researchers.

The role of circularity in MedTech

Nonetheless, circularity in medical devices is progressing. Some companies are shifting towards designing products with modular components, using bio‑based plastics (such as surgical drapes made from bio‑materials rather than petroplastics) and with easier disassembly.

Some devices can be reused safely after decontamination. Catheters are being redesigned using silicone, making them easier to clean, thereby reducing antibiotic use and potentially saving hospitals millions of  any currency.

High‑value systems are prime candidates for refurbishment. MRI, ultrasound and computed tomography/CT machines are increasingly being “retrofitted and refurbished to achieve significant lifetime expansions.”

Some manufacturers incentivize customers to trade-in their older models in exchange for refurbished ones. This reduces demand for raw materials and lowers carbon emissions. “The question of sustainability is not as simple as single‑patient use versus multi‑patient use,” Lönnqvist cautions. “We need to look at the evidence across the full lifecycle and balance environmental, human and economic impacts so we understand which solution delivers the best overall outcome for the specific clinical application.”

The company’s portfolio spans wound care, staff clothing, drapes, surgical gloves, antiseptics and procedure packs. Many products remain single‑use for safety and infection‑prevention reasons, but circularity is being built into the design, manufacturing and customer support.

One example is that instead of procuring single‑packed items, the company customizes a solution for a specific surgical intervention, claiming to reduce packaging waste by up to 90% compared to single-packed supplies. “MedTech companies that choose to adopt circular product designs can make a real difference while maintaining profitable operations,” EY concludes.

International standards play a key role but gaps remain

International standards are essential to ensure that circular practices do not compromise safety or performance. “Standards are critical to scaling circular solutions,” Lönnqvist says. “They create common definitions, methodologies and metrics that build trust, uphold patient and medical staff safety and allow actors across the value chain to work in the same way. If we are to scale a new circular‑economy business model, all ecosystem partners need to have the same confidence in the system.”

However, standards must align with existing medical‑device regulations - an area where gaps remain. In the European regulatory landscape, according to Lönnqvist, these include, firstly, the lack of a clear definition of secondary raw materials: “We would like to see clearer and more harmonized frameworks for how we define secondary raw materials for medical devices. This means when waste becomes a resource that can safely re‑enter the value chain.”

Secondly, common methodologies for sustainability assessment and product‑level sustainability data are required: “Healthcare providers need to be able to more easily compare solutions consistently. That doesn't exist today.”

Lastly, more work is needed on the treatment of medical waste: “Much of the waste is currently incinerated due to regulatory requirements, particularly when it is contaminated, meaning valuable materials are lost from the system. At the same time, alternative technologies such as mechanical and chemical recycling are available, creating an opportunity for policy and innovation to evolve together.”

This is precisely where international standards play a defining role. IEC technical committees, particularly TC 62, which issues standards for medical devices, software and systems, and TC 111, which prepares environmental standards for electronics, are laying the foundation for safe, effective and globally harmonized circular practices. Their work is essential to enabling refurbishment, reuse, recycling and responsible end-of-life treatment without compromising clinical performance.

IEC 63077 provides guidelines for the refurbishment of medical imaging equipment “ensuring safety and performance comparable to new equipment.” It covers repair, software/hardware updates and replacement of worn parts. It excludes endoscopic and radiation therapy equipment but sets a global benchmark for safe refurbishment.

IEC TR 62635 concerns recyclability and recoverability. This technical report “provides a comprehensive methodology for information exchange between manufacturers and recyclers”. It defines recyclability rates, recoverability rates and end‑of‑life scenarios as well as removal requirements for hazardous components. It applies to all electrical and electronic equipment, including medical devices. For supply chain transparency IEC TR 62635 enables recyclers to understand device composition and safe handling requirements.

Yet another important development is the creation of a new joint committee between IEC and ISO, ISO/IEC JTC 5, which is preparing the framework for digital product passports (DPPs). A DPP is a digital record that stores key information about a product, such as its origins, repairability and how it should be recycled or reused, promoting greater transparency and efficiency across global value chains (Read more about DPPs in the interview with the new Chair Adrian von Mühlenen).

Lastly, testing and certification can ensure the standards are applied and used correctly by industry. The IEC administers four different conformity assessment systems, two of which have some relevance here. IECEE (IEC System of Conformity Assessment Schemes for Electrotechnical Equipment and Components) covers testing and certification for the safety, reliability, efficiency and overall performance of electrical equipment for medical use to IEC International Standards, whether new or refurbished. 

IECQ (the IEC Quality Assessment System) operates an international ecodesign certification scheme  which assesses product design in accordance with IEC 62430, the dual IEC and ISO logo standard which defines the principles, requirements and guidance for environmentally conscious design. It encourages manufacturers, including of medical equipment, to think of reuse in the early design stages of the product. (For more on this aspect and  IEC Standards, read: ...).

Advances vary in different regions

While the trend toward sustainable MedTech is global, momentum is not uniform. “Even within European markets, there are more mature, more advanced markets where we already see procurement and tender requirements around circular solutions,” Lönnqvist reports. European Union regulations such as EU MDR 2017/745 impose strict requirements for reprocessing, traceability, and component replacement. This is being amended to include “reprocessing” for single-use devices which includes cleaning, disinfection, sterilization and related procedures.

Lönnqvist welcomes the change to the regulation but stresses, “patient safety comes first and must remain the main concern of the EU MDR. We are confident there are ways to reduce the environmental footprint without putting patients at risk. If we can combine environmental performance with creating value in circular business‑economy models for healthcare providers, circular solutions have the potential to move from individual initiatives into a scalable business model. We are convinced of that.”

The next decade will determine whether healthcare can resolve its escalating waste challenge and significantly reduce emissions. Standards will be the foundation on which that transformation is built.

 

World Athletics reimagines track and field broadcast with data at the Ultimate Championship

SVG Europe

article here

World Athletics is accelerating its push to modernise the presentation of athletics, introducing a series of broadcast‑focused innovations designed to make the sport more accessible, data‑rich and engaging for global audiences. Central to this effort is a new near‑realtime performance visualisation system for sprint races, developed in partnership with Sony and host broadcaster HBS.

It had its world debut at the National Athletics Centre, Budapest, 11-13 September during the inaugural WA Ultimate Championship. SVG Europe were given an exclusive tour.

Enhancing the Finish‑Line Moment

For World Athletics, the sprint finish remains one of the sport’s most compelling but least explored storytelling opportunities. Chief Information Officer An Dang Duy, who oversees competition‑results technology and data systems, said the brief to Sony was rooted in this challenge.

“Athletics is all about pure performance…yet the way we experience it hasn’t evolved much for a long time,” he said. While athlete tracking and race analysis have improved, the federation wanted to go further. “We wanted to use technology for what we call broadcast augmentation — how can we use technology for storytelling?”

The blue riband event of any athletics meet is the 100 metres. It’s the star of the show but barely lasts 10‑seconds while the finish occurs in fractions of a second. Traditional broadcast tools offer limited ways to unpack what happened. “Everyone knows the feel of the finish, but it’s very difficult sometimes to appreciate how the first athletes cross the line. We felt there was more to explore around that.”

The solution is the Virtual Finish Line (VFL) — a near‑realtime 3D reconstruction of the final metres of a sprint, generated from optical‑tracking data.

The Photo Finish remains the official tool to decide race outcome, officiated by IAAF judges, and captured by high speed cameras taking thousands of frames per second, but it’s not meant for a broadcast experience.

“What we are doing is extending the photo finish for fans. Sprint races are something fans enjoy a lot so we wanted to build more stories around that. You see the finish in slow motion or with views no one has experienced before. It’s a new way of showing it. This is limited only by our ideas, because the data is all there.”

The need for speed

One of the key requirements was speed. The VFL output needed to be available quickly enough to be used like a replay.

Dang Duy added: “If it takes one hour, it’s not good for us.” The goal was to make the VFL usable during celebrations, analysis segments and for immediate post‑race storytelling with a variety of angles and clips served up to the broadcast director like an EVS.

“So we pushed Sony, and they’ve done a great job reducing the processing to less than one minute. That means the rendering can come in the same fashion as slow motion, so it can be embedded into the story.”

Dang Duy distinguishes the system from the on-screen presentation derived from 360-degree camera arrays by OBS to convey Olympic sports like BMX. “It’s not video shot differently — we are using cameras to collect data. We are turning data into video. Thanks to that data, you can recreate anything you want.

“You might have seen other sports trying to recreate views — that’s just video with some implementation. Here, we are working with raw data. The concept is quite different from video‑based approaches.

“We are capturing every movement and turning it into a data point. In other sports, a lot of data capture goes on, but the insight is often not shown to the public. It’s private and team data. Our focus has been to use it for fan experience.

He continued, “We might not show everything [as part of the international feed], but we have different versions of the finish‑line moment. You can do whatever you want — augment reality on top, be in a different stadium or a different year. It’s as if you can rewind — like a time machine — and say, ‘This time I want to shoot from this angle.’”

In fact, the VPL for sprinting is the first application for the optical tracking and processing technology – with more track and field disciplines including vertical designs for pole vault being explored using the same underlying technology.

A platform for future data‑driven enhancements

The system already captures full biomechanical data. Future applications could include deeper analysis segments, or expanded AR overlays. “You can overlay more data. You can extract more data. It will expand to another discipline,” Dang Duy said.

‘Alternative’ broadcasts of the live event rendered in different graphical styles for sponsors or audiences (as trialled by the Bundesliga during the Supercup at Dortmund last month) for distribution to YouTube or Twitch might also be possible.

“Broadcast is the starting point but we are going to prioritise and discuss what makes the most sense. The Ultimate is a bit like a lab for us — we want to try new things. We hope this will be very welcome. So far, everyone we have shown the rendering to has been quite excited. You need to see it working in a live event, but we are confident.”

Coaches and athletes are interested in using the data to enhance their own performance. “We can see exactly what happened such as take‑off speed, how an athlete’s feet are positioned out of the blocks. It has multiple uses.”

He also described the Ultimate as World Athletics’ version of Formula 1. “When you first introduce something innovative, it costs money because of R&D but the idea is to make it part of the standard. That means you make it cheaper over time, you optimise it, and hopefully it can be used elsewhere. We want to enhance the experience for everyone around athletics.

“I think we’re just at the beginning now, trying to understand how to tell the story with data. We capture so much data so the creative question is what story do we want to tell?”

It may even influence other sports. “I’m quite confident that once [other sport federations see it] they will ask, ‘Why are we not doing it?’ Which is good. When people try to copy you, you’re doing something right.”

 

Making the case for Europe’s sovereign media cloud

Streaming Media

article here

European public service media have taken a decisive step toward a shared cloud future, with a new feasibility study revealing that a pan‑European cloud ecosystem is not only technically possible but increasingly necessary.

“This is not about saying no to US hyperscalers,” said Brian Wynne, Head of Technology Infrastructure at RTÉ and Chair of the EBU Technical Committee. “It’s about complementing, the their activities with the European cloud environment.”

The idea is to counter potential US dominance of public media infrastructure in Europe with the building of a common cloud to preserve sovereignty and resilience.

In 2025, EBU Members jointly defined a Shared Cloud Ecosystem for European Public Service Media, complete with a vision and strategy. The feasibility study presented at IBC is the first major test of that strategy.

“The overwhelming finding is that it can work,” Wynne said. “But there are hurdles we should be aware of and navigate.”

The strategy is built on several pillars: digital sovereignty, cloud‑native design, hybrid portability, shared innovation, and the ability for European public service broadcasters (PSBs) to collectively influence the cloud market rather than remain passive customers of hyperscalers.

Professor Thomas Streinz, Joint Chair at the European University Institute, who co‑authored the study, said the team conducted extensive background research and interviewed 13 PSBs plus cloud suppliers, policymakers and academics.

The findings confirmed that PSBs rely on multiple cloud providers, that US hyperscalers dominate current deployments and that migration costs and organisational complexity remain barriers.

“None of these barriers are insurmountable,” Streinz said.

More interesting, is the emerging appetite for a mixed ecosystem of EU and non‑EU cloud providers. “This shift aligns with the EBU’s sovereignty goals,” he said. “Provided there is political will, financial capacity, and a willingness to overcome organisational and social challenges.”

One surprising result was the lack of enthusiasm for shared solutions. Despite the strategy’s emphasis on “build once, share many times,” many PSBs admitted they are not yet designing systems with sharing in mind.

“You sense less of a mind‑sharing mindset than expected,” Streinz said. “That is something the strategy leaves open and something organisations will need to figure out.”

Cloud becomes a regulated industry

Cloud providers in Europe are facing rising regulatory obligations, while PSBs’ obligations remain largely unchanged.

“Public service media must anticipate what regulation will look like not just what it is today,” Streinz said.

The EU Cloud and AI Development Act for example “will define what sovereign cloud” actually means,” he said. “It will introduce assurance levels cloud providers must meet to serve public sector bodies.”

Another key piece of legislation is the EU’s Public Procurement Act which spans 300 pages and introduces significant changes.

“This will reshape how PSBs procure cloud services,” he said.

“Crucially, these laws are not written with public service media in mind but could be influenced.

“There is an opportunity here,” he said. “For once, regulation can be leveraged to your advantage.”

He also noted that cloud has been recognised as critical infrastructure in sectors like banking but not yet in public service media.

“We think that maybe it should be,” he said.

Need for collaboration

While the feasibility study highlighted the need for European cloud alternatives, StackIT’s represents one of the companies hoping to fill that gap.

StackIT began as a private cloud for German retailer Schwarz Group in 2018 and launched its public cloud two years ago. Brosi said the company has built a strong footprint in regulated industries and is now seeing rising interest from media organisations.

“They all tell us the same,” Tobias Brosi, Senior Sales Manager said. “We want to reduce our dependencies.”

StackIT positions itself as a sovereign, European alternative to US and Chinese hyperscalers.

“We don’t want to sell anything we don’t have,” he said. “We need collaboration. We cannot do it on our own. For the time being, we need a multi‑cloud approach. The hyperscalers have a 25‑year head start. We are still at the beginning.”

Brosi emphasised the importance of emerging media standards such as the EBU’s software defined digital media facility (DMF) which define future media architectures.

“If there’s huge client demand, we will work on those topics,” he said. “Media is a people business. We need to build this together.”

Going forward, using clear governance models, the study recommends prioritizing use cases and a coalition of willing broadcasters.

“If you want to work together, you need to figure out how, rather than waiting for all PSBs to move at once,” Streinz said.

Wynne agreed: “You can’t do everything all at once. But you can move ahead. Maybe not with everyone, but with those ready to develop.”

FAST is the next frontier of creator domination

IBC

article here

The creator economy is no longer a sideshow in Free Ad-Supported Streaming TV (FAST) but a core channel segment with platforms actively competing for content.

Rafi Cohen, Manager, Video Markets Tracker, 3Vision, presented fresh analysis to explain the trend in the Content Everywhere session: How Younger Audience Behaviour is Redefining TV. 

“FAST is clearly now a natural extension of creator monetisation,” he said. “YouTubers and social media influencers have deep content archives and a regular content pipeline which makes a 24/7 linear channel a perfect fit.

“They already have the library and when that library gets old, there's plenty more content on the way, made very cheaply. This trend is only set to continue and grow. 

From 3Vision’s Fast Tracker report of March this year we can see the far-reaching coverage of creator-led channels. “Samsung TV and Pluto have the lion's share. Amazon and Roku are cherry pecking big hitters and experimenting,” he said.  

Dumbass Studios for example is on Samsung only; while MrBeast is basically a household name across Samsung, Roku and Amazon.  

“It's a natural fit. Creators have honed their brand on social video. They've already cut their teeth there building a strong identity and strong fan base. That means by the time they arrive on a bloated FAST EPG they have the concise channel identity needed to survive.” 

The shift is part of a broader transformation in viewing behaviour. Younger audiences move fluidly between creator content, gaming, social video, streaming and linear — and traditional media is adapting. 

“YouTube is now a content development strategy, not just a distribution platform,” Cohen said. 

FAST is becoming a low‑risk, high‑reward space for platforms seeking fresh IP and built‑in audiences. 

“Wherever we look, studios and platforms are now building dedicated structures for creators,” Cohen said. “It’s not an afterthought. It’s integral to format development and distribution.” 

Broadcasters warn of ‘Decisive Decade’ as AI and IP upend the media value chain

Streaming Media

article here

Across Europe, North America and the UK, the transition from DTT to IP is already underway. But at the IBC Show in Amsterdam this week this is being framed as a fight for relevance, visibility and trust in a world dominated by YouTube and consumption algorithms.

“The polarisation between broadcasting and IP is completely wrong,”  said Antonio Arcidiacono, Director of Technology & Innovation at the EBU. “It goes against the laws of physics.”

He described a historic shift from the one‑to‑many broadcast era to the “many‑to‑many social media matrix” that now sits in every pocket. The next frontier, he said, is many‑to‑one: personalized, citizen‑centric media experiences powered by edge AI.

“AI is going to be absolutely central in how content is surfaced and how audiences are enriched,” Arcidiacono said. “If broadcasters want to stay relevant and visible, we must capture the interface between the citizen and the engine that serves them.”

Arcidiacono argued that public service media must invest “in layers of intelligence” rather than surrender that space to Apple, Google or any other platform owner. Edge intelligence, he said, is not only technically feasible but more sustainable and more controllable than cloud‑only models.

“The cards are being reshuffled, and we can redistribute them if we’re courageous enough,” he said.

ATSC 3.0, trust and the AI threat

Broadcasters in the US don’t see IP or over-the-air delivery as an either‑or, said Rebecca Hanson, Director‑General of the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA). Speaking on the same panel she said ATSC 3.0 is the American answer to the broadcast/IP debate.

“It’s a system that preserves the reliability of one‑to‑many transmission while enabling the personalisation and interactivity of IP.

Hanson was frank about the need for the FCC to sunset ATSC 1.0 to accelerate adoption — something the regulator has been unwilling to do. Meanwhile, spectrum continues to be auctioned off, shrinking the space broadcasters rely on, she said.

“Over‑the‑air audiences remain significant in the US, and in some regions they are even growing. But the clock is ticking. We need to get to where we want to be before the majority reaches a point of no return in the digital space.”

She warned of the risk to democracy if local cable TV stations are left to die. “No streamer is going to replace them with local content or local carriage,” she said.

She also fired a broadside at Big Tech calling its use of AI a direct threat to journalism’s financial and trust foundations.

“AI is not a friend of broadcasting,” Hanson said. “They’re stealing the content. They’re taking your journalism without paying for it, and they’re doing it with impunity.”

She cited studies showing click‑through rates dropping by 43–47% when AI summaries appear above news links in search results. “When those summaries are wrong — which happens frequently — the reputational damage falls on the original outlet. Whoever captures the AI layer captures the entire market and the entire financial value chain,” she said. “That’s the danger. It’s on us to push back against this and solve it.”

TV’s moonshot moment

Richard Lindsay‑Davies, CEO of the Digital TV Group (DTG), brought the UK perspective. The UK government has mandated transition to IP distribution by 2034, with a backstop in 2044.

“This transition isn’t about replacing television. It’s about making sure TV takes its place in a software‑defined, data‑driven future,” he said. “But there’s a risk: while focusing on the transition, we forget the destination.”

Fast‑forward to 2034 - “that’s day one of a new era of television,” he said. “It will be collective, data‑driven, and constantly evolving.”

He predicted that AI will reshape everything from content creation to user interfaces. “AI‑driven and AI‑curated experiences will create entirely new commercial opportunities. There will be formats that we haven’t even imagined yet.”

The biggest risk, he cautioned, “is that we don’t think big enough.”

“We need to think of the scale of the opportunity, not the scale of the obstacles,” he said. “Media is heading toward a data‑driven, generative future whether we like it or not. We need to be bold. We need to organise ourselves with a coordinated, efficient, effective transition.

“If we do that, we’ll hit that moonshot moment for TV at the end.”

Their comments followed a presentation by YouTube which as good as told broadcasters that their day in the sun was over.

Broadcasters, operators and platforms should “rethink collaboration” with Google’s video site, Marc Heufelder, Country Manager, YouTube Product Partnerships DACH told the IBC Show.

“Massive opportunities are only available for those willing to integrate YouTube natively into their ecosystem,” he said.

 The TV is officially YouTube’s leading and fastest‑growing platform globally, he added. Every day, users stream more than one billion hours of YouTube content on living‑room devices. Every minute, 500 hours of new content are uploaded.

“The question is not whether we compete on the same screen,” Heufelder said. “It’s whether we collaborate to create more success for everyone.”

YouTube is rolling out Multiview, a feature that lets users drag and drop multiple live feeds into a single TV screen.

It is also testing Conversational AI, powered by Google’s Gemini models, allowing viewers to interact directly with content on their TV.  

Heufelder said YouTube would give broadcasters the tools for audiences to find their content.

“If audiences can’t find the content they want, you lose discoverability, metadata, engagement — and potentially the customer relationship,” he said.

Its solution is native integration including a feature called Dynamic Content Rails.

“We allow partners to integrate YouTube content as a carousel directly into their UX,” Heufelder said. “Every minute, 500 hours of new content are uploaded. We give partners full control to programme that catalogue for their audience.”

“We are part of the game,” Heufelder. “But we need to co‑service our content natively in your system.”