The revised example sentence is
- This is making your home work harder.
There are two verbs (make and work), hence there are two clauses. Both have subjects, but only make has an object; work in the sense of 'expend energy' invoked by the adverb harder is intransitive.
The subject of is making, the main verb in the sentence, is This.
The subject of work, the verb in the infinitive clause, is your home.
The direct object of is making is the infinitive clause (for) your home (to) work harder.
The key question is whether make in this construction has an indirect object. Since indirect objects are invariably sentient, this should let out your home as the receiver. It certainly doesn't work with ordinary infinitive complements. Unless we're talking about AI, in which case we have personification.
- *I told your home to work harder.
- *She ordered her car to go faster.
But make is what linguists call a "small verb"; it's got a lot of individual peculiarities and has all kinds of idiomatic constructions it participates in. One sign of its small-verbness is the fact that not only is the for marking the subject of the infinitive deleted -- which is normal -- but the to marking the verb of the infinitive is also deleted -- which is not normal. Verbs like make that take to-less infinitives are special.
In particular, make can pass the tests for B-Equi if its indirect object is human. E.g,
- We made her be examined by Dr. Jones.
does not mean the same as
- We made Dr. Jones examine her.
But with a non-human NP, it appears to be B-Raising instead of B-Equi; in
- She made it rain.
- He made the shit hit the fan.
the dummy it and idiom the shit must originate in the infinitive, and they're metaphoric so they can't be the indirect object of make. And it fails the passive test
- She made the truss be supported by the rafter.
does mean the same as
- She made the rafter support the truss.
tl;dr - make is a very odd verb, and even small sentences with odd verbs can get complicated.