Smart cities remains a marketing term. There never will be ‘the’ business model of ‘the’ smart city. At best, it may come to represent a high level business architecture with a series of horizontal yet mostly vertical business models underneath. So many innovations coined under the smart city banner over the past 20 years matured pretty well within their vertical, but fail to get the same type of attention. Think energy management for buildings. Today, itts mainstream, boring, nothing to brag about. But it was the typical type of solution on a smart city agenda in, say, 2007, it being regarded as pretty futuristic at the time
It depends on the care-abouts of your city. One can have a great urban innovation agenda that truly succeeds without having an emphasis on mobility. That said, mobility does happen to be an area most cities do have an innovation agenda on and that may trigger innovations in other verticals as a consequence.
a growing number of cities (big and small) are focused on mobility as their “first doorway” into a much larger universe of tech-tools. this is generally a good thing – but some cities get stuck trying to reverse engineer a wider data platform, and the choices which they made around mobility-tech can be a limiting factor.
I’ll assume that the focus of John’s question is on the tech choices being made by government executives. If so this is a useful question here, today, b/c it goes right to the heart of a real dilemma. It’s the same dilemma that’s now facing those leaders who’re working hard to effectuate human-centered/positive changes aided by advanced technological innovations. I’d define the dilemma this way: how to have the best possible tools enable those positive changes, accelerating us on the path forward to economies which are much fairer, far more sustainable, and truly inclusive/equitable.
1 Like
@Alberto -
you asked “What reactions did such harsh criticism elicit in companies in the Smart Cities business?”.
some of the most savvy companies reacted in ways that show them to be good listeners.
other companies behaved like children/adolescents, insofar as they’re not showing themselves to be good listeners who are willing to learn and to be flexible.
1 Like
And there is too much copying: the idea that without some type of street automation plan (mobility included) you cannot be a smart city. Mobiliy does provide a door way to lots of accelerated learnings, innovations and a opportunity for telcos to proof the value of 5G down the road. But all that said, mobility does not have to take center stage at all
I will join the live chat on March 29th, 18:00 CEST
yes, agreed: mobility does not have to take center stage at all". in fact, due to the climate crisis, smarter/cleaner energy is just now neck-and-neck in the race for ‘first doorway’, and for some cities they’re combining the two : mobility+energy. BTW: some of the bigger companies that claim to be market-leaders on smart cities, like IBM, are not relevant to cities which are looking for a useful doorway.
city leaders are not only the most interesting voice in the room – and the most experienced on the front lines. they are also the most likely to be ready to adapt and flex and learn and grow in the face of new realities.
I think it is very important that you highlight the fact that it is a marketing term and that the experts themselves were always aware of this. The hyped language of the marketeers has tremendously hampered a realistic expectation management.
one effect of the over-hyping is that the real frontline leaders (who help make cities work, whether inside government or otherwise) become alienated and dis-engage. not a good look…
1 Like
This touches any something very fundamental. I think two observations. The first is that the successes of the kind of boring cost-cutting cases need to be ‘storyfied’ much better, because indeed it ‘disappears into the fabric of everyday life”. The second is that different t type of intelligences have to be at the table every time an agenda - a roadmap- gets set. For every two or three ‘typical’ solutions (brought on mainly by experts and engineers) one out of the box- ‘strange’ ‘use case’ should be worked out with as much funding and interdisciplinary expertise.
I will join the live chat on March 29th, 18:00 CEST
The bigger the megapolis gets the less smart and the more complex the interconnection gets. Is there evidence for this axiom?
1 Like
AND city leaders get context. Tech companies claiming they sit on the insights because they sit on the data are right on track getting it wrong: context is king and if you don’t get the context you set yourself up for failure. City leaders are best positioned to get context
1 Like
I like the sound of this framing of the problem…but it is not always the case. it’s precisely in those places where it’s NOT the case that we can find some useful best-practices.
Hi Loretta, I would agree in terms of politics and bureaucracy. Big cities get all of the attention, they have the brand. Yet the larger the city, the more bureauctracy, and politics, as a consquence of which medium sized cities often move faster.
here in Silicon Valley, where I sit, putting the spotlight on a ‘strange’ ‘use case’ (and then acting on it) has often been the key to the development of something amazing.
1 Like
welcome @Loretta thank you for your question! Bas and Gordon will now start to read all the previous questions and to continue to answer.
Could you maybe specify a bit with an example where you get this idea for such an axion from?
Loretta,
one more thought here- there are some elected officials and/or appointed officials working inside large city gov’ts who are really really trying to break out of this pattern…but it’s hard, esp. when the tech vendors are not helping them very much.
2 Likes
Agree Gordon, but we had a little too much ‘use case thinking’ that are too remote from purpose, actual needs. So, yes, dare to venture out, crazy use cases welcome, as long as people do not deviate from commencing the design think process by understanding purpose