Smart Cities - Why they're not working for us yet.
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
2 recomendaciones•1,420 vistas
My presentation to the April 2016 Eurocities Knowledge Sharing Forum in Rennes. My focus was on describing Smart Cities as an economic and political challenge; and exploring the policy mechanisms that could be used to incentivise private sector investments in business and technology to support local social, economic and environmental outcomes. Further description and supporting evidence for these ideas can be found at https://theurbantechnologist.com/2016/02/01/why-smart-cities-still-arent-working-for-us-after-20-years-and-how-we-can-fix-them/
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Destacado (12)
Similar a Smart Cities - Why they're not working for us yet.
Similar a Smart Cities - Why they're not working for us yet. (20)
Más de Rick Robinson
Más de Rick Robinson (9)
Último
Último (20)
Smart Cities - Why they're not working for us yet.
- 1. Cover with focus picture 1 Cover with focus picture 2 Cover with focus picture 3 Smart Cities ... A ... why they’re not working for us yet Dr Rick Robinson FBCS CITP FRSA AoU IT Director, Smart Data and Technology Founder and Chair, Birmingham Smart City Alliance rick.robinson@amey.co.uk http://theurbantechnologist.com @dr_rick Smart Data & Technology
- 2. Smart cities, communities, services and infrastructure command attention because we face fundamental challenges from inequality, global population growth and economic competition, and climate change. “Lives on the Line” shows a difference of 21 years in life expectancy at birth today between the poorest and richest areas of London. This inequality is repeated in all of the UK’s major cities, and is a measure of our failure so far to deliver public services and infrastructure that give everyone an equal opportunity for a happy, healthy, successful life. This challenge is likely to get harder to address in future as ageing populations in Western economies threaten the funding of public services; as global development creates stronger competition for jobs and economic activity; and as population growth and climate change create increased competition for resources. http://life.mappinglondon.co.uk/
- 3. The proliferation of data from a multitude of sources offers the opportunity for detailed insights into our needs and behaviour that were previously unimaginable. (See video at https://vimeo.com/62289901)
- 4. That data can be used to manage cities more effectively and efficiently …
- 5. … but “smart” should be about people, behaviour and outcomes; infrastructure, technology and management are enablers, not objectives.
- 6. “Smart” ideas command attention because we see the potential for technology to enable fundamentally new ways to deliver services more effectively at lower cost; and for communities to create services for themselves. Traditional hotel chain • Founded in 1919 • Over 680,000 rooms in 91 countries (2015) • Over 310,000 employees and franchise employees (2015) • Market capitalisation $29.6B (2015) 1997 2003 2006 2006 2007 Online peer-to-peer market for temporary accommodation • Founded in 2008 • Over 800,000 rooms in 192 countries (2015) • 600 employees (2013) • Estimated value $13B (2014)
- 7. As a consequence we have created visions for a sustainable, vibrant future enabled by technology … … but most of these visions are aspirations: they have not been turned into policies, or into budgeted projects and programmes …
- 8. … and the vast majority of investments in smart technology are made in order to create private sector profits; other than the need to meet consumer demands, they are largely indifferent to wider public sector and community objectives. “Never mind the “Sharing Economy”: here’s “Platform Capitalism””, Sebastian Olma, Institute of Network Cultures, October 2014 http://networkcultures.org/mycreativity/2014/10/16/never-mind-the-sharing-economy-heres-platform-capitalism/
- 9. In the 20th Century, cities failed if they failed to develop their economies to take account of developments in technology. The evidence is worrying that we are failing again now … “The Second Machine Age”, by Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, summarised in https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014- 06-04/new-world-order Throughout the 20th Century UK cities that did not adapt their economies to new technology lost jobs, employers, residents and investment. “Cities Outook 1901”, Centre for Cities: http://www.centreforcities.org/publication/cities-outlook-1901/ Since the 1980s as computers spread into homes and businesses, growth in GDP has not created growth in US household wealth. New wealth is primarily being captured by the owners of “platform businesses” such as Amazon, Apple, Uber and Airbnb.
- 10. “Private investment shapes cities, but social ideas (and laws) shape private investment. First comes the image of what we want, then the machinery is adapted to turn out that image. The financial machinery has been adjusted to create anti-city images because, and only because, we as a society thought this would be good for us. If and when we think that lively, diversified city, capable of continual, close- grained improvement and change, is desirable, then we will adjust the financial machinery to get that.” Jane Jacobs, the Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961 We need to shape the machinery of our economy to create the future cities and communities we want to live in.
- 11. http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PD- 8101-smart-cities-planning-guidelines/http://www.sheffieldsmartlab.co.uk/ http://www.amey.co.uk/media/local-news/2015/december/heineken-project/ https://birminghamsmartcityalliance.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/our-first-annual-report-the- birmingham-smart-city-alliance-2013-2015/ Demand outcomes, innovation and local investment from service providers Create local collaborations to help social enterprise to scale-up Focus local support for enterprise and entrepreneurship on local priorities, challenges and opportunities Demand outcomes, innovation and local investment from developers Four approaches to local action: Procurement, planning, social enterprise and investment
- 12. Images and concept from Kelvin Campbell’s “Smart Urbanism” movement: http://www.smarturbanism.org.uk/ Massive / Small: the emerging ideas of “Smart Urbanism” provide policies, principles and toolkits to encourage and support “massive” amounts of “small-scale” innovation? Creating the conditions for success: What are the characteristics of cities that give rise to Massive/Small innovation? https://theurbantechnologist.com/2013/06/17/how -to-build-a-smarter-city-23-design-principles-for- digital-urbanism/
- 13. Promote the re-use, re-cycling, up-cycling and sharing of assets? Improve the equality of access to assets and resources? Reward labour for the value of the human experience that it creates? Promote local transactions that can be carried out using human-powered transport – walking and cycling; and that create sustainable social capital? Are consistent with dense, walkable urban environments? Emphasise the relationship between long- term organisational profitability and viability and long-term community stability and vitality? Encapsulate protocols and behaviours that are co-designed and governed by all participants? Can prove that their algorithms are not based on explicitly or implicitly biased data? Einor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons“. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/laureates/2009/ostrom-lecture.html The continuation of Ostrom’s work by David Sloan Williams https://jasoncollins.org/2013/09/11/design-principles-efficacy- groups/ On the presence of bias in big data: https://medium.com/@mrtz/how-big-data-is-unfair- 9aa544d739de#.gr3gza36w Creating the conditions for success: What are the characteristics of a “platform business” that is consistent with the objectives of cities and communities?
- 14. Smart Data & Technology • The goal of Smart Cities is to invest in technology in order to create economic, social and environmental improvements. That is an imperative economic and political challenge, not a technology trend. • The vast majority of Smart City initiatives to date are pilot projects funded by research and innovation grants. There are very, very few sustainable, repeatable solutions yet. • The “bottom up” innovation that individuals, communities and businesses carry out with technology every day is a vital component of Smart Cities, but it is not enough on its own: creating change on an urban scale requires top-down leadership, policies and investment. • Private sector investment will not deliver social, economic or environmental outcomes unless it is incentivised to do so. • Tools are available for local governments to build Smart Cities: procurement policies, planning and development frameworks, social and entrepreneurial investment funds and support services. The idea of a “Smart City” (or town, or region, or community) is 20 years old; but it has so far achieved very little.
- 15. Success factors and successful styles for carrying out Smart Cities programmes • Use the tools and investments that are available now • Focus on investment and delivery by using policy tools to demand that existing spending and investment streams deliver the vision • Adopt and adapt the ideas of Smart Urbanism and the economics of the commons • Demonstrate Four “C”s: Commitment, Collaboration, Consistency, Community • Commitment and engagement of the most senior local government leaders • A collaborative, empowered regional stakeholder forum • A clear, consistent, specific local vision • Community engagement • Adopt the behaviour of “Translational Leaders” • Defined by Robert Zolli in “Resilience: Why Things Bounce Back” • Leaders who create innovative growth and resilient communities by combining the resources of formal large-scale institutions with the resourcefulness and informality of local people, communities and businesses http://www.fastcompany.com/1842367/tropical-tale-tourists-networks-and-new-kind-leadership
- 16. Cover with focus picture 1 Cover with focus picture 2 Cover with focus picture 3 rick.robinson@amey.co.uk http://theurbantechnologist.com @dr_rick Smart Data & Technology Thankyou A Dr Rick Robinson FBCS CITP FRSA AoU IT Director, Smart Data and Technology Founder and Chair, Birmingham Smart City Alliance
Notas del editor
- And what does a “Smart City” look like? Some of the highest profile early examples date from when the technology industry picked up on the idea of a Smart City about 10 years ago and saw it as a new opportunity to apply their technology and expertise. I will not be critical of the technology industry’s approach to Smart Cities – I played an active role in it for many years, and led IBM’s most significant early projects in the UK. And I can give countless examples around the world of terrific social and technological innovation that the employees of technology companies are engaged in through some really exciting projects. However, it is true to say that the marketing portrayal of some of the most high profile examples of their work, such as Songdo, Masdar and Rio, emphasised the sort of top-down command-and-control thinking and focus on physical infrastructure that’s widely believed to be unsuited to the need to unlock the potential of people, communities and businesses to create their own growth. The thinkers, technologists and designers at the heart of almost every Smart City initiative are sophisticated people who understand and have engaged with the subtlety, complexity and organic chaos of cities – but that rarely comes across in the noisy clamour of competitive marketing, as Adam Greenfield describeda at length in his book “Against the Smart City”.
- So let’s remember, cities are about people and transactions; infrastructure is there to play a supporting role. And we’re all carrying mobile supercomputers around in our pockets now, surely Smart Cities should be about enabling them?
- Jane Jacobs told us how to answer that challenge nearly half a century ago. In her 1961 book which laid the foundation for our modern understanding of the behaviour of cities, she pointed out that it was up to us to define the vision for the cities that we want, then to conceive the social ideas that would lead to them and eventually the policies and laws to ensure that the immense forces of private sector investment were channelled to deliver them. In all those local authority visions for a smart future, we have set out the vision of what we want; but we have not adapted the machinery to deliver that vision. The “smart city” projects carried out by local authorities are almost entirely supported by time-limited research and innovation grants that cannot be scaled or repeated; and the sustainable private sector investments are being made in infrastructure and services primarily with the objective of creating a financial return – any social, economic or environmental objectives are to a large part secondary, even side effects.
- If we could determine what those incentives, policies and measurements might be, then there are several mechanisms that could be used at a local level to apply them: Include Smart City criteria in the procurement of services by local authorities to encourage competitive innovation from private sector providers. Whilst local authority budgets are under pressure around the world, and have certainly suffered enormous cuts in the UK, local authorities nevertheless spend up to billions of pounds sterling annually on goods, services and staff time. The majority of procurements that direct that spending still procure traditional goods and services through traditional criteria and contracts. By contrast, Sunderland, a UK city, and Norfolk, a UK county, have shown that by emphasising city and regional aspirations in procurement scoring criteria it is possible to incentivise suppliers to invest in smart solutions that contribute to local objectives. Encourage development opportunities to include “smart” infrastructure. Investors invest in infrastructure and property development because it creates returns for them – to the tune of billions of pounds sterling annually in the UK. Those investments are already made in the context of regulations – planning frameworks, building codes and energy performance criteria, for example. Those regulations can be adapted to demand that investments in property and physical infrastructure include investment in digital infrastructure in a way that contributes to local authority and community objectives. The East Wick and Sweetwater development in London – a multi-£100million development that is part of the 2012 Olympics legacy and that is financed by a pension fund investment – was awarded to it’s developer based in part on their commitments to invest in this way. Commit to entrepreneurial programmes. There are many examples of new urban or public services being delivered by entrepreneurial organisations who develop new business and operating models enabled by technology – I’ve already cited Uber and Airbnb as examples that contribute to traveller convenience; Casserole Club, a service that uses social media to connect people who can’t provide their own food with neighbours who are happy to cook an extra portion of a meal for someone else, is an example that has more obviously social benefits. Many cities have local investment funds and support services for entrepreneurial businesses, and Sunderland’sSoftware Centre, Birmingham’s iCentrum development, Sheffield’s Smart Lab and London’s Cognicity acceleratorare examples where those investments have been linked to local smart city objectives. Enable and support Social Enterprise. The objectives of Smart Cities are analogous to the “triple bottom line” objectives of Social Enterprises – organisations whose finances are sustained by revenues from the products or services that they provide, but that commit themselves to social, environmental or economic outcomes, rather than to maximising their financial returns to shareholders. A vast number of Smart City initiatives are carried out by these organisations when they innovate using technology. Cities that find a way to systematically enable social enterprises to succeed could unlock a reservoir of beneficial innovation, as the Impact Hub network, a global community of collaborative workspaces, has shown.
- The architect Kelvin Campbell’s concept of “massive/small smart urbanism” can teach us how to join the effects of “top-down” investments and policy with the capacity for “bottom-up” innovation that exists in people, businesses and communities everywhere. Kelvin asks the question “what are the characteristics of urban environments and policies that give rise to “massive” amounts of “small-scale” innovation?”. He is precisely asking us “how do we adapt the machinery that shapes the private sector investments that build cities in order to create the cities we want in the 21st Century?”. Kelvin’s ideas have been forged in developing nations, helping them respond to the massive and rapid urbanisation they are undergoing. Whenever rapid urbanisation has occurred in the past, it has outstripped cities’ ability to grow in a controlled way and to provide infrastructure, accommodation and services – in other words, it has resulted in slums. Kelvin’s work accepts that that challenge will never be wholly solved; and also recognises that the economies of slums self-organise in an incredibly efficient way – albeit on the basis of non-existent infrastructure. By preparing uninhabited areas with party walls laid out in a basic grid fashion, Kelvin’s work helps the slums that inevitably form to grow in a slightly more organised, slightly better-built way, allowing them to retain the same highly efficient, self-organised economies, but in a way that has better infrastructure to start with; and that allows improved infrastructure to be retro-fitted more easily as they mature. Kelvin creates environments that give effect support to massive amounts of small-scale innovation.