Toward a framework for Smart Cities: A Comparison …...Toward a framework for Smart Cities: A...

Copyright 2012 ISi Lab, GSI, Yonsei Univ., All rights reserved , Prepared by Prof. J.H. Lee

Toward a framework for Smart Cities:

A Comparison of Seoul,

San Francisco & Amsterdam

Jung-Hoon Lee

Associate Professor

Graduate School of Information,

Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

Marguerite Gong Hancock

Associate Director


I. INTRODUCTION

Smart Green City Projects:

143 smart city projects are currently ongoing or completed in North America [35] South America

[11], Europe [47], Asia [40] & the Middle East & Africa [10].

Sources: Authors’ analysis from IBM, CISCO, ABI Research, Gartner (2012) Image Sources from INEG, Maplink (2012)


I. INTRODUCTION

Research Objectives

The research study purposes a conceptual framework setting out a holistic view of a smart city

developments. This framework classifies different initiatives & implementation practices.

RO1: To develop a conceptual framework applicable to Smart City practices around the globe

RO2: To analyze leading cases from the U.S., Europe and Asia through the framework & to identify

common characteristics in cities’ smart planning and development, while also noting differences

between them

RO3: To develop a maturity model for a Smart City based on different practices; this model will also

serve as an index identifying gaps and areas where improvement is needed


II. RESEARCH APPROACH

Smart City Architecture Research Approach

Value Added Smart or Smart City Services

using ICT

(Service Oriented Thinking)

Interactions with Smart City

Infrastructures: Network, Data Center &

Urban spaces

Smart City Governance: Leadership,

Strategy, Processes, Collaborative

Partnerships & Performance Measurement

Case Data Collection of Current Smart City

Initiatives & Activities

Unit of Analysis: each city’s services, apps,

network infra., org. etc.

Source: Lee et al. (2010)


Case Study Framework


: Six different domains are studied from 18 perspectives

-Smart City Leadership

-Smart City Strategy

-Performance Measurement

-Smart City Development/ Manage-

ment Processes

-Dedicated Organization

-Smart City Principles

Smart City Governance

Case Study

Framework

-Participatory Service Design

-Open Data Platform

Urban Openness

-Multiple Device Platform/Smart

Urban Spaces

-Data Consolidation Plan (IDC)

-Network Infrastructure (Capacity,

Traffic)

-Network Types (Wired/Wireless/

Sensor Network )

Smart City Infra. Integration

-Service Diversity

-Service Integration

Service Innovation

-Urban Intelligence Technology

-Smart Green Services

-Sensing/Mining/Big Data

Intelligence&Sustainability

-Private-Public Partnership

-Internal/External Collaboration

Collaborative Partnerships

Work In Progress

- Industrial Innovativeness

(Smart City Industry + Existing

Industry)

Urban Innovativeness

Page 5



The study selected three different cities from Asia, the U.S. & Europe

Photo sources: free copyright images from wikipedia

*The global urban competitiveness report 2011

** Innovation CitiesTM Program, 2011

*** OECD Broadband Portal , 2011

**** 2012 Global Cities Index & Emerging Market Outlook Study, A.T. Kearney & The chicago council on global affairs

Seoul Metropolitan City (SMC) City & Count of San Francisco (SF) Amsterdam

History Capital city of Korea since 1394

Founded 1776 & incorporated in 1850

Founded 1275, Capital city of the Netherlands

Total Area 605.4 km2 600.6 km2 219.4 km2

Population 10,528,774 City & County-808,977 (2008)

Urban: 3,273,190 Metro: 4,335,391

City Area-790,654 in 2012

Urban-1,209,419 Metro: 2,289,762

Households 4,192,752 780,971 400,000 (approx.)

Global Urban Competitiveness* 9th in the world 6th in the world 27th in the world

Global Cities Index**** 8th in the world 17th in the world 26th in the world

Innovation Cities Survey** 28th in the world 2nd in the world 6th in the world

Fixed broadband

Penetration*** 36% (South Korea) 27.3% (United States) 38.5% (Netherlands)

Households with

broadband access***

97.5% (South Korea) 57%

68.2% (United States) 79.5% (Netherlands) 3% %of fiber connection in total broadband subscription %of fiber connection in total broadband subscription


-Participatory Service Design

-Open Data Platform

Urban Openness

Case Study

Framework

III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Urban Openness

Case Study

Framework



PARTICIPATORY SERVICE DESIGN

Most smart city services are based on simple unidirectional/GPS location based applications

479,000 households in

22,000 buildings &

4 major banks in Seoul

have signed up to energy

saving app

Civic engagement

platform connects

challenges to community

problem solvers

Open 311’ allows users

to report

non-emergencies

BuurtMeter Amsterdam provides

based on a user's current location with

the score of neighborhood participation,

pollution & safety

Logica CityApp uses storytelling,

official info. & user-generated content

to engage users with immediate

environment

Whatser allows users to save favorite

locations and share these with Whatser

friends

Allows neighbors & friends to rent

their cars to each other w/ electronic

swipe card, thus promoting sharing

economy

Crowd-judging system rates

Amsterdam schools on parents &

student input

Chunmanmansangsang Oasis

solicits and tracks new ideas for

social policies

552262 visitors

Case Study

Framework

http://ecomileage.seoul.go.kr/home/index.do

http://www.improvesf.com/

http://seeclickfix.com/citizens




http://www.wego.nu/

http://oasis.seoul.go.kr/ndex/main.jsp



Open Data Platform

Open data movement encourage governmental

transparency & open innovation

SF’s open data movement is active; SMC offer

open data only in certain areas (e.g.

transportation, parks & recreation)

Geographic Data/Ethics/Admin & Finances

represent major open domains for SF

Initial Findings

Open data by categories*

* Count as data provided in open API

Case Study

Framework


Case Study

Framework

-Service Diversity

-Service Integration

Service Innovation

III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Service Innovation

Case Study

Framework


III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Service Innovation

SERVICE DIVERSITY (2012)

Tour/Culture/ Sports/Leisure

15%

Transporation 35%

Job Creation/Business

3% Facility Mgnt

3%

Public Admin

12%

Environment 15%

Prevent Crime/Disaster

17%

SF

Tour/Culture

/Sports/Leisure

12%

Education

2%

Transportation

20%

Job Creation/

Business 3%

Facility

Mgnt.

14% Others

(Logistics)

3%

Public Admin.

13%

Environment

5%

Medical/

Welfare /Health

8%

Prevent

Crime/Disaster/

9%

SMC

Tour/Culture/ Sports/Leisure

26%

Education 2% Transporation

15%

Job Creation /Business

4% Facility Mgnt

2% Others

4%

Public Admin 22%

Environment 19%

Medical/Welfare /Health

4%

Prevent Crime/Disaster

2%

Amsterdam

Smart city services are currently offered across different domains (Exploration/Exploitation)

Case Study

Framework

Most applications (75~80%) offer a single service. Some service-oriented integration has been

achieved within service domains (e.g. in transportation, public admin., facility management)

SERVICE INTEGRATION

Integrated public facility

reservation sys. For

hospitals, parks & other

public facilities in SMC

Eco-mileage service

in SMC (connected

with banks, power

company)

One single entry point

covering all public services

Integrated public transport

information services for

Walkways, taxis, biking, &

ferries

Smart working center

w/ facilities for

integrated services

(e.g. tele-presence )

Integrated tour

services with public

transportation



Case Study

Framework

-Private-Public Partnership

-Internal/External Collaboration


Case Study

Framework

III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Collaborative Partnerships


A 81%

C 8%

D 11%

A 74%

C 26%

Partnerships type & Collaboration (based on sample of services in 2012)

SMC SF Amsterdam

A: Direct Involvement of Private Sector

B: Indirect Involvement of Private Sector (Private Capital)

C: Contracted/Outsourcing Development/Management

D: Private-Public Partnership-Special Purpose Company

SMC & SF have adopted different forms of partnership. Amsterdam has set up a special purpose entity to

promote its the smart green city

Most services are financed by the

central government or city itself

Services based on master plan

mostly outsourced to private

sectors

Presumption in favour of public

access (less sustainable?)

Developed & operated by private

sectors (SF Open Data)

Efficient market-oriented

approach, but limited service

diversity in term of social-welfare

domains

More holistic approach may be

required compared to other two

cities

Most services private-sector

financed

ASC foundation formed private-

public partnerships to plan &

promote smart city projects

Also funded by EU open city

initiatives

SMC SF Amsterdam

Finding

III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Collaborative Partnerships

Case Study

Framework

A 7%

C 93%


Case Study

Framework

-Urban Intelligence Technology

-Smart Green Services

-Sensing/Mining/Big Data


III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Intelligence&Sustainability

Case Study

Framework



Intelligent Technologies in smart city services

SMC used more widely implemented intelligence technologies followed by SF & Amsterdam

U-Seoul Children Safety Zone

tracks children's location

using RFID & CCTVs &

alerts parents in case of

emergency

No-Driving Campaign

uses RFID technology to

determine whether drivers are

properly complying with no-car

driving campaign (eco-mileage)

Wireless sensors/new parking

meters price spaces according

to demand and helps drivers

find convenient space

RF sensors in various applications, augmented reality (AR) & GIS, demand responsive pricing price &

data analytics add more value to smart city services

uses RF technology based on

AMI (Automated Meter Infra)

to measure electricity & water

Free interactive GPS navi-

gation using AR for disabled

people (accessible toilets,

disabled parking, point of

interests)

Automated Water &Smart Meter

offers info. On local shows,

combined with coupons and a

location-based search function

supporting AR and GIS maps

Tour & Broadway Info

Case Study

Framework

37.5%

26.5%

13.2%

29.7%

55.9%

43.4%

32.8%

17.6%

43.4%

SMC

SF

AMSTERDAM

Advanced intelligent technologies Unidirectional service using GPS Not Intelligent

http://app.sfac.or.kr/?cmd=app01



Sustainability Services

Smart services provide engagement and incentive systems to help people adjust their behavior

479,000 households in

22,000 buildings &

4 major banks in SMC

have signed up to energy

saving app

UrbanEcomap Interactive maps empower

citizens through illustrations

of greenhouse gas emissions

(through transportation,

energy, waste)

SF Solar/Wind Map promotes public awareness

of solar & wind energy, by

allowing users to calculate

potential savings

SF Transitmap Google map mashup

generates walk-scores for

how far you can travel by

public transit from user

locations

Greenhouse superimposes

energy labels on map of

Amsterdam for selected

addresses and postcodes

monitors energy consumption of

connected home appliances using

smart wall plug (auto turn on/off

system)

Energy management Haarlem

SF leads on sustainability services which impact directly on the environment (civic engagement);

Amsterdam is next. SMC lacks green services despite its exceptional incentive system

(eco-mileage services) for reducing driving

Case Study

Framework



-Multiple Device Platform/Smart Urban

Spaces

-Data Consolidation Plan (IDC)

-Network Infrastructure (Capacity,

Traffic)

-Network Types (Wired/Wireless/

Sensor Network )


Case Study

Framework

Case Study

Framework

III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Infra. Integration

Copyright 2012 ISi Lab, GSI, Yonsei Univ., All rights reserved , Prepared by Prof. J.H. Lee Page 19



-Smart City Strategy

-Performance Measurement

-Smart City Development/ Manage-

ment Processes

-Dedicated Organization

-Smart City Principles


Case Study

Framework

Case Study

Framework

III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Smart City Governance


III. INITIAL KEY FINDINGS-Smart City Governance


Smart City Governance Initial Key Findings

Leadership &

Strategy

Dedicated Org.

& Processes

Performance

Mgnt. &

Principles

Both Amsterdam (Climate neutral ) & SMC

(Smart) have shown strong Smart City

leadership & Strategy

SMC has recently launched a comprehensive plan

Dedicated smart green city org. either operates

within the municipal IT division or as a special

purpose foundation to attract the private sectors

SMC has formalized processes for development

& management with different project initiatives

SFC recently established a dedicated org. and

co-ordinates with decentralized agencies

Amsterdam (focusing on CO2 reduction, energy

efficiency) & SMC (focusing broader service op

eration & behavioral change) have implemented

principles

SMC defined smart city governance principles

to promote effective internal/external

collaboration

Both Amsterdam & SMC have strong organizational support & governance to promote Smart City

Case Study

Framework

Smart City Governance Maturity Level Note: CIO (Chief Innovation Officer or similar position); R&R (Roles & Responsibilities); PMS(Performance Management Sys.)

Scale Factor 1 3 5 7

Smart City

Leadership

No leadership engagement & no

interest in Smart City Initiatives

Smart City leadership involved

on a case-by-case basis in decentralized way

Centralized Smart City

leadership exists under CIO (within IT dept)

Strong centralized Smart City

leadership exists & CIO’s R&R are clear

Smart City

Strategy

Formulation

Services develop in

decentralized way in absence of Smart City strategy

Integrated/centralized smart

city strategy exists based on a bottom-up approach

Top-down smart city

strategy is aligned with city's specific strategic

initiatives

Formalized top-down smart city

strategy revised on a regular basis according to a comprehensive

strategic perspective (AS-IS/TO-BE)

Dedicated

Organization

Functions exist in IS division

or elsewhere within the city hall, but no dedicated team for

Smart City has formed

Independent dedicated

small team of working (coordinating) closely

with others city teams

Dedicated smart city team

has diverse roles yet not established within organization

Dedicated team has diverse roles

& skills & is well established within organization

Smart City

Development/

Management

Processes

No standard processes; each

agency takes decentralized approach in developing &

managing smart city projects

Smart city processes

follow conventional IT development/management

processes, which are centralized

Formalized smart city

processes exist but not in detail (i.e. are at an early

stage) & not yet recognized by related agencies

Formalized processes

for different types of smart city projects are clearly defined

and well established within the organization

Performance

Measurement

No performance indicators

for smart city development

Indicators use IS performance

indicators or partly exist in other form

Smart City PMS is uniquely

developed, but only used internally by Smart City team

Smart City PMS updates

regularly and widely used and publicly announced

Smart City

Principles

based on municipal

ordinance

Absence of principles for

Smart City planning /development / management, inc.

R&R

Smart City principles limited to

certain divisions

Smart City Principles as utilized

by Smart City team based on municipal ordinance; principles

not used by other divisions

Smart City Principles based on

municipal ordinance widely used by Smart City team & other

divisions


IV. DISCUSSION

Urban Openness

Question of more participatory services vs. location based services

vs. smart city services for specific urban space integration

(i.e. climate street, digital media street)

Open data quality & open data platform strategy can attract local

start ups & entrepreneurs supporting smart city growth

Service Innovation

Service exploration vs. exploitation with focus on what services we

need to select and where to concentrate for service development

(i.e. ‘T’ for service diversity?)

Service integration across different service domains will create

more value which create higher complexity (Process reengineering

thinking?)


Organic-market oriented (emergence/bottom up) vs. government top-

down (control) approach in diversifying smart city services

Direct service implementation vs. test-bed/living lab. approach

depends upon technology maturity level (approved tech. vs. new tech.

for capability building)


Adding intelligence technologies (sensors & data analytics) create

more value for new service innovation & economic opportunity for

start-ups (e.g. SF Park)

Sustainability services for smart green need citizens to engage it &

change their behaviors through robust incentive system which helps

sustaining eco-system for smart green services


Network effects & service user adoptions:

Multiple devices access vs. Smart phone access (Infra. Investment)

Network capacity & usage status will play important role in

promoting smart cities where higher data bandwidth (sensor data &

media data ) will be required in order to meet future citizen’s

demands


Smart city leadership & governance model matters

Centralized/holistic based smart city strategy vs. decentralized

strategy

Smart city development need a dedicated organization & robust

processes, governance principles & performance measurements to

leverage services within the city


V. CONCLUSION

Innovating advanced civic engagement/participatory services -Developing cloud-based, crowd-sourced applications (citizen’s input & feedback)

-Improving single-point entry access & enabling more cost-effective self-service

Empowering user driven innovation through open data platform strategy -Facilitating new service development and providing ability to leverage city data

-Increase government transparency & crowd-sourcing movement

-Diversifying & exploring different service domains (utilities, transportation, healthcare etc..)

Converging/integrating smart city infrastructure -Converging ICT with smart urban spaces (streets, buildings, parks, public utilities, homes…)

-Developing more intelligent technologies to support diverse services & smart green services (e.g. smart grid)

-Developing interoperability of smart city services (service composition thinking) & infrastructure integration

(multiple-devices platform, networks & integrated data centre)

Defining smart city governance - Defining smart city visions & road-mapping a comprehensive smart city strategy for continued leadership (clear role

& responsibility)

- Integrating planning/development/management processes & principles for smart city initiatives

- Creating smart city eco-system for innovation & entrepreneurship through different types of private-public partnership

(e.g. special purpose company)

Copyright 2012 ISi Lab, GSI, Yonsei Univ., All rights reserved , Prepared by Prof. J.H. Lee Graduate School of Information, Yonsei University, South Korea

If you have any questions , please feel free to contact us.

Jung-Hoon Lee

Associate Professor, Graduate School of Information,

Yonsei University E-Mail:[email protected] /[email protected]

http://sprie.gsb.stanford.edu/people/Jung-hoon_Lee/


Appendix I.

Smart City Definitions

There are several types of definitions in both academic and practical literatures

“Smart City is referred as the safe, secure environmentally green, and efficient urban center of the

future with advanced infrastructures such as sensors, electronics and networks to stimulate

sustainable economic growth & a high quality of life” (Hall, 2000)

“A city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and

modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of

life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance”

(Caragliu, 2009)

“A city well performing in a forward-looking way in economy, people, governance, mobility,

environment & living, built on the smart combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive

independent and aware citizens” (Giffinger & Gudrum, 2010)

Scholar’s view

City’s view

“Smart City as a high-tech intensive and advanced city that connects people, information and city

elements using new technologies in order to create sustainable greener city, competitive and

innovative commerce and an increase life quality with a straightforward administration and

maintenance system of city” (Barcelona City Hall, 2011)

“Amsterdam Smart City uses innovative technology and the willingness to change behavior related to

energy consumption in order to tackle climate goals. Amsterdam Smart City is an universal approach

for design and development of a sustainable, economically viable program that will reduce the city’s

carbon footprint” (Amsterdam Smart City, 2009)


Appendix I.

Smart City Definitions

There are several types of definitions in both academic and practical literatures

“The use of Smart Computing technologies to make the critical infrastructure components and

services of a city —which include city administration, education, healthcare, public safety, real

estate, transportation, and utilities — more intelligent, interconnected, and efficient.”

(Forrester, 2011)

“A smart city is based on intelligent exchanges of information that flow between its many different

subsystems. This flow of information is analyzed and translated into citizen and commercial services.

The city will act on this information flow to make its wider ecosystem more resource-efficient and

sustainable. The information exchange is based on a smart governance operating framework

designed for cities sustainable.” (Gartner, 2011)

Practitioner

‘s view

“Smart city” [refers to] a local entity — a district, city, region or small country — which takes a

holistic approach to employ[ing] information technologies with real-time analysis that encourages

sustainable economic development.” (IDC, 2011)

Quality of Life Sustainable-Green Life Innovative Working Life

Ideological Dimension (What is Smart City Visions?)

Normative Dimension (Where/Which areas?)

Technological/ Instrumental Dimension

(How smart city be delivered?)

Services Infrastructure Human/Social Capital

Definition

Taxonomy

Objectives

Elements

Toward a framework for Smart Cities: A Comparison …...Toward a framework for Smart Cities: A...

Documents

Transcript of Toward a framework for Smart Cities: A Comparison …...Toward a framework for Smart Cities: A...