Within the past 18 months the concept of smart (and intelligent) cities has been become popular in the media. For instance, Scientific American ran a special issue on smart cities. Industry players (e.g. IBM, Siemens, etc) have specific programs and practices dedicated to advancing the cause of building smart cities. Government agencies are dedicating resources and making investments in designing smarter cities (for e.g., see - EU invests $450 million in smart cities). Despite its intuitive appeal, we have limited empirical knowledge within the design, planning, and policy fields about the dimensions of smart cities—its characteristics, the barriers, and the potential opportunities. One reason is the term smart city is still new and it appears to means different things within different fields. In some ways the term is complex and vague. Some experts use the term smart city to highlight advances in sustainability and greening of the city, while others use the term to portray infusion of information via technologies to better the lives of citizens that reside in these spaces. Even others, consider the presence of high-level of citizen engagement in the design and governance of the space as a key attribute of smarter cities. Therefore, no consensus existing within the academy on the characteristics of smart cities and how they fit within existing conceptual frameworks, such as sustainability and policy informatics.
In a working paper, I propose the following definition: A smart city is livable, resilient, sustainable, and designed through open and collaborative governance.
- A smart city is resilient in that it possesses the capacity, desire, and opportunity for sensing, responding to, recovering, and learning from natural and man-made disasters.
- A smart city takes a sustainable approach to the management of its economic, social, and ecological resources to ensure that they have vitality going into the future.
- A smart city infuses information for automated and human, individual and collective, decision-making on optimal allocation of resources, design of systems and processes, and citizen engagement.
- A smart city enables intelligent decision-making through leveraging information via technology, platforms, processes, and policies across its environments, infrastructures, systems, resources, and citizens.
- A smart city operates as a seamlessly integrated platform where information links the various infrastructures, systems, organizations, and citizens’ goals and values.
- A smart cities engage citizens in planning and design of public spaces and govern use of public resources through open and collaborative governance platforms that generates, and leverages, collective intelligence.
In some respects the description resembles a vision statement with supporting principles or goals that make the vision of a smart city come to life. First, the overarching goal of having a smart city is that it is livable, resilient, and sustainable. These goals increase the value of the city and contribute positively to the lives of the citizens that interact with, and reside within, the city. Second, we must recognize these goals as a function of infusing information into the fabric of the city. Technological devices enable citizens to leverage information as they conduct their daily activities, while they also enable planners and designers to have accurate situational awareness about the city. Information is infused into the planning and design apparatuses as public sector projects are conducted. For example, the use of computational platforms and simulation technologies can enable city planners and designers think through various alternatives, test assumptions, and visualize the impacts of various interventions on critical outcomes. Through harnessing information, the smart city is able to conduct public projects in a highly effective and efficient manner. Third, smart cities use a wide assortment of information pipelines and platforms to integrate the often disparate physical and human sub-systems, infrastructures, and processes. Through building viable connections, information flows between the various parts of the city seamlessly so as to enable for real-time intelligent decision-making. Fourth, smart cities leverage the collective intelligence of its citizens, residents and, even transients (e.g. people who commute to work in the city) using participatory platforms. The smart city has viable vehicles and platforms through which its citizens can contribute to its governance processes and the future design of the city.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the definition and the elements of a smart city.
Kristen Lau (University of Oxford) and I have a paper accepted for publication in Intelligence and National Security. Kristen was my graduate student at the University of Washington and is now pursuing a doctoral degree at Oxford. We began studying information management failures associated with nuclear non-proliferation efforts in 2009. We presented an early version of the paper at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS) at King’s College London.
Abstract: Intelligence is a critical component for all counter-proliferation activities. It allows us to assess and determine what makes up the current threat environment in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology. The intelligence process as it relates to estimating nuclear capabilities or intentions is wrought with many challenges and complications. The denial and deception techniques employed by states running covert weapons programs and the dual-use nature of many weapons components create many difficulties for intelligence organizations. Additionally, illicit transnational networks obscure the situation further by serving as a source, for both nation states and non-state actors, for acquiring dual-use commodities and technologies. These challenges can lead to the miscalculation of a state’s capabilities or intentions. This paper presents a comparative analysis of three cases of nuclear proliferation: India’s 1998 nuclear tests, the exposure of the AQ Khan network, and Iran’s nuclear program. We examine the lessons learned and propose recommendations for future counter proliferation policy and strategy.
You might find our other paper of interest. It was published in the International Journal of Public Administration.
I had a wonderful time exchanging ideas with policy makers, researchers, practitioners, and even students at the NSF Workshop on Participatory Challenge Platforms with a Public Intent put on by the Center for Policy Informatics at Arizona State University. My formal remarks during the workshop drew on research results from our study of Challenge.gov. Since the workshop, I have heard from over 30 managers across the public, non-profit, and even private sectors for copies of the draft report. The feedback on the findings has been overwhelmingly positive. I hope to have a revised draft out for circulation by the end of the month.
See for a press release on the events in D.C. - "ASU Concludes White House Initiative in Nation's Capitol," ASU News, June 12, 2012.
I have just completed the first draft of my report on the Challenge.gov platform. This paper has been a few months in the making and builds on my recent work in community intelligence platforms, citizen apps, and innovation in the public sector. To receive a copy of the report, please send me an email.
Challenge.Gov: Landscape Analysis and Implications from the Citizen and Agency Perspective
To solve complex social and policy challenges we need to broaden the conversations, involve more minds and talent, and collaborate effectively and efficiently. Traditionally, public agencies have felt the burden to tackle challenges by relying on their own internal intellectual capital or through structured contracting with external partners. Seldom could an individual citizen share his or her talent, expertise, and skills with a public agency directly. Today, public agencies are becoming more participatory, inclusive, and transparent in how they engage with citizens as well as with each other. Challenge.gov is the crowdsourcing platform for US federal agencies that seek to engage citizens, leverage collective intelligence, and tackle complex social and technical challenges. In this paper we report on an exploratory landscape analysis of the competitions run on Challege.gov. We interviewed citizens who took part in competitions on Challenge.gov as well as public managers and government executives to understand their motivations, experiences, lessons learned, and future plans. Drawing on these interviews, we arrive at a set of actionable guidelines presented through implications to improve the state of competitions hosted by Challenge.gov.
Acknowledgments: This project was made possible through funding received from the IBM Center for the Business of Government. Tim Moon and Akshay Bhagwatwar served as research associates for the project. I am grateful to the assistance provided by Eric Park and Lauren Bulka during the project. I also thank all solution contributors to challenges and public managers who designed challenges that participated in our interviews. All errors and omissions are solely my responsibility. I acknowledge the thoughtful discussion and comments from participants at the NSF Workshop on Participatory Challenge Platforms with a Public Intent. The views represented in this paper are our own, and do not represent official positions of IBM, any of its affiliates, or the NSF.
Information technologies have a critical role to play in advancing sustainability of our organizations, communities, cities, and nations. In the recent issue of PM Magazine (Vol. 94, No. 5, June 2012), Joe Schilling, Associate Director of the Metropolitan Institute, have a piece that looks at how local sustainability planning and the creative use of information technologies to build sustainable living spaces. Please click here to read the article.
Developer: Dean Jenkins
Bio: Dean holds an Executive MBA degree from the University of Washington. Prior to establishing PapayaHead, Inc. in 2006, Dean spent 14 years working as an Enterprise Software Program Manager at Intel Corporation. In addition to his work at PapayaHead, he serves on the Pastoral Staff at Mountain View Church in Tumwater, Washington.
App in Focus: PapayaHead
Federal Citizen App Program: Department of Agriculture’s “Apps for Healthy Kids”
Recognition: 2nd Place
Description of the app: PapayaHead is a family meal planning website and app that allows family members to fill out a unique and individual profile of food preferences. Logging things such as likes and dislikes, as well as allergies and other nutritional requirements. From these profiles, a family can build meal plans for the day which display the nutritional value of their meals and its impact on their profiles. In addition, the plans, recipes and shopping lists may be printed.
Who is the app intended to serve: Families and individuals looking to coordinate and plan their meals.
Why was the app developed: The initial motivation was for a website application to meet his own meal planning needs for his family. He always had the desire to be an entrepreneur and start his own company. Dean saw this as a business opportunity to do something he cares about and start a successful business.
The application was not developed for the contest. It was already under development. A registered dietician on their team heard of the contest and recommended they participate since they met the challenge’s criteria.
Examination of other apps: The team looked at what was available like Jenny Craig, they found that nobody was doing what they were specifically proposing to do. Other programs were doing bits and pieces, but not exactly what they were trying to build.
How was the app developed: They spent 2 years planning (benchmarking and functionality), and came up with the functional requirements that answered what they would want to be able to do with it. The PapayaHead team worked with an offshore development firm to build the web app, but due to communication issues and other complications, the app turned out to be more of a prototype. However, through the process they learned about things they hadn’t considered before. In addition, to technical roadblocks, they also had to pause development a couple times to fund raise, primarily from friends and families.
He launched a beta version in 2009 to gathered user feedback and addressed necessary changes. The app did a full launch in 2010. This app was a web-based application. They do have a derivative product that uses the main engine on their web app which was recently launched.
Communication of app availability: They started out using word of mouth to share their product. They sent emails to ask others to look at PapayaHead, to provide feedback, and to share it with others. They did some small Facebook ads, but did not spend much on a major marketing push and relied on word of mouth.
Issues of privacy: The best way to ensure the privacy and security of users is to limit the data they collect. All large organizations have breaches of security, so there really is no system that’s 100% safe from a breach. They just limit the data they collect in order to better protect their users. They do have system protections in place like firewalls. Within the application, rather than ask for sensitive things directly such as, “Do you have any heart diseases?” they would ask, “Do you want a healthy heart?”.
Realization of original goals: They would like to see more users on their site. They were hoping the site would go viral on its own, but unfortunately this hasn’t been the case. They have more features they want to add, but it’s a slow and gradual process.
Overall Challenge experience: In sum, Dean noted it was enjoyable to go to DC, but it would have been better to see the First Lady Michelle Obama there since she sponsored it. They were hoping to be able to get a picture with her it would have enhanced their experience.
Advice for federal agencies:
- After looking at other challenges, these challenges aren’t something an entrepreneur is able to take too seriously because the prizes and amount of effort going into most of these isn’t significant. Right now it seems more directed towards hobbyists and enthusiasts. It’s hard for someone who is looking to turn this into a serious business to take these challenges seriously.
- Some winners may want to take things further and turn their thing into a company. It would be more beneficial for the challenges to have the goal of helping their winners build companies that continue to tackle these problems if they so choose. It would be better putting together a larger prize because the current prize offerings for most challenges aren’t something you can gain much from. Even better, would be to provide connections and mentoring to build a business. Something similar to GE’s challenge.
- The only feedback they received from the challenge was being informed that they had won 2nd place in the challenge. People like Steve Wozniak and Mark Pincus were among the judges for the challenge, but they did not interact with them at all. It would have been extremely beneficial to receive feedback from them or, even better, have a chance to talk with them and others, such as venture capitalists.
Current Position: Team Leader, Program Management and Evaluation at the US Department of Transportation Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office.
Bio: James is a classically trained civil engineer, receiving his Bachelors from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a MS in Computer Systems Management from the University of Maryland. He has experience in both the public and private sector. Over the last decade, James has worked in the Federal Highway Administration as a program manager, with a particular focus of real-time information. In 2008, he began work with the US DOT and currently supervises the US DOT’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) research projects.
Federal App Challenge in Focus: The Connected Vehicle Technology Challenge is centered on collecting innovative ideas and uses for dedicated short range communications (DSRC); wireless technology enables vehicles to communicate. The challenge did not require technical submissions, and winners were awarded with a free trip to the Intelligent Transportation Systems World Congress. The challenge received a total of 76 submissions.
Motivation for initiating the challenge:
- In general: The Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office has an eye towards advancing technologies, and helping to generate forward progress in the transportation practice. The office focuses on getting newly developed technologies out of the research space and into deployment. The challenges help them to carry out their mission, which includes engaging a larger audience of stakeholders and connecting beyond the usual RFPs. James notes that often when one works in the contracting arena, one is limited to certain audiences. This lessens one’s ability to reach some of the newer and more innovative technologies.
- Challenge specific: ITS sought to broaden awareness of connected vehicles technology (establishing a network of communication between vehicles), and its role within the research field. Moreover, they targeted students, seeking to engage the next generation of engineers, economists and others interested in this arena. The ITS program realizes that these individuals are the ones coming into the workforce, therefore being in touch with this technology is essential.
Process for organizing the challenge:
They defined a challenge, targeted a specific group of participants and determined a prize. The prize was a paid trip to attend the World Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems and provided exclusive access to technology demonstrations. A total of 3-4 Individuals were involved in defining the challenge, while an additional 6 provided further input. There were 10 panelists to review the challenge submissions upon their completion.
In terms of managing the challenge.gov platform, once a challenge is created and coordinated with GSA (the manager of challenge.gov), a moderator is established for the account. Both the moderator and James reviewed content and submissions on the site. In this challenge’s profile on the challenge.gov platform, some example submissions were provided. In addition, they also provided access to background information on connected vehicles to aid participants in understanding the underlying technologies.
They did borrow from existing programs, for things such as their judging criteria. However, the challenge was written by DOT’s ITS. The planning and design of the challenge was done prior to the establishment of the America Competes Law.
ITS developed a publicity plan to build awareness on the work the government was already doing with connected vehicles. The challenge was announced at a PR event at the annual Transportation Board Meeting. From there it immediately took off, and subsequently received 200 press impressions of all sorts; from blogs to webpages, to Wired magazine. One result of the immediate and extensive press coverage was the ability of ITS to refocus on other efforts and research. However, they did maintain support for the challenge, re-engaging the public at other events held by the agency.
Internal judges were volunteers from around the DOT and ITS. The department varies significantly, and ITS worked with 6 other agencies (Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration) within the department. These internal judges then chose the five best submissions, while also eliminating irrelevant or unrelated proposals. In total 90 submissions were gathered, 75 submissions were made available for public voting. A submission from a team out of Clemson University won the people’s choice award. After the ITS World Congress, the agency has had minimal contact with the winners.
Overall, the response out paid their expectations. They would’ve been happy with 40 submissions, however they received close to 90 submissions. Challenge.gov allows people to ‘like’ and comment on the challenges, this is one way to gauge interest. The challenge was well within the top 10 of the challenges listed at the time for activity and submissions. The challenge out performed even those with cash-prizes.
In terms of content, the challenge was devised to gather new concepts. Overall, the submissions helped validate some of their research endeavors, such as electric vehicle fleets and autonomous vehicles. However, nothing specific from the challenge has been directly translated into their research activities.
- Spend time early-on developing and crafting easy to convey messages. Connected vehicles is an inherently complex research field; the solver community out there, even for smart people, requires a bit of effort to express what it takes to achieve this and submission expectations.
- Low barrier to entry for this challenge. As such, must be very specific as to what is expected for submissions.
- Require that it be an original thought. One concept was very closely aligned with another research project from around the country. Thus, better safeguards are needed against this type of submission.
Do you see challenges being important to other agencies:
In short, the answer is yes, but it is difficult to quantify. The Department of Transportation is rather committed to applying this type of initiative. In terms of, conducting research he sees it as evolving into a major component. Moreover, it is a useful method of achieving a knowledge/technology transfer, and a way to boost participation by individuals. Other agencies have contacted him on advice and he has been invited to judge other challenges.
Currently, there are three other agencies in the department defining challenges. He has been approached by agencies within DOT and colleagues in the ITS program with ideas for new challenges. James is additionally a part of a department-wide work group to provide guidance to agencies in conducting challenges.
Major risk/concern with running these challenges:
Major risk is making sure to abide by America COMPETES Act, whether or not the challenge is being conducted within what the law establishes agencies to do. A lot of discussion and negotiation with legal and procurement must exist during the design and implementation of a challenge. Challenges are new for agencies, and it will take time to gain awareness and a level of comfort. However, enthusiasm is building for it.
How clear is the America COMPETES Act:
Interpreting the law is still a work in progress and questions do remain. America COMPETES includes requirements such as, requiring judges from both agencies and the industry. As a result, vetting conflicts of interest becomes necessary. This adds a significant amount of time to just defining and selecting a judge. Efforts are still underway to figure out how early in the process to include the judging panel. As well as, how to compensate non-federal employees.
Volodymyr Lysenko and I have a paper accepted in Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. Volodymyr is a former PhD student of mine that graduated from the Information School at the University of Washington. This paper draws on work he did while completing his dissertation. The paper is titled, Charting the co-Evolution of Cyberprotest and Counteraction: The Case of Former Soviet Union States from 1997-2011.
In this paper, we investigate the evolution of the modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the associated changes in protest-related tactics employed by two main stakeholders in the contemporary contentious political processes—dissenters and incumbent political authorities. Through in-depth investigation of the cyberprotest cases in the former Soviet states of Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine that occurred during the last decade, a coherent outline is developed of the co-evolution of ICTs-enabled protest tactics of the main counterparts in the contemporary political struggle in these countries. Particularly, it was found that there are at least three highly distinguishable levels of development of modern ICTs and the associated types of protest-related tactics employed by the main stakeholders in these events. We find that as soon as the authorities were able to effectively counteract the previous ICTs-enabled tactics by the dissenters, new developments in modern ICTs always empowered the latter to devise new effective strategies to overcome previously successful counter-revolutionary measures of the political authorities.
Reference: Lysenko, V.V., and Desouza, K.C. “Charting the co-Evolution of Cyberprotest and Counteraction: The Case of Former Soviet Union States from 1997-2011,” Convergence, Forthcoming.