Open data policy allows more solutions to be created through the developer community
Ride-sharing, car-sharing, collaborative maps, information about traffic and public transport systems, among many other programs, improve the quality of services in cities, while increasing the population's access to them. These are some of the solutions that integrate smart city projects, which aim to use new technologies to improve the relationship between public managers and citizens and in the provision of essential services to improve the quality of life. But, what are the trends in this field?
The ABES portal interviewed Diego Canales, contributor to the WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, an expert who has worked in Urban Transport at the World Bank, overseeing new open data initiatives and smart urban mobility transport systems in Mexico and Brazil.
Canales highlighted the evolution of smart city debates and projects and the advent of the concept of Smart City 2.0, supported by WRI, and its three pillars: people-centered, government-facilitated, and smart government-supported. "Adopting this concept already assumes that the government will integrate the population in the co-creation of many of the solutions", it says. Follow the interview:
What is the best definition of a smart city?
There is a wide variety of definitions and no consensus around a universal definition. In many places this usually means automation, optimization or integration of urban services. One of the definitions of the British Standards Institute says that it is the "the effective integration of physical, digital and human systems within the built environment to achieve a sustainable, prosperous and inclusive future for its citizens"(Smart City Framework, 2014). And I could list definitions from many other institutions, but the concept is constantly evolving. Many of these early approaches were top-down and driven by large technology and data companies. What became known as Smart Cities 1.0. We can cite examples of cities such as Masdar (United Arab Emirates), Songdo (South Korea) and the first interaction of the Rio Command Center (COR). But this is evolving. At WRI, we support three pillars that integrate the concept of Smart Cities 2.0:
The ABES portal interviewed Diego Canales, contributor to the WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, an expert who has worked in Urban Transport at the World Bank, overseeing new open data initiatives and smart urban mobility transport systems in Mexico and Brazil.
Canales highlighted the evolution of smart city debates and projects and the advent of the concept of Smart City 2.0, supported by WRI, and its three pillars: people-centered, government-facilitated, and smart government-supported. "Adopting this concept already assumes that the government will integrate the population in the co-creation of many of the solutions", it says. Follow the interview:
What is the best definition of a smart city?
There is a wide variety of definitions and no consensus around a universal definition. In many places this usually means automation, optimization or integration of urban services. One of the definitions of the British Standards Institute says that it is the "the effective integration of physical, digital and human systems within the built environment to achieve a sustainable, prosperous and inclusive future for its citizens"(Smart City Framework, 2014). And I could list definitions from many other institutions, but the concept is constantly evolving. Many of these early approaches were top-down and driven by large technology and data companies. What became known as Smart Cities 1.0. We can cite examples of cities such as Masdar (United Arab Emirates), Songdo (South Korea) and the first interaction of the Rio Command Center (COR). But this is evolving. At WRI, we support three pillars that integrate the concept of Smart Cities 2.0:
· people centered – tailor-made solutions to be accessed by any citizen regardless of their economic and demographic level. It integrates the population to co-create such solutions and creates systems to receive their needs, suggestions and recommendations, and acts on them.
· government as facilitator – facilitate innovation ecosystems and environments that simplify testing deployment of new technologies and address critical regulatory issues that enable platform interoperability and data standardization.
· smart government – smart government has strong inter-agency collaboration, information flow, the use of data, technologies and tools to maximize efficiency.
Which cities in the world would be the most advanced in the use of technology in the management of public services?
It is not easy to make this assessment and rank cities according to the use of technology in the management of public services. The ranking I like is that of Boyd Cohen, as it is more holistic, when evaluating more than 60 indicators of government, economy, environment, security, education, health, mobility, social inclusion, among other areas. In other words, the methodology used goes beyond analyzing just the amount of infrastructure deployed. Some cities that stand out in the latest edition of this ranking are: Barcelona (Spain), Helsinki (Finland), Brisbane (Australia) and Toronto (Canada).
What, in your opinion, are the main aspects that change in the relationship of citizens with their city and with public managers?
To begin with, we need to take into account the first pillar (People-centered) of the definition of smart cities 2.0. Adopting this policy already assumes that the government will integrate the population in the co-creation of many of the solutions. But then, the issue of the how.
In this aspect, there are several digital platforms and tools that help to engage the population. But the choice of which ones to use will depend on the understanding of the socio-demographic stratum of the population. For example, New York City used a map (where, incidentally, they used technology source code), in deploying their bikeshare systems, so that citizens could choose the location of stations.
Likewise for their Vision Zero (zero traffic fatalities) project, they use a platform for citizens to report possible problems. In this case, the population of New York has high access to digital tools and, therefore, these platforms help to establish a relationship with citizens. But in other cities it is possible that this is not the reality and the best way to establish communication is perhaps through SMS messages. There are platforms that specialize in this type of services for SMS.
In addition, it is important to adopt an open data policy as more solutions will be created through the developer community.
With regard to public managers, how do they face this need to use more technologies to offer better services to the population?
Often the public service adopts solutions that are offered by technology vendors, but that are not always in line with what the public sector needs. And this happens because the public sector often doesn't have the time or staff to sit down and understand all the different technology options that could be useful and then detail the functionality.
This takes time and effort, because nowadays the analysis should not only be about whether the technology has the ability to perform the task, but also about understanding how it could interact with other processes in the future or be scaled to introduce new functionalities not predicted. In other words, prevent the chosen technology from representing a lock-in for the next five or ten years, as technology is a concept that evolves very quickly. The question is how to put people within a government agency who have these technical capabilities and, over time, innovate and help choose the best technologies.
In this aspect, I really like the work of the NGO Code for America, which is represented in the Brazil, whose mission is to work together with the public to develop more agile government and create meaningful change through technology.
Could you cite Brazilian examples of initiatives in Brazil to make cities smarter?
I like to start with the example of cities that have opened up their data and adopted an open data policy. It may not seem at first glance, but these policies through the developer community have managed to make the city smarter. From 2009 to 2013 the only way to obtain information about public transport was to access Google (best routes and itineraries), and for real-time information about the bus it was through the portal Living Eye. After 2013, apps like Moovit, Citymapper, and other local apps like Trafi and where's the bus to give this kind of information about public transport in real time. In this movement, São Paulo, as of 2013, opened its data so that developers could use them, both static and dynamic data. Rio de Janeiro is another example of a city that has this policy.
Ideally, the public transport agency will focus on data quality and make it available in a standard format (equivalent to GTFS or GTFS-RT), and the market will compete to produce the best app. It makes no sense for a public transport agency to spend public money to produce an app when its focus is public transport and not software/app production. On the other hand, users don't want to have a transport app for every city they visit, that is, they want one or two apps that they can use in a large number of cities. This is one of the reasons for the success of Google Maps.
· government as facilitator – facilitate innovation ecosystems and environments that simplify testing deployment of new technologies and address critical regulatory issues that enable platform interoperability and data standardization.
· smart government – smart government has strong inter-agency collaboration, information flow, the use of data, technologies and tools to maximize efficiency.
Which cities in the world would be the most advanced in the use of technology in the management of public services?
It is not easy to make this assessment and rank cities according to the use of technology in the management of public services. The ranking I like is that of Boyd Cohen, as it is more holistic, when evaluating more than 60 indicators of government, economy, environment, security, education, health, mobility, social inclusion, among other areas. In other words, the methodology used goes beyond analyzing just the amount of infrastructure deployed. Some cities that stand out in the latest edition of this ranking are: Barcelona (Spain), Helsinki (Finland), Brisbane (Australia) and Toronto (Canada).
What, in your opinion, are the main aspects that change in the relationship of citizens with their city and with public managers?
To begin with, we need to take into account the first pillar (People-centered) of the definition of smart cities 2.0. Adopting this policy already assumes that the government will integrate the population in the co-creation of many of the solutions. But then, the issue of the how.
In this aspect, there are several digital platforms and tools that help to engage the population. But the choice of which ones to use will depend on the understanding of the socio-demographic stratum of the population. For example, New York City used a map (where, incidentally, they used technology source code), in deploying their bikeshare systems, so that citizens could choose the location of stations.
Likewise for their Vision Zero (zero traffic fatalities) project, they use a platform for citizens to report possible problems. In this case, the population of New York has high access to digital tools and, therefore, these platforms help to establish a relationship with citizens. But in other cities it is possible that this is not the reality and the best way to establish communication is perhaps through SMS messages. There are platforms that specialize in this type of services for SMS.
In addition, it is important to adopt an open data policy as more solutions will be created through the developer community.
With regard to public managers, how do they face this need to use more technologies to offer better services to the population?
Often the public service adopts solutions that are offered by technology vendors, but that are not always in line with what the public sector needs. And this happens because the public sector often doesn't have the time or staff to sit down and understand all the different technology options that could be useful and then detail the functionality.
This takes time and effort, because nowadays the analysis should not only be about whether the technology has the ability to perform the task, but also about understanding how it could interact with other processes in the future or be scaled to introduce new functionalities not predicted. In other words, prevent the chosen technology from representing a lock-in for the next five or ten years, as technology is a concept that evolves very quickly. The question is how to put people within a government agency who have these technical capabilities and, over time, innovate and help choose the best technologies.
In this aspect, I really like the work of the NGO Code for America, which is represented in the Brazil, whose mission is to work together with the public to develop more agile government and create meaningful change through technology.
Could you cite Brazilian examples of initiatives in Brazil to make cities smarter?
I like to start with the example of cities that have opened up their data and adopted an open data policy. It may not seem at first glance, but these policies through the developer community have managed to make the city smarter. From 2009 to 2013 the only way to obtain information about public transport was to access Google (best routes and itineraries), and for real-time information about the bus it was through the portal Living Eye. After 2013, apps like Moovit, Citymapper, and other local apps like Trafi and where's the bus to give this kind of information about public transport in real time. In this movement, São Paulo, as of 2013, opened its data so that developers could use them, both static and dynamic data. Rio de Janeiro is another example of a city that has this policy.
Ideally, the public transport agency will focus on data quality and make it available in a standard format (equivalent to GTFS or GTFS-RT), and the market will compete to produce the best app. It makes no sense for a public transport agency to spend public money to produce an app when its focus is public transport and not software/app production. On the other hand, users don't want to have a transport app for every city they visit, that is, they want one or two apps that they can use in a large number of cities. This is one of the reasons for the success of Google Maps.
EN 
PT 
