• Save
Framework for SMART City Deployment V1.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Framework for SMART City Deployment V1.0

on

  • 697 views

Exploration of a conceptual framework that might be adopted by any municipality or community and enables them to deploy the physical and logical infrastructure required to support all SMART functional ...

Exploration of a conceptual framework that might be adopted by any municipality or community and enables them to deploy the physical and logical infrastructure required to support all SMART functional technology going forward.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
697
Views on SlideShare
695
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
5
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Framework for SMART City Deployment V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment V1.0 Presentation Transcript

  • Framework for SMART City Deployment TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Paul Goff 5/25/2013 An exploration of a conceptual framework that might be adopted by any municipality or community and enables that organisation to deploy the physical and logical infrastructure required to support all SMART functional technology going forward.
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment Terms of Reference Introduction The brief for this informal report is to explore a conceptual framework that might be adopted by any municipality or community and enables that organisation to deploy the physical and logical infrastructure required to support all SMART functional technology going forward. Objective In my role as head of ICT within Buro Happolds Urban Intelligence Group (UIG) http://www.burohappold.com/thelivingcity/urban-technology/ I have contributed to several technology and SMART city masterplans for existing and proposed developments around the world. There are consistently several common issues that crop up during strategy development and typically leave project teams, municipalities and city authorities scrambling for a way forward. The objective of this report is to support the practical deployment of technology and infrastructure within the public realm and focus efforts within the city at a macro rather than micro level by summarising the potential issues to be considered during the SMART planning process. One major factor is approaching strategy development with a ‘top down’ perspective focusing resources on pursuing specific applications and functional technology, typically because it makes for an easy sell when seeking senior backing or financial support. By documenting these issues (even if only at a high level) it is hoped this report may assist those tasked with initiating projects in the SMART city arena. 2 Inevitably this approach opens the door for systems and equipment manufacturers to promote the deployment of proprietary, closed protocol, solutions. Issues I had hoped to focus the emphasis of the report on the efforts of one or two London based City councils in order to use their experience as a baseline for the proposed framework. SMART city implementation should, in the first instance, focus on objective setting whilst planning a physical and logical infrastructure that's capable of providing a platform for systems integration in support of those objectives for a period of between 15-30 years. Unfortunately this hasn’t been feasible due to issues engaging with the appropriate departments and individuals within the timescale stipulated. In other words a bottom up approach focussing on: Assumptions Those seeking to utilise the framework recognise the legacy approach to the deployment of technology and information systems within the confines of the city as a constraint e.g. without an appropriate strategy in place numerous, disparate, proprietary systems and infrastructures will be implemented. • • • • Spatial planning for physical infrastructure - civil engineering; Network design – data communications engineering; Implementation of open protocols for control and supervisory platforms software engineering; Development of suitable middleware and data bases to hold the whole thing together - computer science;
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment Information Technology Requirements The criticality of a bottom up approach can be best appreciated by considering industry best practice for the lifecycle of technology deployed in the public realm and encompassed in the following figure: Layer 4 User Requirements Layer •Lifecycle 3-5 Years Layer 3 Network Layer •Lifecycle 5-10 Years Layer 2 Transmission Media Layer •Lifecycle 10 -15 years 3 Transmission Media Layer The physical or wireless medium utilised by the technology in question e.g. copper, optical fibre or radio waves. This layer will be expected to provide 10 15 years’ service, particularly cabled infrastructure which should support several generations of application and transmission equipment. The Infrastructure Layer Encompassing above and below ground space and the infrastructure required to support the media layer. For example underground ducts and interconnecting chambers, building entry points, equipment space etc. This element of the overall solution should be designed to provide the city with at least 30 years’ service with minimal requirement for maintenance or further invasive civil engineering works. Layer 1 Infrastructure Requirements Layer •Lifecycle 30 Years + ICT Requirements Model User Requirements Layer Typically consists of software, user interfaces and functional technology, applications will have short lifecycles typically in the region of 3-5 years and will be highly dependent upon the specific requirements of the city. Network Layer Refers to the data communication technologies required to deliver the city’s user applications. This layer may represent Gigabit and 10 Gigabit Ethernet transmissions, leased ‘point to point’ services and fibre to the premise (FTTP). Services at this layer tend to have lifecycles in the region of 5 – 10 years. SMART City Infrastructure Clearly defined objectives for a city are likely to incorporate at least some key performance indicators (KPI’s) associated with the management of resources, facilities and operations. Seeking improvement in one or all three of these KPI’s inevitably leads planners to consider integrating new and existing systems and processes typically enabled via two key technical areas, namely: • Convergence and the ability for numerous systems to communicate across a single physical and logical medium regardless of signal type or transmission protocol. Converging systems will increase the functionality provided by existing platforms whilst simultaneously providing opportunities for reduction in capital and operating expenditure.
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 • Framework for SMART City Deployment The ubiquitous deployment of wired and wireless intelligent devices, SMART sensors and actuators interconnected via an appropriately planned ICT infrastructure. These intelligent devices will be used to automate day to day management of the city and its resources including utility infrastructures, municipal building management systems, transport systems and the operation of the public realm. SMART City Framework framework or methodology that will treat the city and its commercial partners as an enterprise. Numerous systems exist for modelling an enterprise and its systems but in the spirit of an open approach the following figure utilises elements of the TOGAF (http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/) ADM architectures that could be used to develop the basis of a strategy. In the authors opinion the business case for a SMART city project initiation should encompass the following five conceptual work streams. ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE DATA COMMUNICATIONS & INFRASTRUCTURE CONTROLS & CITY OPERATING PLATFORM INTEGRATION ANALYTICS APPLICATIONS SMART City Framework I have tested these opinions amongst colleagues and industry peers utilising numerous forums including social media – see the appendix for a summary of responses to the framework concept collated via ‘LinkedIn’ group discussions. Enterprise Architecture A legacy approach to the deployment of information technology systems within the city will be a constraint e.g. disparate proprietary systems and infrastructures owned and operated by multiple factions, agencies etc. Integration and convergence of physical and logical systems is the key to a successful SMART deployment. In order to navigate the commercial relationships and governance issues associated with this level of integration it is important to utilise a recognised SMART City Enterprise model The engineering challenges encountered when developing and implementing city systems are numerous but as a relatively new concept the commercial issues which need to be resolved to enable the technical challenge to begin can prove to be overwhelming to a project team without the assistance of an appropriately qualified enterprise architect. 4
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment The following figure highlights some of the SMART city ‘enablers’ that need to be navigated and managed (typically across multiple organisations) when mapping city enterprise architecture in order to begin to implement SMART functionality. 5 The importance of aligning technology infrastructure and topology with energy technology, policy for the city cannot be overstated for example an incorrectly specified overstated, meter strategy could constrain all future energy proposals for the city including demand response and load shedding. SMART City Enablers Vs SMART City Functionality For example community leaders may aspire to influence or improve the utilisation and management of energy within the confines of a ci through the city introduction of a municipal energy bureau and a SMART energy grid. This is the goal of many cities around the world (particularly newly proposed schemes in the developing world) however this aspiration typically entails navigating numerous complex issues of governance and tenure, not least ownership of the city’s electrical distribution infrastructure. Energy bureaus and /or SMART grids require the deployment of i information technology systems to integrate numerous processes including meteri and metering billing along with consumer databases. Physical implications for communications infrastructure include resolution of a suitable metering strategy and connectivity of said meters to site wide ICT networks. Conceptual Components of a SMART Grid Data Communications & Infrastructure Development of this work stream will encompass deployment of resilient city wide fixed and wireless physical telecommunication infrastructure and outside plant. Typically these elements of a SMART city i infrastructure are encompassed within the physical (layer 1) and data link (layer 2) layers of th OSI model as developed ayer the by the ISO (http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html).
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment Typically layer 1 will dictate the physical space allocated to cable routes, civil infrastructure, central plant, street furniture, wireless and cellular infrastructure and equipment rooms. 6 halls, fire stations etc. with optical fibre and the appropriate light wave equipment. Layer 2 will fix on network technology and the associated implications of that technology on the proposed topology of infrastructure for example Fibre to the premise (FTTP), metropolitan area networks (MAN) etc. By deploying an appropriately specified MAN the city relinquishes any obligation (and cost) to incumbent telecom operators for interconnecting city owned buildings. The MAN can also be used to support telemetry from city wide services such as transport and security and forms the basis for the backhaul of data traffic generated via municipal WiFi in the public realm. In the first instance strategy developed under both layers should be standards based in order to avoid deploying proprietary systems. Inevitably the deployment of fixed infrastructure and technology assets will be linked to discussion around capital investment, operational expenditure, tenure and possible revenue generation. Finally the implementation of a MAN can provide the city with a backbone that will enable the deployment of true SMART city functionality through the introduction of city wide control rooms and city operating platforms. The following figure presents a hypothetical topology utilised to deliver SMART city functionality to residential and commercial property via a fibre optic infrastructure and a distributed city operating system (COS) with nodes co- For example a city may aspire to deploy an ‘open’ access telecom infrastructure with cabled and civil networks remaining the property of the community they serve. In this scenario revenue will be generated through charges raised against telecom operators utilising the Hypothetical Distribution of SMART City Services via Municipal Telecom Infrastructure infrastructure to deliver voice, data and video services to the occupants of the city. In variably the cost of constructing and maintaining such an infrastructure proves too prohibitive for many cities and municipalities. However its important city leaders consider all elements of network ownership maybe opting to retain civil infrastructure whilst leasing cable placement within duct space to operators. Alternatively many city’s opt to deploy higher level infrastructure such as metropolitan area networks which can be developed on a more gradual basis by interconnecting major municipal hubs such as town
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment 7 located in telecom points of presence (PoP) buildings and interconnected via a MAN. the developments facility management team in association with the City’s street works team. The author has direct experience of the complexity of trying to plan and implement solutions for both layers 1 and 2 within the cityscape and the following example emphases the difficulty faced when deploying even the simplest technology infrastructure in the public realm. Reaching this solution entailed multiple rounds of negotiation with all factions, developing a design for physical infrastructure that aligned with the technical and security requirements of all concerned. Proposing a financial model that enabled the developer to recoup the cost of the engineering works from the telecom operators who have to pay each time they access the infrastructure and then locating the access point and 2 x chambers equidistant to all of the operators existing underground infrastructure. In summary a major developer was seeking the provision of additional building entry points, situated within the public realm, for a high profile retail and office complex that had only recently been completed in the City of London (the financial district within Greater London). The developer had a potential tenant who required resilient, high bandwidth, fibre optic telecommunication connectivity to be provided to this office space by multiple operators in order to sign up to a long term lease. The preceding narrative and following figures and photographs (source: Buro Happold) provide some idea of the complexity involved in retro fitting a relatively simple infrastructure solution in a busy public realm. Historically in the UK, telecom operators will not share above or below ground infrastructure. The potential tenant required high bandwidth data connectivity to be available from a minimum of 5 service providers, the City Of London authority did not want to see large scale, invasive engineering works in the footway adjacent to such a high profile development and the developer wanted to retain some element of control over his multi tenanted building rather than allow 5 telecom organisations free reign as to the location of their building entry points. This issue is typical of the conundrum faced by developers and municipalities around the world e.g. the importance of tenure, governance and physical infrastructure to the deployment of technology within new and existing cities. Street Scene Prior to Works Commencing The solution in this instance was to develop a proposal for one new building entry point, to be located in the public realm and controlled and managed by
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment Street Scene Post Works Commencing Multiple Operators Cabled Infrastructure Utilising a Shared Duct Infrastructure Single Multi Operator Building Entry Point 8
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment Controls and City Operating Platform Integration The integration of city wide information technology systems refers to the process of linking together different computing platforms, applications and infrastructure physically or functionally to act as a coordinated whole. Applied holistically across the city by enforcing open interfaces between various systems, sensor streams and supervisory platforms this integration becomes a powerful tool e.g. the basis of a city operating system. The term city operating system has become common place often associated with control, sensing and supervisory capabilities within the confines of the city. The architecture of a city operating system must be based on a model with the potential for evolution and innovation making production of new system components attractive to third parties and a range of alternative organisations. The following figures encompass key components of a city operating system: As previously discussed the integration of city wide information technology systems refers to the process of linking together different computing platforms, applications and infrastructure under a SMART urban architecture. This SMART urban architecture will encompass an operating platform and physical network topology that maybe be owned by the city and deployed within dedicated civil infrastructure. At the edges of this infrastructure e.g. dwellings, commercial property, smart networks deployed in the public realm etc. there will be a mix of interfaces – fixed & wireless supporting a range of intelligent devices including sensors and actuators. The core infrastructure supporting backhaul transmission of data and telemetry on this network will be an optical fibre infrastructure owned and deployed by the city. Real time control capability at a micro and macro level; A platform designed to provide data and control capability to applications developed by third parties; 9 An integrated platform for multiple types of control and sensor; Supervisory and analytical capabilities for large quantities of historical data; Key Components of a City Operating System
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment It’s reasonably safe to assume the city’s data sources, facilities and proposed services will be managed by a combination of a city operating platform such as Living PlanIT’s Urban Operating System (UOS) http://www.living-planit.com/ and this dedicated optical fibre network. The following tables highlight typical bandwidth implications that maybe encountered during the detailed design of SMART urban architecture for a city. IP CCTV Network Bandwidth Estimates For example sensors deployed within the various building envelopes, the public realm or alongside utility infrastructure will be co-located with actuators. Wireless Access Points Network Bandwidth Estimates When a light sensor in an apartment is activated an actuator will switch on a light. Within an individual apartment during a typical day this type of real time control (RTC) occurs on numerous occasions for lights, AC, operation of white goods etc. As an individual local issue this RTC is of low priority to the operation of the city, however an aggregated log of these actions and the RTC instances from surrounding apartments within the same block will be of interest and will be transmitted to a UOS node on a 15 minute, 60 minute or daily basis. These transmissions will be prioritised via the UOS in order to take advantage of quieter periods of network traffic e.g. information pertaining to the operation of site wide transport information will be a far higher priority than energy utilisation in an individual apartment. The sensor networks deployed within each dwelling, commercial property or streetscape will be interconnected to the UOS via dedicated control panels utilising a combination of fixed and wireless interfaces. The UOS sees these control panels as another sensor in the deployed network and each individual control panel will be physically connected to a UOS instance via dedicated fibre optic cabling. 10 Sensor Network Bandwidth Estimates SMART City Network Bandwidth Aggregation Issues UOS nodes will be distributed across the city and network design should focus on placing them in densely populated areas in order to reduce physical infrastructure requirements in a similar fashion to planning fixed telecommunications infrastructure. The minimum number of UOS instances or nodes to be deployed as part of a metropolitan project will be 2 in order to provide a resilient platform for the city. UOS nodes can be physically located in the building distributors and computer rooms of MDU’s & MTU’s, in telecom PoP’s, in commercial data centres or in street side enclosures and cabinets.
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment 11 Distribution of UOS Nodes within the SMART City Analytics This work stream entails the development of a computing platform capable of collating city wide data at an industrial scale e.g. thousands of data streams operating at a macro and micro level, in other words ‘big data’. With the appropriate systems in place the ability to store manage and manipulate data under this work stream will create massive opportunities for the city as well presenting ethical issues such as who owns this data and how can it best benefit the city and its population. Applications & Analytics are Components within a City Operating Model Applications The applications and analytics work streams are intrinsically linked as computing platforms and operating systems deployed in the city must be based on standards derived models with the potential for evolution and a clearly defined technology ‘roadmap’. Utilising this approach third party developers and manufacturers will be encouraged to produce new system components and functional technologies to further enhance the city’s operations.
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment • • • • • • • Distribution of SMART City Applications via a Common Telecom Infrastructure Conclusion SMART city infrastructure will enable an increasingly ‘intelligent’ portfolio of security, transport, utility plant and building management solutions to be deployed within metropolitan and urban environments going forward. These systems will traverse dedicated infrastructure - physical, wireless and virtual which may or may not be owned by the city but should always be designed to benefit the community and population of the city. It is hoped this high level document may serve as the basis of a framework for communities and city planners seeking to initiate deployment of SMART city solutions by highlighting strategic areas for consideration, namely: • • • • 12 Development of a series of long term aspirational objectives that serve as the guiding principles for the deployment of SMART city infrastructure and technology within the public realm; Development of a strategy that treats the interface between the City and its operating and commercial partners as enterprise architecture; Identification of a suitable ‘open’ architecture framework; Engagement of a suitably experienced architect to map/design the relationships and systems required to support the SMART city; Recognition of the importance of the data communications infrastructure to SMART city strategy by reserving above and below ground space to accommodate network topology going forward; Review the investment that will be required and the revenue generation that maybe available to the community through various iterations of ‘open’ ICT networks; The ubiquitous deployment of wired and wireless intelligent devices used to automate day to day management of the city and its resources including utility infrastructures, municipal building management systems, transport systems and the operation of the public realm; Open, standards based systems deployed and aligned with suitably robust architectural frameworks in order to manage convergence whilst avoiding procuring proprietary systems; Converging systems increasing functionality provided by existing platforms whilst simultaneously providing opportunities for reduction in capital and operating expenditure; City operating systems and middleware platforms implemented to facilitate system aggregation and integration in order to ensure the smooth running and longevity of the SMART city; Third party developers and manufacturers encouraged to produce new system components and functional technologies to further enhance the city’s operations;
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Appendix Framework for SMART City Deployment 13
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment 14 SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Paul Goff - 5 key areas to SMART city deployment focusing on practical deployment and implementation: Piergiorgio Roveda, Will Winn and 3 others like this Enterprise Architecture – develop an approach and framework that will enable the municipal client to resolve issues of governance, tenure, commercial impetus along with a roadmap for development and clearly defined objectives by placing the city at the centre of the architecture; SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 Log of LinkedIn Discussions Instigated by Buro Happold Focussing on Practical Deployment of SMART City Infrastructure Data Communications & Infrastructure – Layers 1 & 2 of the OSI model, physical infrastructure and network topology, reservation of above and below ground space, allocation of suitable equipment rooms and space, concept through to detailed design of local access, campus and or Metro networks; Controls & City Operating Platform Integration – Identifying suitable city operating platforms/ middleware and integrating multiple data streams from sensor, control and supervisory layers, including feeds to 3rd parties; Analytics – the ‘Big Data’ piece, collation and processing of city wide data, macro and micro level, indentify and specify systems used to store, manage and manipulate this data, who owns this data – how can it best benefit the city and its population; Applications - Top down approach incorporating best of breed and emerging bespoke 3rd party applications, functional technologies etc. the longevity of the system will be reliant on ensuring third parties are attracted/ encouraged to develop new applications; High level but what do you think? Secondary comment
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment Paul Goff - Practical deployment of a hypothetical (but very soon to be realised) SMART city operating platform, thoughts appreciated on the following: A city operating platform implemented as a distributed architecture with nodes deployed across the public realm and co located with PON points of presence (PoP’s) and fibre distribution hubs (FDH) to enable said nodes to aggregate data collated from residents dwellings by piggy backing connectivity off the passive fibre network. In the worst case scenario these nodes may even need to be located in street side cabinets. What are the implications for physical interconnection to the FTTH infrastructure e.g. presumably there will be issues for conflicting operating wavelengths for active equipment? At the PoP, I guess the introduction of WDM equipment would enable the city operating platform node to share feeder cable with the OLT but what on earth would happen at the street side splitter? Would physical presentation be an issue particularly if the city operating node was located in a street side cabinet alongside the FDH – is there a solution manufactured today that can resolve this issue? Finally what would happen in a typical residential end user premise e.g. a SMART home, data aggregator will need to share drop cable connectivity with an existing ONU – thoughts again on physical presentation and a manufacturer who produces appropriate equipment today? I plan to pose the same set of questions in the FTTX group. 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Harish Magan likes this Secondary comment 15 SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Paul Goff - Off the shelf City Operating System? Does anyone know of an organisation that can deliver an off the shelf, non-proprietary & commercially viable city operating system? Michael Gould • why non-proprietary per se? Seems some people add this to the list just because... The city's cars, computers, telephones, and much of its software is proprietary. does that in itself make it better, worse, more/less stable or reliable? Threre are muliple business models for creating, providing, and maintaining software systems. Most orgs look for a whole package that works for them, helps them solve problems, and produces a positive return on investment. Secondary comment Paul Goff • Hi Michael - agreed, I guess I was referring more to non-proprietary interfaces between systems e.g. if a vendor develops a nice, new functional technology and associated control it would be great to be able to plug that control into an off the shelf package used to manage and operate the cityscape. Current practice dictates purchasing an all-encompassing system from one vendor or from a group of vendors who have been smart enough to form their own proprietary club - in my view a standards based approach would resolve this but is there an organisation with a suitable off the shelf package to blaze a trail? I am aware of some of the bespoke approaches by some of the bigger players with their own consulting arms but that is a frightening prospect for a lot of aspiring municipalities and city developers.
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Secondary comment 16 SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment Paul Goff - Off the shelf City Operating System? Paul Goff - Off the shelf City Operating System? Does anyone know of an organisation that can deliver an off the shelf, non-proprietary & commercially viable city operating system? 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Does anyone know of an organisation that can deliver an off the shelf, non-proprietary & commercially viable city operating system? Cesar Garcia • @Michael I imagine it's just to prevent vendor lock-in. Given citizens are paying taxes for it, it would make complete sense to go for an option that is interoperable, standards based, instead of a proprietary one. While most orgs look for something that works, as public bodies, they should check this issue to make the solution future-proof. Office doc format comes to my mind. Big pain for interoperability with other OS, every version of Office renders it differently, vendor swapping it for docx with product transition. Is that what we want for cities? Prof. Peter Sachsenmeier • Paul, tell me when you find it.... :-) Secondary comment
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Secondary comment 17 SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment Paul Goff - Off the shelf City Operating System? Paul Goff - Off the shelf City Operating System? Does anyone know of an organisation that can deliver an off the shelf, non-proprietary & commercially viable city operating system? 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Does anyone know of an organisation that can deliver an off the shelf, non-proprietary & commercially viable city operating system? Michael Gould • @Paul, good to see you focus on interoperable interfaces...which provide wider access to and exploitation of proprietary software. The P word is a legal distinction not a kind of software per se, @Cesar, on "lock-in" I think we can all think of free software solutions that are controlled by a small core of programmers who have their users by the cojones...but, again, access via APIs and open interfaces is normally the solution. As to future proofing, I am surprised to see that mentioned in a tech-related forum, since technology DOES and WILL change constantly, so trying to protect against it is fruitless. Therefore any solution you choose as an option to MS-Office will be (just as) irrelevant in a few years anyway. Cities will need to react to change as well; there will be no timeless silver bullet solution for them on the tech side. Finally, @Paul, I wish you luck in your search for a single COTS solution for the City OS. I suspect that for a long while it will remain a hotchpotch of tech solutions, some loosely and some tightly coupled, simply because the city is a diverse and evolving creature. (Case in point: no smart cities vendor/pundit saw citizen social media coming! even when all our kids started texting all the time a decade ago.) cheers, MG Keean Schupke • Hi, Just joined this group, and would be interested to know what you mean by a city 'operating system'? I agree that focusing on open standards for interfaces is key, but this has to avoid vendor extensions that are not documented. What about the "Amazon" approach - Everything is a web-service. If each proprietary vendor system (say BMS, etc) provides a Web Service API (say SOAP or REST), then integration applications can be written as web-services themselves. You can write mobile-apps, or web-apps to access the smart city services directly, and you enable a market in new third party integration apps. Secondary comment Paul Goff • Hi Keean, loosely I would describe a city operating system as the integration of city wide information technology systems e.g. linking together computing systems, applications and infrastructure physically and functionally to act as a coordinated whole. I would expect this integration to provide real time control capability at a micro and macro level, offer an integrated platform for multiple types of control and sensor/actuator, deliver supervisory and analytical capability at an industrial scale for large quantities of historical data and finally provide data and control capability to applications and functional technology developed by 3rd parties. Definitely agree with your comments, ensuring that third parties are encouraged to develop apps and new system components would be the key to deploying a system with longevity.
  • TechniCity Project Report V1.0 Framework for SMART City Deployment SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Secondary comment Paul Goff • Thanks Paul - perhaps it would have been more useful for me to propose a stack based scenario for example the interface between a supervisory and controls layer and a city operating system, anyway be good to get your thoughts. Paul Goff 'Open' interfaces on city operating systems, thoughts on enforcing an open approach, are there existing standards for these largely bespoke platforms, is it better to use specs. from controls vendors? paul jenkins • Paul, I think there are two aspects to this, one being IT standards and one being data standards. Open standards from the IT point of view consist of the "how" of interfaces. Then there is the "what" in terms of information. Both of these aspects can be subject to standards. Typically, the "how" will be addressed by open IT standards such as web services and the "what" is addressed by industry standards in terms of information structure. We see this in other industries such as banking, insurance, healthcare etc. In the IT industry these issues have been dealt with for years through the use of integration products, canonical data models etc. Will continue off-line to avoid clogging the comment trail ! Cheers, Paul paul jenkins • Paul, that is exactly what I am doing some work on as a follow on action from a meeting with one of the solution providers. Building up a stack view to go from devices up to user applications delivery. Watch this space! 18 SMART CITIES and CITY 2.0 LinkedIn Initial Comment 22/03/2013 Group Members Response Secondary comment Paul Goff • Thanks Dave, really interesting particularly the case studies in the municipal ICT architectures document. Paul Goff - Is TOGAF a suitable framework to employ in order to overcome issues of tenure and governance when developing SMART city strategy for municipal clients? Dave Fitch • Yes. See http://smartcities.info/files/Creating%20Municipal%20ICT%20Ar chitectures%20-%20Smart%20Cities.pdf and http://smartcities.info/files/ICT_architecture_supporting_service _delivery_in_Smart_Cities.pdf for more information/examples.