to share learning on (use cases for) urban data platforms among European smart cities

1. EUROPEAN STUDY ON
URBAN DATA PLATFORMS
ERASMUS CENTRE FOR DATA ANALYTICS
to share learning on (use cases for)
urban data platforms
among European smart cities
Dr. Marcel van Oosterhout
September 27, 2018
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under grant agreement No 731198. The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the Ruggedised
project and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union.

2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND CONTEXT
Objectives study
• Share learning and extend EIP 2015 survey
results on organizing and using data in the
context of European smart cities and
specifically urban data platforms
• Informs plans for the Integrated Infrastructure
action cluster of EIP-SCC
• Generate deeper insights
Context study
• Part of SCC01 business model & finance
taskgroup and taskgroup on data management
• Study is also distributed via the network of
EUROCITIES
2

3. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
3
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

4. MAIN ANSWERS
4
1. More cities (compared with 2015), have adopted (vision to develop) an UDP, but it is
still early days …
1. most of UDPs are still under development, some use cases operational
2. no clear role for citizens (yet)
3. most UDPs are focused on use cases to make city more efficient (linked to EU
SCC project objectives), few examples yet of commercial business models
enabled by the UDP
4. Adoption & performance KPIs are hardly measured
2. Trust gap among stakeholders in the eco system
3. Recommendations for city governments
1. Foster learning and trust in ecosystem engagement of innovation
2. Mitigate innovation constraining factors
3. Take lead in governance of UDPs and initiate first use cases of UDP
4. Pay more attention to GDPR compliancy

5. STUDY AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Study is conducted from February till August 2018 by team of Faculty and master
students from Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Methodology:
1. Use of on-line questionnaire
i. Data collection between April 20 and July 20, 2018
ii. Respondents are representatives from EU SCC project participating cities,
their IT partner or a representative of the EU SCC project
2. In depth interviews (face to face or via phone or skype) for a number of selected
UDPs
3. Multiple case study: analysis of factors that explain differences in adoption and
performance among 18 UDPs
5

6. URBAN DATA PLATFORM IN THE CONTEXT OF SMART CITIES
Intelligence
Data
Communication
Platform
Functions, Roles
& Mechanisms
URBAN
DATA
PLATFORM
Other Data
Providers
Open and
proprietary
data sets
Other Data
ProvidersOther Data
Providers
Applications3D visualization
UDP
Data
Providers
Data and App Consumers
App
Producers
ObjectsPolicy MakersUDP
(Data)
Users
“An Urban Data Platform exploits
modern digital technologies to
bring together (integrate) data
flows within and across city
systems and make data (re)sources
accessible to participants in the
cities’ ecosystem”
Other
(Urban)
Platfroms
Other
(Urban)
Platforms
6
Vertical Smart Cities Solutions and Government Processes
Objects Objects Objects
Waste
management
Street
Lighting
Traffic
management

7. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
7
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

8. OVERVIEW OF PARTICIPATING CITIES IN THE STUDY
8
33 cities
14 countries
EU Project Respondents
CITY-ZEN 1
Rock 1
Smarter Together 2
Growsmarter 2
MAtchUP 1
REPLICATE 3
RUGGEDISED 6
IRIS 3
mySMARTLife 3
Sharing Cities 3
STARDUST 7
SmartEnCity 1
OTHER 1
UDP status:
Exploring & planning
Building & implementing
Operational
there’s a greater number of operational platforms than before (2015)

9. RESPONDENTS - STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
9
N=34
10
11
8
5
15
Development Stage
City Stage of Development – Urban Data Platform
Exploring Planning Building Implementing Operational
Numberofplatforms

10. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
10
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

11. VISION, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
11
Why is your city developing an Urban Data Platform?
N=33
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
To increase security and public safety
To meet the city's sustainability objectives
To stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation
To engage and empower citizens and make the city more inclusive
To co-create city services and outcomes with business and citizens
To make city operations more efficient and effective
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

12. VISION, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
12
What is the scope of the data platform you are developing?
1
2
MUNICIPALITY OTHER ENTITIES IN CITY
3
8
3
29
Scope 1: Across silos within the municipality Scope 2: Outside the municipality Scope 3: Ecoysystem-wide platform
Numberofplatforms

13. AMBITION UDP AND ENVISIONED RESULT OF SMART CITY
13
Data market; 8%
Combination /
other 71%
Digital
community; 21%
Data Market
The development of a data economy is evident.
This requires Marketplaces were data can be
shared. These marketplaces have to governed and
curated by government to assure, fairness, trust
and openness.
Digital Community
• To promote different usages of
the smart city: data usage but
also services and applications
• Create a service-based digital
equivalent of the current physical
reality as a bases for all kinds of
smart new services,
• Try to develop an alternative for
the private platforms.
Combination
• data platform is key element in city as a platform -concept
• Transparency, legal obligation (open data); stimulate the economy
• Access to data as the basis for the development of new services!
• UDP provides a single, certified, source for every data type to be used by all entities
that wants to access the data. This avoids data duplication and promotes data
quality and reliability and also provides a mechanism to govern the data usage.

14. Preemptive
How to prevent it from happening?
Data
USE CASES OF THE UDP: FROM DESCRIPTIVE TO PRESCRIPTIVE ANALYTICS
14
Based on
https://www.sv-europe.com/blog/10-reasons-organisation-ready-prescriptive-analytics/
Gartner, 2013
Classification of analytical methods, Journal of Business Research 70 (2017) 263 - 286
Businessvalue

15. USE CASES OF THE UDP
(WITH VARIOUS LEVELS OF ANALYTICAL SOPHISTICATION AND USE OF 3D VISUALIZATION)
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Telecommunications
Health(care) & Human Service
Education & Skills
Economic Development
Public Safety, Security and Emergency Response
Water management
Sports, Leisure, Culture & Tourism
Waste Management
Built Environment
Mobility & Logistics
Energy
3D visualization prescriptive predictive diagnostic descriptive

16. USE CASES OF THE UDP: ROLE OF 3D VISUALIZATION (EXAMPLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT)
16
Example
Rotterdam
From 2D To 3D

17. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
17
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

18. UDP IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS IMPORTANCE (OVERALL)
18
1. Privacy legislation
2. Cross silo – Organizational Collaboration
3. Change management
4. Contractual complexities
5. Skills
very low
very high
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
Privacy
legislation
Cross silo /
org.
Collaboration
Change
Management
Contractual
complexities
Skills Others Lack of
business
cases
Investment
solutions
Procurement
legislation
Lack of Trust Risk
Management
Technical
standards
Technology
defects
Political
issues
Cultural and
Social issues

19. UDP IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS IMPORTANCE (PER DEVELOPMENT PHASE)
19
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Change
Management
Risk
Management
Investment
solutions
Procurement
legislation
Privacy
legislation
Lack of
business
cases
Contractual
complexities
Technical
standards
Technology
defects
Political
issues
Skills Lack of Trust Cross silo /
org.
Collaboration
Cultural and
Social issues
Exploring/Planning Building/Implementing Operational
very low
very high
1. Privacy legislation
2. Change management
3. Skills
4. Collaboration
5. Risk management
1. Technical standards
2. Change management
3. Privacy legislation
4. Technology defects
5. Contractual complexities
1. Collaboration
2. Change management
3. Privacy legislation
4. Skills
5. Lack of busines case

20. UDP ACCELERATORS IMPORTANCE
20
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Standards &
protocols
Political
sponsorship
Subsidies,
Grants
Policy
commitments
Private sector
drive
Legislation Citizens'
actions
very low
very high

21. UDP ACCELERATORS IMPORTANCE (PER DEVELOPMENT PHASE)
21
1. Political sponsorship
2. Policy commitments
3. Subsidies & grants
1. Subsidies & grants
2. Standards & protocols
3. Private sector drive
1. Political sponsorship
2. Standards & protocols
3. Other (collaboration)
very low
very high
Political sponsorship and standards are key accelerators
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
Standards & protocols Political sponsorship Subsidies, Grants Policy commitments Private sector drive Legislation Citizens' actions
Exploring/Planning Building/Implementing Operational

22. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
22
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

23. PLATFORM BUSINESS MODELS
23
3
5
2
1
0
0
3
3
3
0
3
0
7
5
5
6
3
4
6
8
8
10
10
11
0
1
5
7
6
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
There are dependencies among these business models
New business models have already been implemented, using data in the urban
data platform
Volume determines the success of an urban data platform
The UDP facilitates the development of new business models for third parties
(such as App developers, who use data in the platform)
Cross-city exchange between platforms is necessary for the success of an urban
data platform
Network effects contribute to the success of an urban data platform
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Platform Business Model
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
UDP and its network effects facilitate new business models
But very few new business models yet in place ….

24. VISION, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
24
24
30
4 4 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Core interaction on platform Make data available to users in what is called an
Open Data Platform
Connect data users, app providers and data sources
Connect buyers and sellers of data and applications
through an application catalogue
Allow buyers and sellers of data and applications to
trade on the platform through an app store (and
share in the revenue). Optionally facilitating the
trade through price setting market mechanisms
Enabling the development of applications within
the platform by providing a Software Development
Toolkit (SDK). Selling these apps through the
platform and sharing in the revenue
21
Respondents
6
Numberofplatforms
How can cities enable / facilitate new business models through UDP,
while only few UDPs support this fully?

25. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
26
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

26. HOW TO EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE –
CROSS CASE ANALYSIS (BASED ON PERCEPTIONS IN QUESTIONNAIRE)
27
High Performing UDP
Milan (Italy)
Started in 2014
Some characteristics
• Public platform owner/manager
• High Data governance
• High platform openness
• High use of control mechanisms
• High trust levels
• Facilitates 3rd party business models
Performance
• High levels of adoption
• High platform evolution
Lower Performing UDP
Bristol (UK)
Started in 2017
Some characteristics
• Private platform owner/manager
• Lower platform openness
• Medium level of use of control mechanisms
• Low on stakeholder engagement
• Medium levels of trust
• Business model platform not sustainable
Performance
• Low levels of adoption
• Medium platform evolution

27. HOW TO EXPLAIN DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE –
CROSS CASE ANALYSIS
28
Low performing UDPs (in terms of adoption and platform evolution)
• Trust issue (platform security, data quality)
• Limited engagement of stakeholders in design and specifications of UDP
• Not GDPR ready
• Relative low platform openness (in terms of ease of joining)
• High (expected) vendor lock-in
High performing UDPs (in terms of adoption and platform evolution)
• Municipality usually is in the lead (platform owner and manager)
• High trust
• Data governance (access rights) in place
• Combination of privacy tools are used
• High platform openness (in terms of ease of joining)
• Control mechanisms are applied (especially gatekeeping)
• Low (expected) vendor lock-in
• Facilitates 3rd party business models

28. UDP TRUST FACTORS IMPORTANCE
29
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Risks of using the platform
Trust in Platform Manager
Trust in Platform Owner
Trust in Data Quality
Platform security
Importance of the trust factors
Not important Neutral Somewhat important Important Very important
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Trust in Data Quality
Risks of using the platform
Platform security
Trust in Platform Owner
Trust in Platform Manager
How is the performance perceived by the participants?
Very Poor Poor Neutral Good Excellent
Trust in the current platforms is very important
Key challenge is trust in technology and data(quality)

29. TRUST IS A VITAL FACTOR FOR UDPS TO ADDRESS
30
Can you please comment on trust in UDPs and the difference between a public and private UDP operator?
• Trust in the wider ecosystem is low in general and has to be earned through security performance.
• Disagreement about trust perception
• The fact that our platform is completely managed by public sector reinforce trust
• Although trust is inherently higher for public sector organizations than for private ones, this
situation is uneven and the absence of security incidents does not increase perceptions of
reliability: only transparency can do that.
• People tend to trust the private sector more than the government, there is a fear of “big
brother is watching you” government
• We need public and private
• Both should be involved to a great extent
• Both shouldn't have the exclusive rights on owning the platform, the services or the
generated data.
• External versus internal trust
• External trust is more about concrete license agreements
• Internal trust (within the city municipality) is more about existing silo structures
and interworking between these
1
18
Yes No
But trust
perception by
participants in
UDP is hardly
measured !

30. Design of UDP
CRITICAL PATH TOWARDS VALUE
31
2: Clear governance on
platform and data ownership
3: Ensure Information transparency /
Clear data access rights
Governance
12: Use KPIs to assess
adoption, quantify success,
while learning to improve UDP
KPIs
Finance
Business
Models
7. Create transparency about
individual objectives
8. UDP should faciliate 3rd party bus.
models
Technology
architecture
4: Use of (open) standards
5: Ensure Data Quality & Data variety
6: Apply control mechanisms
-
Vendor
lock-in
Facilitators
- Political sponsorship
- Standards & protocols
Inhibitors
- Privacy legislation
- Cross silo/Collaboration
- Change management
- Contractual complexities
- Skills
+
Trust
(in UDP)
Adoption
& Use
+ Value
creation
11: Create
sustainable
services that
contribute to
public value and
facilitate
economic growth
GDPR
compliancy
9. Use GDPR as enabler, apply
privacy protection tools
+
Trust
(ecosystem)
Stakeholder Engagement
10: Engage ALL
stakeholders
(also citizens!) ->
create a positive
feedback loop
through network
effects
1. Create
shared vision
citizen-centric
Vision &
Purpose
13. Use the agile approach –
iterate, learn (sometimes fail)
in short cycles

31. CENTRAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
32
1. What is the stage of development and adoption
of UDPs in Europe?
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do
they differ in their vision?
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the
adoption of UDPs?
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
5. How can we explain (differences in)
performance of UDPs?
6. What role and actions could city governments
take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?

32. ROLE AND ACTIONS FOR CITY GOVERNMENTS
33
Coordinator Regulator Funder User
-Create sense of urgency, shared
vision & understanding of UDP
-Align individual stakeholder
objectives
- Engage citizens
- Create framework of rules and conditions
for collaboration together with stakeholders
-Regulate openness platform and use open
standards
- Ensure data privacy and GDPR compliancy
- Initiate
(initial)
funding of
UDP
- Divide roles & responsibilities
- Share initial succes stories (of
data sharing and using UDP)
- Create a risk free environment for
experimenting
- Preserve main values of eco system to
enhance trust
- Initiate
first use
cases as
customer
- Monitor stakeholders
perceptions and use of UDP
(use KPIs)
- Adapt vision if needed
- Adapt rules & regulations if needed
Planning &
Design
Phase
Development
Phase
Operational
Phase

33. CONCLUSIONS
34
1. What is the stage of development and adoption of UDPs in Europe?
most of UDPs are still under development, some use cases operational, few mature UDPs
2. What type of UDPs do we distinguish, how do they differ in their vision?
Internal focus (city operations efficiency and effectiveness vs external focus (enabling platform for innovation and
new business models); community versus (data) marketplace
3. Which factors are accelerating or restricting the adoption of UDPs?
Key accelerators: political sponsorship, standards & protocols
Key barriers: Privacy legislation, Cross silo/collaboration, change mgt, contractual complexities & skills
4. How can UDPs facilitate new business models?
Openness, network effects & scalability, data richness, interoperability among different UDPs,
Clear rules about data ownership and data monetization
5. How can we explain (differences in) performance of UDPs?
Key explaining factors are: stakeholder engagement, platform openness,data governance (access rights), use of
control mechanisms, trust, 3rd party business model facilitation
6. What role and actions could city governments take in accelerating adoption of UDPs?
Coordinate & regulate, accelerate adoption, ensure data privacy & security

34. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS STUDY
35
A. EIP and EU
1. Include findings from this study in existing reference documents (EIP/ANO)
2. Touch base with standardization bodies
3. Set in place a city bench learning process
B. City governments
1) Budgeting for urban data platforms
a) Develop clear set of business use cases to justify modest (€1-1.5m) ‘enabling investment’
b) Link UDP to domain specific challenges, such as urban mobility
2) Accelerate adoption
a) Create environment of trust
b) Stimulate interactions and learning among (all) stakeholders, involve citizens
c) Set basic rules and regulations for collaboration (via UDP)
d) Ensure use of open standards and openness of platform
e) Launch as first customer / user of UDP
f) Share success stories
3) GDPR compliancy
1) Ensure UDP and data from providers is GDPR compliant
2) Discuss GDPR compliancy and responsibilities of combined and (via UDP generated) data

35. ABOUT THIS STUDY
Contact person
Dr. Marcel van Oosterhout
Senior projectmanager
T: +31 6 4863 2174
E: moosterhout@rsm.nl
I: www.rsm.nl/ecda
ERASMUS CENTRE FOR DATA ANALYTICS
36
This study is conducted under the guidance of the
SCC01 Collaboration Framework: Nathan Pierce, Programme director Sharing Cities
SCC01 Task group Finance and Business Models: Graham Colclough, partner Urban DNA
SCC01 Task group Data management: Albert Engels, Programme director Ruggedised
Execution of the study by:
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, partner in Ruggedised
Team :
• Dr. Marcel van Oosterhout
• Dr. Haydee Sheombar
• Prof. dr. Eric van Heck
• Drs. Yanick Kuper
• Birgit Ros
• Master students
• Drs. Denis Ceric
• Drs. Daniel Bos
• Drs. Vince Takacs
• Drs. Roy Ouwekerk
• Drs. Dave Honcoop
• Drs. Marilou Das
• Joey Sun