This paper discusses strategies to empower three constituencies (Future Internet, Living Labs, Smart Cities) to work together in establishing smart city urban innovation ecosystems. In doing so, these constituencies will share and jointly exploit their innovation assets and the opportunities of their key methodologies for research, innovation and valorization, such as Future Internet experimentation and Living labs open and user driven innovation, for the benefit of Smart Cities innovation and socio-economic development. A city can be defined as ‘smart’ when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic development and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance (Caragliu et al, 2009). The view we are proposing adds the characteristic of Smart Cities to be environments of open and user driven innovation that are continuously open for renewal and change.
Hans schaffers smartcities
www.fireball4smartcities.eu Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems Sustained by the Future Internet Living Labs Summer School 2012, Helsinki Hans Schaffers Visiting professor Aalto University School of Business, CKIR ESoCE Net Scientific Coordinator of FIREBALL
FIREBALL White Paper May 2012Download from www.fireball4smartcities.eu www.esoce.net www.urenio.org www.ami-communities.eu
The “Smart City” concept We often consider – based on rankings - the Smart City as a reality Smart City: not a reality but an urban development strategy, and a mostly technology driven future vision Smart City is about how citizens are shaping the city, and how citizens are empowered to contribute to urban development Smart City is an urban laboratory, an urban “innovation ecology”, an accelerator and agent of change We are witnessing promising developments towards smarter cities What is the DNA of the Smart City?
The FIREBALL Project Cities increasingly transform into what can be called “urban innovation ecosystems“ Cities start experimenting the opportunities of the (Future) Internet through “living labs” approaches for engaging end- users in the innovation process FIREBALL aims to bring together Cities, Living Labs and Future Internet stakeholders to explore models and practices of how open innovation and user participation supports the experimentation and uptake of the Future Internet
FIREBALL Results Smart city vision, landscape Cases of “smart(er) cities” Smart city Future Internet - enabled “innovation ecosystems” Smart Cities roadmap and cities action plans Community building , creation of a Connected Smart Cities network Portal and web 2.0 tools
Barcelona smart city developmentLeading role of City Hall Smart city Strategy SC Management • Kiosks • 22@net • Barc activa • Internal gov • Tech park • Open data • Urban Lab • 3D projects SMART GOVERNA SMART • Strategic plan Smart Districts: Creation of networks of NCE ECONOMY 22@Barcelona; triple actors, organisations, helix collaborations departments SMART LIVING SMART PEOPLE Living Lab initiatives: Broadband network and• Municipal Police • Cibernarium 22@Urban Lab, Live, sensor data management• New incidents tools• Intel environments • Citilab Cornella Bdigital, i2Cat, Fablab, Creation of proof of Cornella concepts for systems and Smart city model: Infrastructure building: applications traditional and new. Integration ofTICT. From Challenges fibre optic to h Wi-Fi. Demand for human New services to capital and skills citizens: gov, r quality of VC funding for innovation e life, professional Low global connectivity Open data: sensors, e open standard, and city Development of triple platform helix alliances p Collaboration between government departments i
Thessaloniki smart city developmentICT transforming city activities and ecosystemsBroadband networks Apps and e-services: Planning for Smartby large companies Bottom-up initiatives district ADSL: 24/1 Mb City representation Development of wired City sectors and wireless networks Fibre optic net: 2,5 Gb City districts Free Internet to users 3G-HSDPA: 42 Mb Citizens. Aggregation / and business. collective content Wireless: free Smart environments City administration and (municipal nets) social services based on sensors Location-based services e-services suitable for City infrastructure and the community of each utilities district City management Training services for involvement of end-users Governance challenges: Three gaps to address (1)Digital skills gap - TRAINING (2)Creativity gap – LIVING LABS (3)Entrepreneurship gap – BUSINESS MODELS
Manchester smart city developmentDigital strategies and smart environments for urban renewalUrban regeneration Digital Strategy Toward Smart City Flagship initiatives Since mid-1980s the Started in 2008 and review East Manchester: a City Council embarked in 2011 with respect to regeneration challenge EU Digital Agenda and Eastserve: first Living Lab on city regeneration consulting with local Corridor Living lab NGA Drive economic change stakeholders. Main project through technology objectives: Next generation open Focus on neighborhood Digital inclusion, access fibre optic generate skills and network focused action, creative tackle the divides Principles for Smart Cities city, and innovation Neighbourhood Digital industries, new In 1990s Manchester employment, cluster of regeneration as starting point for a smart city telematics Partnership digital and creative Digital collaborations Currently, e-services to businesses through Living Labs address inequalities Digital innovation: Putting people at the working with the future heart of the agenda and digital democracy Internet research An inclusive and Balance of top-down community to support sustainable approach to Manchester as Smart digital development and bottom-up actions City Exemplar projects
Helsinki smart city developmentLiving Labs and new clusters for smart city strategy A Porterian cluster in mobile technology is emerging in Helsinki. Clustering strengthens motivation, incentives, innovation, and enables externalities . The mobile applications cluster is sustaining Helsinki ‘s Smart City strategy Factor conditions: Demand conditions: Firm strategy: Supporting industries: Broadband, telecoms, Government demand, Companies within Broadband infrastructure, NOKIA, skilled banking , SMOPEC, global 3G nets, specialized workforce, start-ups transportation, etc markets, intense local service providers competitionCompetitions for Open Data apps as strategy for cluster development The Helsinki Regions made available public transportation data Apps4Finland makes data available related to environment and spatial information Competitions and Living Labs as drivers for the M-cluster development
Empowerment Examples Thessaloniki: emergence of developer communities: e-services and applications e.g. mobility services Oulu: PATIO (test user community tool): empower ordinary people to experiment new services Manchester: Digital City Test-Bed (as a vision) Barcelona: 22@Urban Lab: city as urban lab, pilot programs, use of public spaces, e.g. Open data Helsinki: competitions for innovative applications e.g. Apps4Finland; Innovative City program; Open Data business development initiatives
Smart citizens and Open Data – Helsinki examples Tell-on-the-Map Smart city – service – map-based organisation in an Commentary tool, enabling a innovative dialogue environment between citizens and city Exploiting available information Apps4Finland competition – Idea incubators use city Helsinki Public data – Apps4Finland Transport competition Visualised Open interfaces are an Service Map: important step in the open information channel about development of offices and the City’s systems services
Smart city strategies implementation prospects and bottlenecks: SWOTStrengths Opportunities• Cultural heritage, attractiveness • Competitiveness of local clusters• Development strategies, planning • Exploiting service innovation• Broadband network deployment opportunities towards new business• Major development initiatives • Opportunities for local ICT sectors and entrepreneurship • Introducing participatory city planningWeaknesses Threats• Top down orientation to planning • Economic crisis, lack of resources• Lacking attention to concrete needs of • Vulnerable business models forcitizens and SMEs sustainability of public sector initiatives• Digital gaps • Low level of private investment in R&D• Lacking orientation on entrepreneurship and innovation• Weak policy and funding instruments • Weak institutional environments for• Impact and benefits measurement technology and innovation
Comparing the smart(er) city cases Helsinki Thessaloniki Manchester Oulu BarcelonaConcept Smart City Intelligent Cities Urban City of Social and cluster, Mobile regeneration Innovation urban growthStrategies Knowledge Building smart Tackling skills Technology Smart intensive districts and divides Ubiquitous districts, cluster building Agglomeration of Pro-active Oulu Urban Living Apps approach LabDrivers Strengthen the ICT and Economic Policy and Policies of city region infrastructure development strategies of hall; triple deployment Oulu helixChallenges Human capital Digital skills gaps Common Adapt policy Enhancing base Creativity gap digital agenda instruments collaboration; Entrepreneurship to create human capital gap business / skills, fundingInnovation Public private Innovation Living labs and Strong PPP City hallecosystem partnerships clusters local action programmes, leadership; Competition for Technology triple helix, Triple Helix innovation districts urban lab models
Smart Cities cases - lessons learned Smart city is more an urban strategy than an urban reality. Smart cities will appear through numerous bottom-up initiatives besides some strategic planning, and infrastructure development. Top-down planning and bottom-up initiatives should complement each other. City hall is sometimes dominant. Dilemmas of citizen engagement. Widespread use of pilots is preparing cities for initiative, experiment and learning Districts, neighborhoods, and clusters are fundamental elements of smart city strategy, because the city is a system of systems, and cities co-exist within cities. A smart city strategy involves all actors, organizations, communities, R&D, NGOs, clusters, and authorities. The partnership strategy should achieve a common vision, flagship projects, collaboration and synergy. Major challenges for successful smart city strategies deal with skills, creativities, user-driven innovation, entrepreneurship, VC funding, and management of intra-government rivalries. Lack of evidence on impact and effectiveness of smart city strategies.
Smart city innovation ecosystemsenabled by “common assets” Future Internet testbeds as technology platforms Smart cities: policies, application pull, public data, citizens initiatives Living lab: User-driven playground for co- creating and validating innovative scenarios and services
Examples of evolving smart city “innovation ecosystems” Bretagne: ImaginLab testbed explores advanced applications in living lab setting, offering wide range of services, enabled by advanced infrastructure, based on partnership business model Oulu: Octopus network, Innovation ImaginLab Kitchen, Open Web Lab, LearnLab, Ubiquitous Oulu and many more Barcelona: a diverse set of network infrastructures, facilities, initiatives (22@UrbanLab), living labs, projects, planning activities, partnerships Manchester: advanced infrastructure of open access fibre to premises; support creation of ; co-ownership approaches Manchester
Simple models for concurrent useof testbed and living labs facilities
Challenges for next years Networks of Future Internet testbed facilities and living labs within and across smart cities and regions may become the backbone of European innovation ecologies and value networks – Horizon 2020 Capabilities and resources, including experiment facilities , user oriented methodologies, service offerings and collaboration models enabling access and use of facilities and services should evolve Smart Cities are environments to experiment technologies and applications, however the potential for business creation and entrepreneurship should be stimulated (e.g. DAIR, Canada) Open innovation and citizen empowerment requires finding new balances between top-down steering and bottom-up initiative Assessment of the impact and benefits of “smarter cities” in terms of value created for citizens. There is a lack of evidence showing impact, how can we achieve and measure the impact and value added of smart city initiatives?
White PaperDownload from www.fireball4smartcities.eu
Special Issue on Smart Applications for Smart Cities: NewApproaches to InnovationJournal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic CommerceResearchGuest Editors: Hans Schaffers, Carlo Ratti and Nicos KomninosPublishing date: December 2012Information: www.jtaer.com
Research challenges Smart Cities, Living Labs, Innovation, Urban development From PR, hype and buzz to facts and observations, critical analysis, case study research, theories end methods grounded in empirical research Some of the key research topics: Innovation studies: how does it work, how can we explain successes and failures Effectiveness of urban development strategies or interventions Comparative research into different approaches to become smarter cities Action research approaches, socio-technical systems change perspectives Design and engineering practice studies in living lab contexts