Presentation by Oto Hudec, Technical University of Košice Advanced Brainstorm Carrefour (ABC): ‘Smart People in Smart Cities’ Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia (August, 2016)

1. Cities and their (start-up)
communities
Oto Hudec
Technical University of Košice, Faculty of Economics.

2. SMART cities related questions
• Smart explanation of smart city
• "A Smart City is a city seeking to address public issues via ICT-based solutions on the basis of a
multi-stakeholder, municipally based partnership“ (Mapping Smart Cities in EU, 2015).
• SMART PEOPLE in SMART CITIES
• we believe a city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional
(transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a
high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance
(Caragliu, Del Bo, Nijkamp, 2011).
• Initially: Are creative cities – smart cities also start-up cities?
• Is e.g. Vienna full of everything valuable – liveable, cultural, creative, organised?
• Slovak (and Czech Republic) cities (less positive attributes)
• Quality of life (subjective well-being) role of GDP - size – culture – density
• Ashoka – social innovators networks – who is a typical innovator, how dense are their networks?
• Start-up leaders, co-working places – typical social innovators
• Start-up communities and ecosystems, what is a difference in post-communist cities?

3. Subjective Quality of Life in the European cities
 State of European
Cities“ – objective
conditions (Urban
Audit)
 Survey on perceptions
of quality of life in 79
European cities –
subjective conditions:
- in 79 cities, 2007,
2010, 2013, 2016
 Appr. 500
respondents in each
city.
 Subjective QoL
 Cluster analysis
Area variable
Satisfaction with public services satisfaction with public transport in the city
satisfaction with health care (doctors and
hospitals)
satisfaction with sports facilities
satisfaction with the services offices
Satisfaction with cultural facilities
Satisfaction with city sight satisfaction with the appearance of streets and
buildings
satisfaction with public spaces (plazas,
pedestrian zones, ..)
Satisfaction with the availability of green spaces
and recreational opportunities
satisfaction with accessibility of green parks and
gardens
satisfaction with recreational facilities outside the
city (hiking, cycling, ...)
Jobs
availability of housing
credibility people
The rate of environmental pollution air pollution
level of noise
cleanliness of city
health
Fighting climate change combating climate change
responsible use of resources
Feeling safe in the city
The problem of poverty existence of the problem of poverty
paying accounts problems
Integration of foreigners positive impact on foreigners
insufficient integration of foreigners

4. Hierarchical clustering

5. Type 1 (10 cities): Paris, London, Prague, Kobenhavn, Stockholm,
Munich, Malmö, Amsterdam, Helsinki, Luxemburg.
Strenghts Evaluation Problems Evaluation
Jobs +++ Accommodation accessibility - - -
Cultural possibilities +++
Green and recreational opportunities +++
Appearance of the city ++
Level of public services ++
Combating climate change ++
Credibility population ++
Health ++
Cleanliness ++
Safety ++
Poverty +
Integration of foreigners +

6. Type 5 (8 cities): Tallinn, Zagreb, Vilnius, Košice, Riga, Miskolc,
Dublin, Istanbul – on the margin of EU
Strenghts Evaluation Problems Evaluation
Level of public services ++ Jobs - - -
Cultural possibilities ++ Poverty - -
Appearance of the city ++ Environment -
Cleanliness ++ Combating climate change -
Green and recreational opportunities ++
Integration of foreigners ++
Health ++

7. Type 8 (3 cities): Naples, Palermo, Athens
Only culture remains positive...
Strenghts Evaluation Problems Evaluation
Cultural possibilities ++ Accommodation accessibility - - -
Combating climate change - - -
Environment - - -
Jobs - - -
Cleanliness - - -
Green and recreational opportunities - - -
Level of public services - -
Poverty - -
Appearance of the city -

8. Geography – proximity of cities, history
Yellow Eye (egg yolk)
Violet belt (or egg white)
Blue East-Mediterranean circle

9. „Objective“ well-being – explanatory factors: GDP matters
GDP per capita PPP (in thous.)

10. Cluster type and population – no significant association
Population

11. Too high population density makes well-being worse at the
end
Population density (population per km2)

12. Social innovators... Those who make changes in
society and support well-being ?
• Urban development and regeneration-new industrial path, new brand,
culture-led, event-led, business-led, knowledge-led urban development...
• Ashoka: „a social entrepreneur is a visionary who changes the pattern of
how society operates“.
• Ashoka Fellows network, the ability to replicate the knowledge – active
changemakers interconnected in a global community, formed in 1980.
• Nomination: an intensive multi-round process leading to the Ashoka
Fellowship given to individuals (60+ countries, close to 2000 fellows).
• To combine the pragmatic and results-oriented methods of a business
entrepreneur with the goals of a social reformer (Drayton, 2005) --- operates
with organisations structured as for-profits, non-profits, and hybrid entities.
• Social entrepreneurs – often own specific knowledge of a social issue - not
easily transferable to another individual or entity (Meyskens et al, 2010).
B. Drayton, Where the Real Power Lies, Alliance (2005).
Meyskens et al, 2010. Social Ventures from a Resource-Based Perspective: An Exploratory Study Assessing
Global Ashoka Fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (4).

13. Ashoka in Slovakia
• Slovakia’s citizen sector grew from 11 citizen groups in 1989 to more
than 10,000 in the first 10 years after the Berlin Wall came down
(Sen, 2007).
• NETWORKING.. Infrastructure, ecosystem, network of changemakers
and social entrepreneurs.
•
• Partner institution of Ashoka in SK – Pontis NGO.
Sen, P. (2007), “Ashoka's big idea: Transforming the world through social entrepreneurship”, in Futures, vol.39, pp.
534–553.

14. Ashoka fields of activity

15. Space and social innovators (so called maps)
• Czech Republic – high density in Prague,
• Poland – several centres.
• Slovakia – high concentration in Bratislava (60 perc.)
• 945 names in Slovakia, each person reccommended in average by 8.5
other people.

17. People in the core of the map – links mean nominations

18. Who is considered a social innovator ?
Local democracy, civic participation, social inclusion,
Academicians not popular, only if academy is a second job for them,
A couple of mayors with complicated names (Spišský Hrhov, Hlohovec),
Young people dominate.

19. Regions – number of social innovators
Interconnected, follow each other, facebook bubble, political power (extremely
unpopular at the government), one for all, all for one movement.

20. Banská Bystrica and connections

21. Bratislava – size, density, several centres

22. Košice

23. Košice city centre
Marek Lavčák,
Co-author of the research on start-up ecosystems

24. Košice –interconnected and centralised
• Almost exclusivly in the city (one centre region),
• Young people.
• Active civic participation includes Eastcubator (co-working, start-up
centre, single start-ups)
• Arts and culture (heritage of ECOC in 2013): Cinefil, Street art
communication, Mazal tov, Kulturpark, Tabačka, CIKE.
• Carpathian foundation, ETC and related institutions – social inclusion
(older people and institutions)
• Technical university 

25. Places where social inovators meet: Tabacka Kulturfabrik,
Kulturpark, Halmi space, Eastcubator

26. Startup ecosystem – 6 cities, CZ and SK

27. Main research questions
• Which city factors are significant in process of creation, evolution
and operation of start-up ecosystem?
• What attributes are specific for start-up ecosystems in post-
communistic countries?

28. What we mean by start-up (Silicon Valey inspired)
• Company in early stage (usually first 5 years),
• Provides highly innovative product, developed in intensive
communication with potential customers,
• Extreme growth potential (weekly even more 5-7% ) and global
ambitions,
• Scalable and repeatable business model,
• Limited financial resources, external forms of capital especially
during early stage,
• International network and public recognition,
• Active membership in the local (or national) ecosystem.

29. Methodology
• Empirical research:
• Interviews with groups of
o startup entrepreneurs and freelancers,
o incubator team members,
o accelerator team members,
o startup supporters,
o institutional investors and venture capitalists,
o university science park team members.

30. Ecosystem attributes
• Leadership: who is the committed captain in the ecosystem?
• Entrepreneurial culture: emphasis on entrepreneurship to create and exploit
efficiently new opportunities
• Duality in the ecosystem: large firms provide market access for startups,
• Formal institutions: extensive university, corporate research centres, clusters,
government involvement
• Community heartbeat and engagement: social capital, large number of visible
events,
• Support services and business infrastructure (mentors, advisors, visible investors
law and accounting firms, mentors, co-working places, incubators, accelerators,
etc.)
• Competition and inclusiveness: Highly competitive industries, reasonable
balance between open innovation and Intellectual property protection,
• Mobility: high mobility of the ecosystem participants, talent attractiveness,
• City and places: unique factors of the city or place for start-up community.
and phase, city size, institutional structure, No of start-ups, European funds, etc.

31. The Evolution and structure of the start-up ecosystem in Košice
2011
meetings of specialists
within StartupCamo O.Z.
2012
Openning of the star-tup
centre Eastcubator and
the first Startup Weekend
Košice
2013
Comprehensive
educational program in
the field of
entrepreneurship within
the project AZU
2014
Reopening of the start-up
centre Eastcubator and
education programs in
cooperation with local
firms

32. Structure of networks – spreading and absortive
Prague Brno Ostrava
Bratislava Žilina Košice

33. Structure (local institutions involved), amount (no of registered startups)

34. Startup ecosystems – nature and functioning

35. Preliminary results – ecosystem attributes
Factor Prague, Bratislava Brno, Žilina Ostrava, Košice
Leadership Led by private
companies
Led by public institution
(university, JIC)
Led by NGO‘s
Entrepreneurial
culture
Fashion, bottom up,
competition, global
connections
Institutions dominate ICT and technology led + CI,
cooperative
Duality in the
ecosystem
Exist Does not exist Partial
Community
heartbeat and
engagement
3-4 centres Limited to get in One community, strong social
capital
Support services
and business
High numbers of
mentors, advisors and
incubators
low number of local
mentors, infrastructure
built
low number of local mentors,
infrastructure built
Competition and
inclusiveness
Very competitive,
exclusive clubs
competitive, closed Cooperation, open
EU funds Limited EU finance – 15 years
well working
EU finance – not yet well
utilised
Types Firms centered Institutions centered Personalities and networks
centered
Performance???