Real-time Cities - Second Wave Cities

  • ID: 3759157
  • Report
  • Region: Europe
  • 65 Pages
  • Frost & Sullivan
1 of 3
Coordination Challenges and the Opportunity of Needs-driven Technology Deployment in Brussels, Oslo, and Manchester
Cities are increasingly seeing an opportunity to stimulate economic growth by opening up their substantial sources of data to digital services innovators. Differentiation, however, lies in the foundations they set in terms of data strategy, governance structures, and partnerships. Successful second wave cities invest in their ability to absorb best practices and new technologies and manage partnerships while strengthening skills in utlising a variety of financial instruments, such as public-private partnerships, grants, and loans. Brussels, Oslo, and Manchester are studied here.

Key Findings:

Stakeholder Alignment (Public Sector):

- Second wave cities and towns lack comprehensive funding for smart city projects and so seek experience from larger cities in their regions whilst minimising risk, CAPEX, and OPEX. A recurrent pattern across cities is the challenge of aligning a myriad of stakeholders. Frequent lack of alignment means that even departments within the same city can pursue conflicting Smart City agendas, which leads to inefficiencies, complexities, and duplication of efforts. The same goes for different levels of government as both municipal and regional governments may pursue distinct Smart City agendas for a given city, especially when political majorities differ between the levels of government.

Learning from First Wave:

- Successful second wave cities invest in their ability to absorb best practices and new technologies and to manage partnerships. Knowledge transfer skills are needed to leverage expertise from academia, established and SME technology companies, collaboration networks, first wave cities, and other regional partners.

Financing:

- Second wave cities also strengthen their ability to work with a wide variety of financial instruments, such as public-private partnerships, grants, and loans. While project funding competitions can provide a significant growth impetus for the lucky few (e.g., Manchester in December 2015) cities generally must avoid allocating too many resources to project funding bids wherein the chance of emerging empty-handed is relatively high.

Needs-driven Approach:

- ICT vendors are courting cities before the latter deem themselves ready to effectively engage with potential suppliers at a significant scale. Budgets for buying turnkey solutions from large ICT suppliers are out of reach for many second wave cities that are also less attractive as showcases deserving of significant vendor subsidies as seen with first wave cities. This situation offers second wave cities opportunity for more needs-driven, self-directed engagement with Smart City technology as they recognise the necessity to engage with technology and are developing their strategies before unknowingly locking themselves into turnkey solutions from ICT vendors. Local authorities are increasingly looking not only for suppliers but, more so, for partners.

Value of Intermediaries:

- Intensive approaches of second wave cities by ICT suppliers at a stage in which the cities recognise that they are only at the beginning of understanding their Smart City challenges and opportunities cause cities to value independent intermediaries. Third-party guidance can come from consultants, standardisation initiatives, and associations. These can help inform strategy and guide potential future engagement with technology suppliers.

ICT Challenge & Opportunity:

- ICT vendors need to find ways of working with civic authorities despite smaller budgets and a lesser rationale for vendor subsidies than found with first wave cities. Still, vendors and authorities want to make Smart Cities happen. Cities are not concerned about buying Smart City solutions but want solutions to their problems. Opportunities exist in solutions for problems of siloed and legacy back office systems, as well as tools for designing citizen portals and mobile apps. Though cities favour open source options, some early advocates have become more accepting of proprietary solutions with open APIs.
READ MORE
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 3
1. Executive Summary
  • Key Findings
2. Research Background
  • Definitions and Study Objectives
  • Scope - Europe
  • Research Methodology
3. Brussels
  • Overview - Brussels
  • Overview - Real-time City Initiative(s)
  • Objectives - Brussels Capital Region
  • Objectives - City of Brussels
  • Data Strategy - Brussels Capital Region
  • Data Strategy - City of Brussels: Smart City Project Inventory
  • Data Strategy - City of Brussels: Data Provision and Access Platform
  • Data Strategy - Overall Priorities
  • Data Strategy - Ownership of Data Sets
  • Partners and ICT Suppliers
  • Funding and Budgets
4. Oslo
  • Overview - Oslo
  • Overview - Smart City Initiative(s)
  • Objectives - Smart City Initiative(s)
  • Data Strategy
  • Data Strategy - Ownership of Data Sets
  • Partners and ICT Suppliers
  • Funding and Budgets
5. Manchester
  • Overview - Manchester
  • Overview - Smart City Initiative(s): Strategy
  • Manchester City Council - Recent and Current Developments
  • Objectives
  • Objectives (continued)
  • Smart City Projects
  • Evolving Smart City Innovation Ecosystem of Manchester
  • Open Data Manchester
  • Manchester Open Data Catalogue
  • DataGM - A Data Store for the City-Region
  • Open Data Manchester
  • Greater Manchester Data Synchronisation Programme
  • CityVerve - UK IoT Demonstrator
  • GM-Connect - Greater Manchester’s Strategic Data Sharing Initiative
  • Data Strategy
  • Data Strategy - Ownership of Data Sets
  • Partners and ICT Suppliers
  • Funding and Budgets
6. Comparative Assessment
  • Legal Disclaimer
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 3

Loading
LOADING...

4 of 3
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll