ASSESSING THE READINESS OF SMART CITIES AND MAJOR

Prepared by:

Stefan Stanislawski – Member – FTTH Council MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications Committee

Richard Jones – Chairman – FTTH Council MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications Committee

ASSESSING THE READINESS OF SMART CITIES AND MAJOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS

Stefan Stanislawski – Member – FTTH Council MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications Committee

Richard Jones – Chairman – FTTH Council MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications Committee

November 2014

CONTENTS OF THIS WHITE PAPER

Introduction and About FTTH MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications Committee

Introduction to the Challenge

Build on Existing Smart City Models / Frameworks to Deliver a Relevant Reference Model

A Structured Approach to Delivering a Smart City

2

INTRODUCTION AND ABOUT FTTH MENA SMART CITIES OPERATIONS AND APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

All Rights Reserved – Ventura Smart Cities and Ventura Team LLP 3

INTRODUCTION TO THIS SHORT WHITE PAPER

Introduction and Purpose

This short White Paper is designed to help thoseeither:

Embarking on a smart city strategy or initiative;

Considering a change of direction or extension ofa smart city project.

The main issue in creating a smart city is usually oneof focus and definition – the term is a label for abroad range of issues and ideas, hopes and desires.

Further complications arise from vendors pushingnumerous products, services and changeprogrammes under the guise of the smart city.

In this document we briefly discuss the issues ofdefinition, prioritisation and smart programmedesign.

We provide the basis for a structured approach toaligning political, economic, financial and socialfactors in support of a coherent and effective smartcity initiative.

Target Audience

A structured approach to programme / intuitivedesign will help:

Politicians with overall smart city governance orimplementation responsibilities;

Economic regeneration and developmentspecialists charged with examining the potentialof smart city or developing smart city strategy;

Government officials involved in smart cityprogramme or strategy;

Authorities and agencies with smart cityobjectives to promote to budget holders orpolitical decision makers.

The paper is short and not designed as acomprehensive framework but rather a pointer tohow you might approach the definition and designof your own smart city.

4Copyright: FTTH Council MENA - All Rights Reserved

ABOUT THE SMART CITIES COMMITTEE

The Committee has a number of pragmatic objectives to further its mission

Promote the benefits of FTTH deployments

within Smart Cities and other real estate

developments

Share learning and best-practice

Promote understanding of applications

Provide estimates on market sizes and

projections

Influence content companies to develop

business cases and create value leveraging

FTTH

Support the FTTH Council MENA in

delivering compelling content at conferences

Generate/promote white papers on FTTH

and its role/benefits/returns in real estate deployments

Network with other organisations and inter-

industry experts

5

Mission of the Committee

The Committee’s mission is to accelerate deployment of ultra high-speed FTTH –highlighting deployment approaches, applications and the benefits for Smart Cities,

campuses and other real estate developments in the MENA region.

Copyright: FTTH Council MENA - All Rights Reserved

SMART CITIES IN THE MENA REGION


SMART CITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE GCC AND WIDER MENA REGION WILL BE SOME OFTHE WORLD’S MOST EXTRAORDINARY

Exciting times for smart developments in the MENA region

The combination of a desire to be the best and lavish funding mean the GCC in particular will see some incredible smart cities anddevelopments.

Considering the world market for smart cities (including infrastructure, technology, security etc.) could reach $1.5 trillion by 2020*, this is very exciting for the region.

Dubai winning the 2020 World Expo and Qatar’s World Cup in 2022 are examples of events driving smart cities and developmentsforward.

In Qatar, the Lusail development is creating the infrastructure necessary for the World Cup as a greenfield site bound together withfibre connectivity to showcase the country to visitors while also supporting modern living and work environments that will deliverclean, green lifestyles to all.

Dubai is aiming to become one big smart city while headline developments such as King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) in KSA andsimilar developments in Medinah, Mecca and elsewhere are focussing around knowledge workers and learning (e.g. KAUST near toKAEC).

Behind these events, the data usage underpinning the connectivity will continue to explode. Having gone up 40x from 2008 to 2013 inthe region, a 600% increase is expected according to EMC by 2020 – reaching 1,835 Exabytes (where an Exabyte is 1018)!


FIBRE IS AT THE HEART OF THE SMART CITY


SMART BUILDINGS / CITIES NEED NEUTRAL OPEN FIBRE

Compared to the overall cost of real estateconstruction, telecoms, entertainment and smartcity systems need relatively little investment.

However, they add significant value andattractiveness to a development and canmaterially increase sale values, occupancy and /or yields.

Several studies in different countries have foundthat there is a premium for a property with fibreconnectivity ranging between 2% and 4% of thevalue of the property.

9

http://blog.ideas4all.com/2013/01/30/our-cities-are-becoming-intelligent-and-you-can-become-part-of-the-brain/Source: The Case for Smart City Communications White Paper by Ventura Next for MEFC


http://blog.ideas4all.com/2013/01/30/our-cities-are-becoming-intelligent-and-you-can-become-part-of-the-brain/

THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY DEVELOPERS THAT INSTALL FIBRE IN THEIR

DEVELOPMENTS (COLOURED GREEN) IS SIGNIFICANT

Unfortunately the traditional telecommonopolies often disadvantage real estateowners / managers:

Weak negotiating position due to operatormonopoly –unable to take a revenue share;

No motivation for operator to ‘do better’ oreven meet reasonable service standards;

Limited innovation due to lack ofcompetition;

Difficult for property owner to ’add’ in theirown value-added services such assurveillance, access control etc.;

Poor reputation for the development’scommunications –not the fault of thedeveloper but –ve impact anyway

10

Real Estate Local Network Contribution to the Basic Total Capital Cost Structure of the Internet


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Campus

District

Metro area

Global networks

Source: The Case for Smart City Communications White Paper by Ventura Next for MEFC

TYPICAL RANGE OF SERVICES ON AN OPEN LOCAL NETWORK IN A SMART CITY/ DEVELOPMENT

Services for Residents

• Choice of fast broadband provider

• Choice of over-the-air or Cable TV

• Choice of Cable TV operator

• Choice of telephone provider

• Integrated HD quality video entry phone

• Remote climate / lighting control

• In-home secure video or motion sensors to keep tabs on the elderly for example

Estate Management Services

• Monitoring climate control, lighting

• Building information gathered in real time

• Surveillance, security and alarms

• Recording of HD video of doors ad entry phone use

• Remote meter reading

• Occupants can check utilisation of common facilities like garages, tennis courts or laundry rooms using live local video

11



BENEFITS FOR THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

12

Attractiveness

• Ultra-fast broadband and communications "ready to go" are very popular and a great selling point

• Has been shown to add 2%-4% to property value

• Units rent faster leading to higher occupancy rates

• State of the art security and building services provide a sense of safety and wellbeing

Efficiency

• Smart controls and monitoring can reduce energy use - for example by detecting problems such as doors left open that drive up aircon costs

• Improved security reduces degradation

• Early management interventions tend to cost less and prevent problems escalating

Financial

• Has been shown to add 2%-4% to property value

• Monthly income (yield) on the fibre

• Fewer separate cable types mean lower costs

• Landlord portal reduces ongoing costs whilst also enabling a better relationship with occupants



BENEFITS FOR ALL ….

13

Esta

te M

gr

Occ

up

ant

Op

era

torsD

eve

lop

er

Soci

ety

Gains the most through 2%-4% increase in sale value (or equivalent in yield) -the ultra-fast premium

Perceives the benefit to be at least the ultra-fast premium they pay the developer and probably more

Greater efficiency in managing an estate

Higher levels of customer satisfaction resulting in improved yields

An expensive part of the access network is provided for no capital outlay

Ultra-fast broadband fuelled pro-ductivity gains

Energy savings



INTRODUCTION TO THE CHALLENGE


ASSESSING READINESS BY ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS – STARTING WITH A REFERENCEMODEL APPROACH

The context

The goal of a smart city is that the city’s resources; people, finances, different organisations and systems that serve it can be mobilised seamlessly and efficiently to support the achievement of the goals that the city has set itself.

The different needs and objectives of stakeholders in a smart city/real estate development are complex and so are difficult to capture and meet without a structured approach.

This document outlines such an approach with detail on some of the in-depth thinking and expertise required to get the optimum decisions made in a way that is clear and auditable – and which reflects the current state of readiness of the city/people/processes etc.

The first part of this is the development of a Reference Model, which is designed to provide:

a common understanding of where a city is in terms of stakeholder needs, capabilities, aspirations etc.

It should provide the basis for selecting projects and programmes that are competing for a finite budget within a smart city or cities.


EXAMPLE PROCESS FOR CREATING A REFERENCE MODEL FOR A SMART CITY OR GROUP OF CITIES

These four stages make perfect sense to us in assessing readiness in partnership with a city/development

1/ Development of a reference model• Development of a reference model based on

international best practice …

• … which can be used to robustly and evidentially understand each cities current capabilities, existing development plans and local priorities which could contribute to ‘smart city’ strategy implementation

2/ Support self-assessment

• Providing limited support to the city/cities to complete a self-assessment using this reference model.

• This will be particularly focused on ensuring a consistent interpretation of the assessment process developed above by each city/group.

3/ Analysis of responses

• Analysis of the completed self-assessment profiles to draw out areas of priority for investment, commonalities and best practice.

• Identification of a prioritised portfolio of local and national investment opportunities and an outline roadmap with targets for transformational impact.

4/ Presentations & Workshop

• Presentation of this report individually to executive sponsors from each city/cities and;

• Facilitation of a joint workshop with all partners to consider next steps.


OUR BELIEF IS THAT IT IS BEST TO BUILD ON EXISTING SMART CITY MODELS / FRAMEWORKS TO DELIVER A RELEVANT REFERENCE MODEL


THE CONTEXT FOR REFERENCE MODELS

Initial thoughts on a reference model

As stated earlier, the goal of a smart city is that the city’s resources; people, finances, different organisations and systems that serve it can be mobilised seamlessly and efficiently to support the achievement of the goals the city has set itself.

Technology is both the catalyst and enabler in supporting city leadership and the citizen, to make smarter and better informed decisions (open data etc.) and to help collaboration efforts between different “actors”. However the starting point for any model and readiness assessment is to understand the political context, political and administrative goals and relevant organisational factors and behaviours.

Time and time again the ICT industry has pushed new solutions which fail to generate the promised benefits – or sometimes any benefits – because of behavioural factors. For example, as recently noted in a Harvard Business Review re big data, the understandable emphasis clever new analytics often obscures the organizational reality - which is that new analytics often require new behaviours:

CIO: “We’re doing analytics in real-time that I couldn’t even have imagined five years ago but it’s not having anywhere near the impact I’d have thought.”

Some degree of this same phenomenon of course is inevitable in the development of smart cities and should be guardedagainst where possible.

Our belief is that understanding the degree of cultural / managerial / organisational readiness is probably as important, even more important, than the details of systems readiness.


WE ARE AWARE OF - OR ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON - VARIOUS FRAMEWORKS AND EXPERIENCE

WHICH WE DRAW ON TO PRODUCE A BEST PRACTICE REFERENCE MODEL FOR A CITY/DEVELOPMENT

19

British Standards Institute

Smart City Framework

• BSI has developed Publicly Available Specifications (PAS).

• PAS reflect emerging but incomplete industry consensus and complement existing standards. May later evolve to full standards.

• For smart cities the relevant PAS are:

• PAS 180, Smart cities vocabulary;

• PAS 181, Smart city framework (SCF) designed for city leaders as a “how to” guide;

• PAS 182, Smart city concept model for data interoperability.

Smart Cities CouncilReadiness Guide

• This Guide provides numerous examples of smart city projects around the world. It also contains some simple checklists.

• We believe the guide is useful as a source of examples to ensure completeness of any city’s Reference Model.

• The checklists it offers are quite general and will be of some, but limited, use in this project.

Informal Amsterdam City Criteria

• Amsterdam was early in smart cities (partly driven by its city fibre project) and has developed an informal set of factors to consider.

• Similar to the BSI SCF, vision, clear citizen-centric benefit, practicality and scalability are fundamental.

• Secondary criteria and factors have much in common with the other models here but are naturally a little more political and “common-sense” than some of the highly detailed standards work on smart cities.

Glasgow Future Cities Demonstrator

• The Glasgow demonstrator is not a reference model as such but is testing smart city technologies and we believe emerging experience must be taken into account.

• The thinking in Glasgow is that there are three key elements of a smart city:

• Open data provided over the web;

• The Rio style centralised operations centre;

• Connecting city assets - which ideally should be done as widely as possible.

International Standards Bodies

• CEN/CENELEC/ETSI is most relevant for Scotland. Jointly, endorsed by EU Smart City Partnership, they are developing a policy model for city leaders also useful for industry.

• IEC has a System Evaluation Group with own model now working on integration electronic systems. Also has joint work with ISO.

• ITU (International Telecommunications Union) has a focus group on telecom aspects but realised they also need a general reference model to guide technical work.


DETAIL OF BSI PAS181 CROSS-CITY GOVERNANCE AND DELIVERY PROCESSES;RECOMMENDATIONS B1-B14 FOR BUSINESS AND SERVICE MANAGEMENT

20

This diagram is from the BSI work. The“guiding principles” for smart city servicedelivery are shown at A on the diagramand fit well with experience elsewhere.However, readiness could probably onlybe assessed in general terms. Even ifthere are formal policy commitments,behavioural norms or organisationalconstraints may well be significant.

Layer B on the diagram shows theconstituents of delivery processesidentified in this particular model. Thereis, of course, a good deal of detail undereach general heading B1-B14. Indeveloping a model for Scotland at thisstage we believe B1-B3, B6 and B12-B14are probably of more importance but weretain an open mind.

Layers C and D are more relevant tospecific projects but we will also considerif such items should form part of theReference Model for this exercise.


AT LEAST ONE ENGLISH CITY COUNCIL IS USING PAS181 TO ASSESS ITS OWN SMART CITY

READINESS (“MATURITY”)

21

B1 City Vision B2 CityOperating Model

B3 Leadership and Governance

B4 Stakeholder Collaboration

B5 Procurement & Supplier Mgt

Level 1: Designing

Level 2: Collaborating

Level 3: Doing

Level 4:Reviewing & Improving

Colour code: White = City has not reached this level yetBlue = Recommendations are being consideredGreen = Recommendations are being applied

In this case a City Council has takenvarious topics identified in PAS181 andassessed its own smart city “maturity”on a four step scale correspondingroughly to a high level project lifecycle:

1) Designing2) Collaborating3) Doing4) Reviewing and Improving (ongoing)

This example offers a simple way ofquerying and recording the currentextent of smart city activities butcrucially depends on the respondentsunderstanding of what is meant orentailed in each of the topic areas B1-B5 which is non-trivial.


THE SMART CITIES COUNCIL READINESS GUIDE BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

SCC Readiness Guide contains many usefulexamples

The Smart Cities Council Readiness Guidecontains many interesting examples in its 280pages - including various GCC, European andNorth American examples.

1. Introduction to Smart Cities2. How to Use the Readiness Guide3. Universal4. Built Environment5. Energy6. Telecommunications (co-authored by the

Chairman of the FTTH Council MENASmart Cities Committee )

7. Transportation8. Water and Wastewater9. Health and Human Services10. Public Safety11. Payments12. Smart People13. Ideas to Action

The SCC Guide is good overview.

Birmingham’s smart city roadmap is clearly inspired in part by the SCCGuide but is naturally more specific (this extract shows part re open data)

22

Birmingham’s roadmap and

action plan has similar scope to

the SCC Guide but is naturally

much more specific

describing projects /

initiatives that the city council

will execute, along with any

relevant partners already

identified in each case.


BIRMINGHAM’S BROAD ROADMAP RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM WHAT IS

THE ACHIEVABLE SCOPE OF SMART CITY COLLABORATION ACROSS MULTIPLE CITIES IN A REGION?Creating a roadmap for a single local authority is clearly simpler than creating one for multiple cities with varying needsand interests. The broad scope of Birmingham’s roadmap (as an example) is consistent with much smart city thinking butprobably poses its own management challenges which would also be amplified across multiple authorities.

23

The issue of appropriate scope of potential smart city collaboration in a region would best be resolved early.

However, a Reference Model and assessment could also be used to test the boundaries if required.


THE TYPICAL BARRIERS TO A SMART CITY AS LISTED IN THE SCC READINESS GUIDE

24

Siloed, piecemeal implementations Cities often tackle challenges in a piecemeal fashion, due to short-term financial constraints and tradition. Smart cities work “system wide” and conflict with the silo approach.

Lack of financingA perennial problem around the world. Even smart projects showing a reasonable payback may rely on efficiency gains or new part outsource ways of working which can be contentious.

Lack of ICT know-how Although industry has developed highly sophisticated ICT, few cities have had the budget or vision to push the state of the art. As smart cities are essentially about injection of ICT , lack of skills is a problem.

Lack of integrated servicesCity ICT was applied to internal, siloed operations. Resulting in a grab-bag of aging applications that only city employees can use. A smart city needs to open data and some processes to citizens and partners.

Lack of citizen engagementThe smart cities movement is often held back by a lack of clarity about what a smart city is and what it can do for citizens. Some early smart meter projects generated a backlash through poor public communications. Visionary leadership is crucial.

Lack of a smart city visionaryEvery parade needs a leader. Sometimes that leadership comes from an elected official – a mayor or councillor who acts as the smart city champion. Smart city leadership can also come from elsewhere in the administration.

The barriers listed in the SCCReadiness Guide are rather generaland high level but nonetheless aredrawn on emerging experience ofearly smart city projects around theworld.

The list immediately suggests someareas to probe with the research andquestionnaire for this project. Wewill use this as one input to thereference model and by providing a“negative” filter compared to themore obvious “positive” directionstemming from other models, it willmake a useful contribution.


THE INFORMAL “MODEL” USED IN AMSTERDAM OFFERS ANOTHER REFERENCE SOURCE

The Informal Model for Defining and Assessing Projects

The starting point for any smart city case in Amsterdam is:

consistency with Amsterdam’s vision and policies

impact

implementation

scalability

Having credible plans for each of these common-sensefactors are fundamental to any project being approved,although the application and weighting of these factors varysignificantly case by case.

Consideration of Financial and Strategic Benefits

Financially feasible / economically viable? ROI for (local) government does not necessarily need to be financial /

materialistic as long as the project grows the local economy

Improves the efficiency and /or quality of city operations?

Local Govt as a platform and as facilitator enabling new partnerships?

Local Govt should allocate a certain (small) percentage of total investment as 'playing money' --> if there is no ROI, no worries

Innovative?

Collective effort - do all partners act in an active role?

Consideration of Impacts & Benefits

What's in it for the end user / citizens?

How does it improve the quality of life for citizens?

Are products and services user centric?

Balance of technology (vendor) push versus demand pull?

Shift from ownership to availability?

Leads to knowledge sharing and/or knowledgedissemination?

Enables, or is dependent upon, behavioural change?

Cross fertilisation with existing initiatives or otherrelevant programs?

Consideration of Implementation Issues and Risks

Political leadership and Govt. orchestration?

Stage in the political life cycle?

Bottom-up approach?

Holistic approach?

Technical feasibility? Amsterdam does not focus too much on technology – the smart city is

about much more than just technology / ICT

Consistent with national and EU legislation?

Symmetrical open communication infrastructure in adistributed network?

Open data / open source?


CEN/CENELEC/ETSI SCHEME - ENDORSED BY THE EU SMART CITY PARTNERSHIP

26

Smart City

City Purposes

City Systems

Infra-structures

City Actors

The issues that are important to mayors and cityleadership. Their interest in city systems is only in asfar as these systems can be better co-ordinatedtogether to help deliver on their purposes

Systems – which may beprocesses or ICT or other types- that enable the city tofunction, such as energy,mobility, security, education,health, water and sewerage,city governance and so on, aswell as, most importantly,citizen involvement/action.

The (largely) physical networks and structures that areused by city systems and include; communicationsinfrastructure, both wired and wireless, sensor networks,roads, buildings, electricity and gas distribution networks,water and sewerage infrastructures, district heating, andso on.

“is a device, computersystem, software program,or the individual ororganization that activelyparticipates in deliveringthe Smart and SustainableCity or Community. Actorshave the capability tomake decisions and toexchange information withother actors.

The aim of this ongoing standardswork is to find a way of categorisingcity issues, and smart/ sustainablecity/ community solutions to thoseissues, in a way that will make iteasy for cities to find examples ofgood practice, guidance, andstandards that are relevant to them,and also make it easy for standardsbodies to scope out exactly whatnew standards might be needed.

The results of their work will be:

1) A model to help with the categorisation of standards

2) A model to help with the categorisation of case studies –this might be done in partnership with the smart city stakeholder platform or maybe done separately.

Although it is clearly important forthe individual city systems to besmart, the focus of their standardswork is how to integrate citysystems to enable a city to mobiliseall of its resources to tackle thechallenges it faces.


TRANSPORT ASPECTS OF A SMART CITY - BASIC ISSUES (NOT EXHAUSTIVE)

The contents of the reference model and questionnaire need to be tailored to what is relevant for Smart Cities.

Consolidated real-time traffic views

•Feedback of real-time traffic / disruption data to Route Planning tools (both driver tools and smart personal devices for public transport journey planning and / or on-board /on-street public transport signs)

•Prediction of traffic flows / disruptions/ pedestrian flows

Responsiveness and Efficiency

•Demand responsive / flexibly-routed bus / shared taxi services

•Management of information flows within organisations (operators) and to passengers

•Intelligent public transport ticketing linked to GPS

•Improved transport asset management

Mobile Apps and Social Media

•Open data - use of publicly-financed or publicly-derived data to fuel privately-developed apps

•Distribution on generic platforms – e.g. Twitter, Facebook

“Internet of things”

•Embedded intelligence in transport assets

•Looking ahead, preparation for driverless cars

•Information filtering

•Ensuring relevance

•Ability of humans (passengers, but particularly drivers) to absorb information and act on it appropriately

Standard devices having multiple functions

•Contactless bank cards used for public transport purchases

•Smartphones as a means of payment

•Support for NFC & Bluetooth

Analysis of very large data sets

•Sharing of relevant data between transport modes

•Interaction / Connectivity of data / Integration

•Personal Privacy / Security issues


HOW TRANSPORT ASPECTS OF A SMART CITY REQUIRE A FAST FIBRE INFRASTRUCTURE

The contents of the reference model and questionnaire need to be tailored to what is relevant for Smart Cities.

Consolidated real-time traffic views

•Feedback of real-time traffic / disruption data to Route Planning tools (both driver tools and smart personal devices for public transport journey planning and / or on-board /on-street public transport signs)

•Prediction of traffic flows / disruptions/ pedestrian flows

Responsiveness and Efficiency

•Demand responsive / flexibly-routed bus / shared taxi services

•Management of information flows within organisations (operators) and to passengers

•Intelligent public transport ticketing linked to GPS

•Improved transport asset management

Mobile Apps and Social Media

•Open data - use of publicly-financed or publicly-derived data to fuel privately-developed apps

•Distribution on generic platforms – e.g. Twitter, Facebook

“Internet of things”

•Embedded intelligence in transport assets

•Looking ahead, preparation for driverless cars

•Information filtering

•Ensuring relevance

•Ability of humans (passengers, but particularly drivers) to absorb information and act on it appropriately

Standard devices having multiple functions

•Contactless bank cards used for public transport purchases

•Smartphones as a means of payment

•Support for NFC & Bluetooth

Analysis of very large data sets

•Sharing of relevant data between transport modes

•Interaction / Connectivity of data / Integration

•Personal Privacy / Security issues

28

Fibre backbone to high capacity, fast base stations and wifi

networks

Fibre backbone providing real time data and mirroring

Fibre backbone supporting high numbers of devices and end

points

Fibre backbone supporting transport infrastructure

Fibre providing fast links to network operating centres

Fibre backbone supporting high numbers of devices and end

points


ENERGY ASPECTS OF A SMART CITY - BASIC ISSUES (NOT EXHAUSTIVE)

Some cities have less influence over local utilities than would be ideal case but there may already be ambitious smart meter and other programmesunderway around the World. The contents of the reference model and questionnaire should be tailored to what is relevant for the given city/cities.

Building Management

• Government’s own buildings should be smart partly to demonstrate the benefits and to reduce carbon footprint and cost.

• Building Energy Management Systems can achieve significant carbon and cash savings.

Campus or neighbourhood storage

• Whether owned or in co-operation with, say social landlords, new technologies offer the possibility of improved load management and local short term storage (or generation/storage inc solar) to reduce peak loads (carbon benefit).

• May also offer buying group style economies in energy purchase.

Open data

• It is possible that wide disclosure of energy consumption could stimulate changes in behaviour or new market-driven apps and services aimed at various aspects of the smart home/office/workplace.

• Leading by example could be considered as well as seeking ways to grow a local data market.

Intelligent streetlights / infrastructure

• Industry is fragmented but selecting a common approach might secure economies and some sharing of common systems costs.

• Collaboration may also enable public private partnership finance that would be less likely or perhaps impossible for individual cities alone.

Persuasion of local businesses

• It is generally easier to impact business behaviour in favour of low carbon than that of consumers.

• For example, Amsterdam has run successful projects to encourage adoption of LED lighting in local shops and offices and also on the positive impacts of remote working.

District heating / energy / cooling

• In general smarter heating (and in some parts of the world district cooling) is often considered part of a holistic approach to the smart city.


HOW ENERGY ASPECTS OF A SMART CITY REQUIRE A FAST FIBRE INFRASTRUCTURE

Some cities have less influence over local utilities than would be ideal case but there may already be ambitious smart meter and otherprogrammes underway around the World. The contents of the reference model and questionnaire should be tailored to what is relevant forthe given city/cities.

Building Management

• Government’s own buildings should be smart partly to demonstrate the benefits and to reduce carbon footprint and cost.

• Building Energy Management Systems can achieve significant carbon and cash savings.

Campus or neighbourhood storage

• Whether owned or in co-operation with, say social landlords, new technologies offer the possibility of improved load management and local short term storage (or generation/storage inc solar) to reduce peak loads (carbon benefit).

• May also offer buying group style economies in energy purchase.

Open data

• It is possible that wide disclosure of energy consumption could stimulate changes in behaviour or new market-driven apps and services aimed at various aspects of the smart home/office/workplace.

• Leading by example could be considered as well as seeking ways to grow a local data market.

Intelligent streetlights / infrastructure

• Industry is fragmented but selecting a common approach might secure economies and some sharing of common systems costs.

• Collaboration may also enable public private partnership finance that would be less likely or perhaps impossible for individual cities alone.

Persuasion of local businesses

• It is generally easier to impact business behaviour in favour of low carbon than that of consumers.

• For example, Amsterdam has run successful projects to encourage adoption of LED lighting in local shops and offices and also on the positive impacts of remote working.

District heating / energy / cooling

• In general smarter heating (and in some parts of the world district cooling) is often considered part of a holistic approach to the smart city.

30

Fibre backbone supporting high numbers of devices and

end points

Fibre backed control systems with redundancy

Fibre backbone supporting high numbers of devices and

end points


THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DATA BEING MANAGED WITHIN A SMART CITY WILL INCREASE HUGELY

WITH EVERY NEW PROJECT AND APPLICATION

A combined Rio-de-Janeiro-style operations centre is a common initial smart city project.

As CCTV definition increases and visual search develops, bandwidth needs will grow massively.


A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO DELIVERING THE BEST SMART CITIES


A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO DEVELOPING FROM REFERENCE MODELS TO THE ROADMAP

(EXAMPLE)

33

Key Points

The reference model is the basis of

course for the rest of the project so

we will work through all the

international models

The form of the model depends

greatly on the scope that is relevant.

It will also need to assess the trade-

off topic by topic between

collaboration and go-it-alone.

We agree practical means of

accommodating non-financial and

financials returns on investment in

the same framework.

Example Approach & Timeline

Reference Model for City/Cities

Analyse and PrioritisePortfolio of Initiatives

DevelopRoadmap

Reference Model Self-Assessment

Designed “backwards”

to feed readiness & prioritization methodologies

Capture city ideas & priorities

Excel based or cloud db

Prioritised Investment Initiatives

Prioritized List of Initiatives

Evaluate Value and Feasibility

Report, Consensus

Workshop and Roadmap

Reference model

Readiness Assessments

Final report with prioritised portfolio of collaborative & local options for investment

Roadmap with indication of potential benefits and impact of the investments

June July - August September October

DevelopRoadmap

City/Cities Respond

Team subject area experts ensure depth

Inception Mtg & other SG input

International smart city Models & frameworks


WHAT IF OBJECTIVES ARE UNCLEAR OR AGREEMENT IS DIFFICULT TO REACH?

We recommend considering AHP

Usually a small group can reach consensuson the relative merits of different factors,strategies or initiatives. It may requireextensive discussion but consensus usuallyemerges.

To either speed up this process or toinvolve a wider group and ensure a“scientific” method of building agreementwe suggest the Analytical HierarchyProcess (see right for description).

In essence the key decision factors, criteriaor hypotheses are set out (non-trivial) andthen a series of pairwise comparisons aremade. It is much easier to work through aseries of questions along the lines of “is Xmore important than Y?” and answer onscale such as “much more, a little more,equal, less important, very much less”.

AHP uses matrix algebra behind the scenesto check responses for internal consistency(inviting re-consideration whereappropriate) and then can weightresponses across many individuals toprovide relative strengths using the“wisdom of the crowd”.

AHP as described in Wikipedia

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique for organizing andanalyzing complex decisions, based on mathematics and psychology. It wasdeveloped by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been extensively studied andrefined since then.

It has particular application in group decision making, and is used around theworld in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government,business, industry, healthcare, and education.

Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps decision makers findone that best suits their goal and their understanding of the problem. It provides acomprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, forrepresenting and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overallgoals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.

Users of the AHP first decompose their decision problem into a hierarchy of moreeasily comprehended sub-problems, each of which can be analyzed independently.The elements of the hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision problem—tangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly estimated, well or poorlyunderstood—anything at all that applies to the decision at hand.

Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers systematically evaluate its variouselements by comparing them to one another two at a time, with respect to theirimpact on an element above them in the hierarchy. In making the comparisons,the decision makers can use concrete data about the elements, but they typicallyuse their judgments about the elements' relative meaning and importance.

It is the essence of the AHP that human judgments, and not just the underlyinginformation, can be used in performing the evaluations.


FILTERING CANDIDATE INITIATIVES INTO A PRIORITISED PORTFOLIO

In analysing the responses there are two challenges:

1) assessing readiness by competency / function / leadership in a consistent way across cities

2) finding a harmonised and consistent way of comparing costs v benefits (ROI – which will be a mix of financial and social)

35

Ranking and

improvement

Re

vie

w

Sc

ree

n

Initial FeasibilityIdeas

Project merit

Sustainability of advantage

Technical viability

Investment to develop

Strategic fit

Investment to exploit

Time horizon for project

Time to product/exploitation

Market viability

Upside

Technology impact

TIME

RISK/EXPOSURE

UTILITY X%

Y%

Z%

a%

b%

c%

d%

e%

f%

g%

h%

i%

j%

X%

X%

X%

X%

Y%

Y%

Y%

Y%

Z%

Z%k%

Project Attractiveness Rating

PR

OJ

EC

T 1

PR

OJ

EC

T 2

PR

OJ

EC

T 3

Grow or

RetainRetain Grow

Grow or

RealiseRealise

Retain

or Grow

Retain or

RealiseRealise Retain

Project Attractiveness

Medium HighLow

Pursue

to

Enhance

Pursue

to

Enhance

PRIORITY

Pursue

then

?

Reject

or

Shift

Pursue

Reject

or

Shift

Reject Pursue

Opportunity Attractiveness

Medium HighLow

Str

ate

gic

Fit

MAJOR

MINOR

NOT IN CURRENT

BUSINESS

Opportunity Screening

Rationalisation MatrixIMPORTANCE

Enabling Diff. Pacing Emerging

B

E

G

C

R&

D B

UD

GE

T

H

J

D

F

I

A

B

E

G

C

R&

D B

UD

GE

T

H

J

DF

I

A

TECHNOLOGY MATURITY TIME TO COMPLETION

1 2 3 4 5 >5

Idea Generationvia Responses

Harmonise Cost & Benefit Measures

Consistent ReadinessAssessment

Portfolio Prioritisation

MA

RK

ET

S

New to

World

New to

Firm

Current

to Firm

Current

to Firm

New to

Firm

New to

World

TECHNOLOGIES

c

D

F

HA B

E

I

G

Prepare

Pilots

Wave 1Wave 2

Roadmap

In general willingness to pay (on the part of an authority) could offer a means to achieve this but equally that may be too

uncertain or complex for this exercise. Focusing on hard numbers (whether internal efficiencies or savings / time benefits for

the citizen) may be easier. Practices and metrics from the transport sector may be useful in this case.


THE NEXT STEP IN DEVELOPING THE PORTFOLIO ROADMAP IS TO MAP POTENTIAL ROI AGAINST

THE SCOPE FOR REDUCING COST / POTENTIAL FOR COLLABORATION

We are not sure at this stage if these are the most important dimensions but the 3x3 matrix below provides an example ofhow we might prioritise in a manner that is both easy to communicate and to debate at workshops

36

Example dimension:“Scope for cost / risk reduction via collaboration”

Low Medium High

Low

Med

ium

Hig

h

These two dimensions are simply examples at this stage - in thecourse of the project we will discuss with you the mostappropriate method of prioritising.

“Scope for cost / risk reduction via collaboration”The scope for cost savings or risk reduction might bedetermined by a composite score of Low/ Medium/ High basedon a number of inputs including complexity of the initiative,number of internal functions impacted, dependence on externalfactors, time required for completion and monetary estimates.

“Potential Benefit / ROI”If the potential ROI for each initiative can be quantified (whichmay not be so easy for social or strategic benefits) then ofcourse the standard net present value/ discounted cash flowmethodology could be used to group candidates into threerating bands of Low/ Medium/ High. The estimates after all willbe rough and uncertain so fine differences in score could bemisleading.A further refinement to deal with uncertainty could be to usethe pay-off method to estimate real option value although wethink this may likely to be too complex for this exercise.

Exam

ple

dim

en

sio

n:

“Po

ten

tial

Be

nef

it /

RO

I”


CONTACT

37

Stefan Stanislawski – Member – FTTH Council MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications [email protected]+44 7827 999060

Richard Jones – Chairman – FTTH Council MENA Smart Cities Operations and Applications [email protected]+44 7811 166033


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

ASSESSING THE READINESS OF SMART CITIES AND MAJOR