Creating Societal Value with IoT for Smarter Cities “The Future of the Internet of Things in Europe” Brussels, 26 November 2015 Hans Schaffers Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands Aalto School of Business – CKIR, Finland

AIOTI’s Smart Cities report WG08 promotes a smart city technology strategy  Preparing for large-scale IoT pilots for smart cities (“Reference zones in EU Cities”)  States the aim to create a city centric ecosystem: of state-of-the art technologies  Mentions the need for combined top-down and bottom-up approach  Proposes features that a successful LSP project has to fulfil (solves real-existing problem, value, scalable, replicable …)  Presents recommendations regarding technology, acceptability and business  Oriented towards implementing the smart cities technology strategy How will this connect with decentralized innovation models and social & collaborative innovation? How to marry IoT technology strategy and CAPS (Collective Awareness Platforms) thinking?

How will IoT address the challenges faced by cities and regions Such challenges include:  Enhancing inner city attractiveness  Strengthening the innovation ecosystem  Maintaining security and safety  Responding to emergencies  Ensuring quality of life  Efficient use of resources & infrastructures  Strengthening a bottom-up grassroots culture  How is IoT ecosystem to contribute to establishing the conditions enabling all stakeholders to address these challenges  How will the IoT ecosystem be part of the wider innovation ecosystem of cities

IoT strategies should consider that cities are complex social ecosystems  Cities and urban areas are complex social ecosystems, dynamically changing under the influence of drivers, events and innovations, and most important: people’s initiatives!  The “Smart City” concept embodies different meanings:  Technology strategy -> smart infrastructures, resource efficiency  Transformational process -> agile, responsive, innovative, responsible  Innovation ecosystem -> fostering inclusion, innovation, growth, creativity  Its success depends on connecting these meanings, driven by societal needs and ambitions of citizens and stakeholders Change comes from bottom up and top down. Conditions and policies can be created, and directions can be adapted. We need an understanding of systems change and transformation, and how to agree on processes and decisions for “smarter cities”.

IoT strategies in the context of the innovation ecosystem of Smart Cities  Innovation Ecosystems (“Civic Laboratories”, Anthony Townsend) are the breeding grounds of innovation in Smart Cities  “We believe a city to be smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communications infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance” ( A. Caragliu, C. del Bo, P. Nijkamp) Business climate, entrepreneurial conditions Infrastructure conditions, education Small business networks, partnerships, linkages Stimulating demand for new services Government actions (local, regional) Future Internet facilities Living labs create end-user testing communities Stimulating collaborative business innovation Smart city policies for public-private partnerships in innovation

Development phases of “Smart Cities” – how to shape the future? Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3 Integrating ICT in business processes of cities Increase citizens participation Efficient use of resources (energy, etc) Involve citizens and other stakeholder communities Innovation ecosystems and bottom-up initiatives Urban challenges (quality, circular economy etc) Information systems, business process support, information management … Web platforms, sensor networks, cloud, developer tools, platform ecosystem Internet of Things applications, peer-to-peer models, collaborative platforms … E-governance, E-participationSmart energy, smart mobility, urban Living labs, open data, developer tools Wider platform ecosystems; ecosystem-driven societal innovations, innovation communities, cross-city collaboration, grassroots support E.g. IntelCities (2005)CIP projects, SmartSantander, (2013) FI-PPP (2011 – 2016) National and local initiatives OASC, IoT in Horizon 2020, CAPS, National and local initiatives, OrganiCity (FIRE)

Emergency support in cities under uncertainty and incomplete information  Mobile Sensing for Safety (MoSeS)  Situational awareness based net-centric emergency support  Collaboration support in (temporary, dynamic) networks  Real-time sensing, awareness and response  Tactical visualisation, avoiding information overload

Enjoyable Cities: aligning innovative technology and human behaviour  FIWARE as core platform to enable developers to develop applications making use of Open Data (OpenDoors)  Interactive technologies (e.g. screens) and sensor-based profiling to increase attractiveness of inner cities (OBSERVE)  Mobility management for Smart travelling, using the MoveSmarter platform

Open and Agile Smart Cities, current activities in the Netherlands  OASC Netherlands currently includes 6 cities: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Amersfoort, Eindhoven, Utrecht, Enschede  Vision of OASC: create open smart city market based on the needs of cities and communities. Cities need interoperability and standards  Commitment to technical approach  FIWARE cloud platform  CitySDK data model  CKAN as open data platform  OASC NL develops plans and activities for close cooperation  FIWARE Lab NL (legal entity as foundation) has been established as support infrastructure

Summary points 1.The IoT enables a wide range of new applications, making use of context awareness and networking concepts. How to make IoT strategies really demand driven, responding to societal challenges. 2.For smart cities interesting applications not only target / enable efficient resources but activities of citizens, innovators, and other. 3.Cities’ problems and challenges are systemic problems to be responded to by systemic innovations. These integrate social, technological, business and policy innovations. 4.Smart cities pilots should not implement a technology strategy but should aim at real-life societal issues in the cities and in true engagement of citizens bottom-up. 5.We may need other approaches to piloting and “engineering” incorporating the living labs concept and socio-technical systems engineering 6.Cities need to share technologies, software, and expertise in setting up and managing (common and complementary) pilots.

Thanks! Contact: Hans Schaffers, Saxion University of Applied Sciences