Why bother with Smart?

shard_flickr

BK:  In the first blog, we discussed what a smart city was, but this triggers another discussion: why bother with Smart? Cities are, clearly, a pretty successful pattern already; is the ‘smart’ aspect something that we need, and if so, why?

One of my friends (Yes, Hannah I have at least one) did ask me this: what is the use of “Smart”? This might be a perspective hinging on the distance of age, good or bad. This friend said he used to be enamoured of ‘toys’ – more and better all the time.  As he gets older his views have mellowed somewhat: he thinks more along the lines of what is really needed – what makes a good way to live.  The concepts such as ‘Slow food’ and ‘Hygge’ might come in here.

HK: Good god, don’t ‘hygge’ at me. Though, people love hygge. Maybe they’ll come to the blog looking for ‘hygge’. Anyone will tell you that I can be a bit old fashioned myself: fires, whisky, books, and a phone that takes 1000 years to turn on. I’m never happier than ‘hygging’ it out.

BK: Please don’t bring puns into this.

HK: Sorry. There’s certainly something to be said for the nostalgia movement in tech at the moment: Pokémon Go, the Nokia 3310 renewal: retro is still hanging on to a la mode.

However, I’d suggest that a Smart City isn’t about using tech as a pretty ribbon; it isn’t always very glamorous. The amount of people I’ve said ‘Smart City’ to and they say ‘Oh, yeah, I read something about a talking fridge.’

The Internet of Things is a big buzzword for marketers, but statistics are showing that though Smart entertainment systems, already luxury items, are being picked up easily by the market, but or ‘Green’ or ‘Connected Home’ technologies, like talking fridges, aren’t received with quite so much enthusiasm.  The initial down-payments are huge, and the benefits are a long time coming. A low income family might want to spend extra savings on something that brings their whole family joy or escape, rather than a fridge that tells them when their milk is low.

BK:I completely concede that point .  <ok I might have brought it up just to concede it, but then, I’m annoying that way>.  And given our fridge is at least 15 years old (and still chugging along) the turnover rate is rather lower than the average digital fashion item.  We have to understand both threads – the thread of ‘onward ever onward’ and the counterflow of ‘living life well with less’ – largely because most of the world’s population do, inevitably, have less.

HK: In a way, but also the short and long term benefits of entertainment items are more apparent to the consumer. Smart technologies come across as fashionable, rather than useful. Smart strategy must focus on not both immediate benefits, like reduction in energy consumption, and change to the culture of interaction between people and the place they live. Which is why ‘Smart Cities’ are less about the bonny ribbon, but more the structural integrity of the parcel – the box and the duct tape. Or another way of looking at it, the wedge that jams into the gap between where we are and where we might want to be.  Why aren’t people lingering in city centers? Who is unable to access the disabled parking they need, and how can we help? How to monitor traffic flow, and make it more efficient and reduce pollution? How do we react efficiently to problems raised by citizens like potholes or theft? Sometimes that technology is snazzy, with ticket kiosks, apps, smart streetlights. Sometimes it’s less so, using infrastructures in place, like buses or public bins, and developing a culture of efficiency, anticipating needs and facilitating the inherent action of a city.

BK: That’s a good discussion – what are the different angles of ‘Smart’?  It shouldn’t be just about visible technology or ‘massive compute power’, but a useful underlay.  I believe <warning – somewhat ethically oriented comment coming up> that it would be optimal if a city could be felt by its citizens to serve all its citizens. So no matter who you are, from what background, it becomes possible to find a way in which to live what feels like a decent life.

HK: Live ‘Well’ and Prosper.

BK: Hah. But yes, you could swap places with anybody in the city and make a good life from there regardless of identity. <somewhat ethical comment over>.  

HK:  Wow, well, I think the baseline service of a city (minimum viable product, perhaps?) is the one to which all citizens have sufficient levels of access. A high income citizen might be able to whizz around in a Lamborghini (I’m looking at you, madman who almost crushed my bike), but a low income citizen, or citizen with a disability or impairment for example, need access to appropriate publicly funded transport, or space for movement in the city centres. A Smart City should be able to preempt or at least react efficiently to the needs of its extremely varied groups of citizens, and help them access good work, education, medical help, or the shops they need. Then the cycle continues at optimum; detection, response, adaptation, access.

BK: There is a major environmental point – let’s assume that people want to live what they regard as a decent life.  What’s a decent life? Maybe, roughly speaking, it is to be financially independent as an individual or a family group, and able to continue in that vein in an environment such as ‘lively central london’, suburban LA, or a decent flat or apartment in Edinburgh. These could be regarded as ‘aspirational’ for many, but seen as impossible to many more. However, there are a lot of people in the world, and its resources are not infinite – we cannot sustain that kind of privileged lifestyle for everybody at the current level of environmental load.  We therefore have three choices (open to challenge!):

Ration accessibility to this kind of lifestyle. This rationing might be through economics (we have the power and will keep out those that don’t) or other means. In this case, some will have, and some will have not, and this will be a continuing source of tension.

HK: This hasn’t worked so far. A huge number of people don’t have access to basic needs, such as safety and shelter, let alone access to work opportunities and sufficient healthcare. And half the world’s wealth is owned by eight men. It’s a hard pass from me.

BK: Change the lifestyle to a point at which it can be sustained. My kids always got one answer if they started the ‘no fair’ angle: no, fair would be to have median life opportunities for the whole planet – which is way, way, way below our rather privileged position. I’m not sure that this option would be popular with the people currently in a position of advantage.

In addition, If we don’t change our current processes of consumption, and globally we expect the western consumer lifestyle as an aspirational ideal, it is unsustainable. That would lead to a Malthusian solution. Not nice.

HK: OK…Let’s turn down the melodrama a touch. Also, because that brings you right back to option one.

BK: Third option: Increase the efficiency of our living styles such that it is possible to sustain the population continuously over time, and live a decent life. Happy, healthy, and economically independent.

HK: And that’s what it’s all about.

BK: We’re not doing the hokey cokey.

HK: True, but we are trying to act in unison. At the moment, all three of these options are occurring – not always by active choice.  Economics is an effective way of rationing accessibility to limited resources. In the US and UK, the ‘austerity measures’ and reduction in aid programmes is reducing the lifestyle of a fair proportion of the global population.

BK: Famine, reduction in opportunity, and structural inequality, as some examples, are cutting off significant proportions of global populations from the access afforded to the privileged few. But technology and intelligence can work to minimise the risks we’re taking- we are increasing the efficiency of our living styles. There is an argument about ‘GDP per unit energy’: things that support city activity are becoming environmentally cheaper (e.g. LED lighting, electric cars). If we can use our resources intelligently, and make things work better with less effort, then our headroom increases.

HK: Hence duct tape, not pretty ribbon. The ‘why’ of a smart city is to accelerate that third option as fast as possible: use ‘smart’ technology’ to increase efficiency in local and global arenas, paying particular attention to the specific needs of different peoples and processes, and their priorities. Then sharing that information around. The last option is the only one which works for everyone in the long term. 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Why bother with Smart?

  1. It’s interesting that you have talked about managing risks and increasing utility and efficiency in our day to day lives. I think it is quite a difficult balance to maintain, as a trainee solicitor I am naturally quite risk averse (I know, bloody lawyers always trying to spoil everyone’s fun but it is important to manage risks so hear me out). For all the increased utility such as more efficient infrastructure management through technology, you invariably have an increased risk of cyber threats, if they are successful, having a greater control of the infrastructure of a ‘smart city’. Take for example the San Francisco transit system which was locked up with ransom-ware last year. The ticket gates had to be opened resulting in a massive loss to the transit company as commuters could get on for free.
    This also leads on to the conflict of egalitarianism which you discussed, if there is a greater divide between those who have, and those who have note, there is a greater chance of those who have not, seeking to disrupt the technology and day to day lives of those who have. Alot of people got a free ride in San Francisco but it is important to protect the economic interests of those who are investing in better technologies because if there is no investment there is no technology… I suppose this is part of the ‘how’ of smarter cities which you have not dealt with yet.

    Like

  2. You are completely correct. And have clearly twigged to the point of why we named the blog ‘if this goes on’ too ….

    Risks from all sources should be taken into account, and aggregating systems or data equates to a jump in the impact of a compromise to the confidentiality, integrity or availability of that data or those systems. This is the basis of the ‘impact level’ approach that drove the protective marking of various systems in UK government – if you look at my profile you will see that this is a familiar area! In my current role, I am also engaged with emergency planning on a local government level – which includes these types of events. A minor practical individual example – if people start depending on electronic systems to support their health, who becomes liable for a software fault in a device resulting in significant harm? The software manufacturer? The device manufacturer? The clinical systems supplier? The clinician? The patient(s)? There are already cases of electronically managed pacemakers being hacked.

    Yes, a discussion (in fact, a whole area and theme) will be the resilience of societies in the context of digital/smart – including the aspects around letting things become more divided also increasing the prevalence of frustrated players eliding into malicious players. Note that prevalence does not, of course, equate to impact – the power of digital to extend influence without geographical boundary is great where the players are benign (eg Avaaz) but not so clever where they are malign.

    Looking forward to your future comments..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s