Think “Lean Methodology” – Build, Measure and Learn. I think that’s how we should build Smart Cities. We can no longer take the risks of building projects fast and become “white elephants” which Wikipedia defined as:

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness.

Most of the times, Smart Cities deployment failed even though we planned well but failed in execution. Failed in getting the citizens to use the facilities. Failed in maintaining and sustaining the business model.

The maturity of acceptance of city dwellers is also an essential element. I don’t think we can just replicate the success of one Smart City in one country to another country without proper understanding the priorities of the citizens due to the ethnicity and maturity of the city inhabitants.

No doubt, we need the masterplan for Smart Cities. A blueprint that lay the framework and the timeframe which is essential in measuring the success of any projects. But then, blueprints can be useless if there is no element of funding and the right business models in place. Most Smart Cities projects are delayed or canceled due to lack of financing from both parties (government and private entities).

To avoid such issues, let’s use the “lean methodology” in developing Smart Cities. The key element is the MVP (Minimum Viable Product), or in this case, we might call it “Minimum Viable City.” Here’re the steps:

1. Develop a hypothesis by getting citizens inputs. Provide the citizen with tools that allow them to engage with the government or city authorities.
2. Collect the data and analyze the citizen’s priorities
3. Build the “Minimum Viable City” Smart Applications
4. Measure the impact and usefulness.
5. Learn from the citizens whether their pain points are adequately addressed. Iterate the process again.
6. Scale up the deployment.

Think Big Start Small

“Think Big Start Small” – that’s how we should build our Smart Cities without putting so many resources. But to implement this – we need funding from the Government. In Malaysia, I would suggest MOSTI, MCMC, MDEC, MIGHT or Cyberview allocate some funds to create many Proof-of-Concept (PoC) projects in various cities. That’s one of the ways to spur the local innovation within the country.

What’re your thoughts?

I have several interesting discussions whenever I told the audience in my Talks regarding why Smart Cities should have these traits of becoming more:

1. Collaborative
2. Responsive
3. Cost-Effective
4. Accountable
5. Transparent

If you asked the citizens whether they wanted their Governments or Local Authorities to embrace those qualities, the answer would be a big “YES.” But somehow it doesn’t resonate well to the other parties (Governments or Local Councils). Why?

We knew how IT helped to make organizations more cost-effective, but when you have a deeper integration with each and every device that you monitored with IOT sensors connected, the jitter gets down to the bones of the people who managed the assets.

Imagine that when every “assets” linked to the person responsible. It can be good or bad depending on how that person handles and manage that asset.

But that’s how IOT works – reducing cost and getting higher efficiency.

If you are a Captain of a sinking ship – what’s your first instruction – plugging the hole of the ship or steer to a new direction?

Of course, the answer would be to plug the holes and stabilize the ship before you can steer to the new direction. It’s the same for any organizations, even before they create new revenue streams, they must be able to identify areas of improvement, reduce any stumbling blocks, streamline and shorten the process, reduce manual work and increase automation. And that’s what IOT does!

Countries such as Japan and Korea kept improving their services because they have reached a state where everything should be automated, and services are citizen-focused.

Thus, every country that wanted to implement their vision of Smart City must understand where the priorities are.

It’s not enough to simply “want” a Smart City. Get the trust from the citizens, and you will get them to build the Smart City that you envision.

How do you know you are perfectly healthy if you don’t have a regular and comprehensive medical checkup? How often do you check your:

1. Cholesterol level
2. Blood pressure level
3. Body Mass Index
4. Diabetes risks level

Through a regular check up you only know how healthy is your body.

The city is analogous to a body. The intertwined roads with junctions and traffic lights are similar to our blood vessels that carry oxygen to the brain. No one wants a clogged blood vessel, right?

Pollutions from the car, factories, open burning are as unhealthy as any smokers. Vandalism, drugs, crime, are similar to what unhealthy foods that we eat. If we don’t control what we eat, the food will eventually “kill” you.

The above are some examples, how our human bodies have the similar features and functions like the cities. Cities will be sustainable, healthy and livable if the we take good care of them. And how are we going to do that?

Any medical examination mentioned above (cholesterol, blood pressure, BMI, Diabetes, etc.) requires accurate measurements via specific devices or sensors. All results will then be consulted via experienced doctors to determine how healthy or any prescriptions required.

Thus, how do we measure our cities “healthiness”, “happiness”, “livable”, “safety” index? How do we measure “sustainability”? How do we compare these city indicators with all cities around the world? What kind of sensors required to capture the relevant data?

Thus, it’s important for us to have a regular and full “health” check up of our cities like what we did for ourselves.