You are on page 1of 47

Cover page to be generated

POLICY DOCUMENT WHITE PAPER

HUMAN SMART CITIES

OUTPUT 5
Project Acronym: Grant Agreement number: Project Title: PERIPHRIA 271015 Networked Smart Peripheral Cities for Sustainable Lifestyles

Incorporating project Deliverables: 6.3.2, 3.3.2 and 7.4.3 POLICY DOCUMENT WHITE PAPER: HUMAN SMART CITIES Revision: [V 3.0], 18.05.2013 Authors: Jesse MARSH, Alvaro OLIVEIRA, Jean BARROCA (Alfamicro) Grazia CONCILIO (Milan Polytechnic) Krassimira PASKALEVA (KIT) Per-Anders HILLGREN, Per LINDE, Bo PETERSON (MEDEA/Malm university) Alessandra RISSO (Comune di Genova) Stefan WELLSANDT (Bremer Institut fr Produktion und Logistik GmbH (BIBA), Bremen) Joaquim CARAPETO (Municpio Palmela) Ira GIANNAKOUDAKI, Dimitra TSAKANIKA (DAEM S.A., Athens) Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P C Public Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services X

COPYRIGHT
Copyright 2011 PERIPHRIA Consortium consisting of : 1 (Co-ordinator) 2 (Participant) 3 (Participant) 4 (Participant) 5 (Participant) 6 (Participant) 7 (Participant) 8 (Participant) 9 (Participant) 10 (Participant) 11 (Participant) 12 (Participant) Alfamicro Sistema de Computadores Lda PolymediaSpA Karlsruher Institut fr Technologie Intelligent Sensing Anywhere SA Archeometra s.r.l. Athens Technology Center S.A. Politecnico di Milano Malm Hgskola (Malm University) Bremer Institut fr Produktion und Logistik GmbH (BIBA), Bremen DAEM S.A., Athens Comune di Genova Municpio Palmela

The PERIPHRIA project is partially funded under the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme by the European Community http://ec.europa.eu/ict_psp. This document reflects only the author's views and the European Community is not liable for any use that might be made of the information contained herein. This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission from the PERIPHRIA Consortium. In addition to such written permission, or when the circulation of the document is termed as public, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced. All rights reserved. This document may change without notice.

Index
1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 6 The PERIPHRIA Project .......................................................................................................................... 7 The Policy Dimension of PERIPHRIA .................................................................................................... 7 Scope and Nature of this Document ....................................................................................................... 8 2. The PERIPHRIA Policy Framework ................................................................ 9 The ex-ante Policy Framework.............................................................................................................. 10 The FIREBALL White Paper ................................................................................................................... 11 Europe 2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Digital Agenda ................................................................................................................................... 11 Innovation Union ............................................................................................................................... 12 Cohesion Policy .................................................................................................................................. 12 Innovative Instruments ...................................................................................................................... 13 3. Insights from the PERIPHRIA Experience .................................................... 14 The PERIPHRIA Approach ................................................................................................................... 15 Five Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................. 16 3. Towards a New Policy Framework .................................................................. 19 The Human Smart City Model .............................................................................................................. 20 Strategic framework .............................................................................................................................. 21 The Smart City Ecosystem Methodology ........................................................................................ 22 Process framework ................................................................................................................................. 23 The Challenges Schema ..................................................................................................................... 24 Policy Enactment .................................................................................................................................... 26 Thematic policy .................................................................................................................................. 26 Innovative policy instruments .......................................................................................................... 27 4. Governance and Networking .......................................................................... 28 Governance of innovation communities .............................................................................................. 29 Experimenting governance at the local scale....................................................................................... 30 Why Public-Private-People (PPP) partnerships? ............................................................................ 30 Towards open and dynamic partnerships ....................................................................................... 31 The transfer of urban innovation .......................................................................................................... 32 Donor/adopter mode ........................................................................................................................ 33 Peer-to-peer mode ............................................................................................................................. 34 Patchworking mode ........................................................................................................................... 35 5. Recommendations and the Human Smart Cities M anifesto ............................... 37 Audiences ................................................................................................................................................ 38 Citizens .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Cities ........................................................................................................................................................ 38

Digital Innovation Community ..............................................................................................................39 ICT industry..............................................................................................................................................40 European Commission ............................................................................................................................41 The Human Smart Cities Manifesto ......................................................................................................42 8.References ...................................................................................................... 45

1. Introduction

[6]

The PERIPHRIA Project


The objective of PERIPHRIA is to deploy convergent Future Internet (FI) platforms and services for the promotion of sustainable lifestyles in and across emergent networks of smart peripheral cities in Europe, dynamic realities with a specific vocation for creativity. Its Challenges portal, an Internet by and for the People provides a space for city administrations, citizens and businesses, and the ICT industry to co-design new services meeting concrete needs. Its Toybox solution repository integrates existing and new apps and services that project groups can adapt to their needs during the service co-design process, under the paradigms of Internet of Things (IoT), Internet of Services (IoS) and Internet of People (IoP). PERIPHRIA develops the Living Lab premise of shifting technology R&D out of the laboratory and into the real world in a systemic blend of technological with social innovation. It defines six archetypical Arenas specific urban settings or innovation playgrounds with anthropologically defined social features and requirements as models of the spaces where co-design and service integration processes unfold: Smart Neighbourhood: where media-based social interaction occurs Smart Street: where new transportation behaviours develop Smart Square: where civic decisions are taken Smart Museum and Park: where natural and cultural heritage feed learning Smart City Hall: where mobile e-government services are delivered Smart Campus: where higher education institutions collaborate for a better quality of urban life

Pilot projects in the six PERIPHRIA Partner Cities Malm (SE), Bremen (DE), Athens (GR), Genoa (IT), Palmela (PT), and Milan (IT) stimulate social interaction of people in places, cross-city linking of Arenas and discovery-driven platform convergence. Transfer scenarios developed with the six Sponsoring Partner cities (Budapest, La Fert sous Jouarre, Larnaca, Malaga, Malta and Palermo) as well as additional cities joining the experimentation (Lisbon, Helsinki, Rio de Janeiro, and others) validate up-scalability and networking potential.

The Policy Dimension of PERIPHRIA


PERIPHRIA, as a part of the CIP ICT PSP Programs Smart Cities Portfolio, has by definition a strong policy dimension, both as an instrument of EU ICT Policy and as a means to explore new city (and regional) policies related to smart ICT infrastructures and services in the first instance but ultimately related to innovation both technical and social, as recently highlighted in several EU documents including the Local Digital Agenda, Horizon 2020, and the new Cohesion Policy. At the same time, however, any investigation of policy issues for the kind of social innovation PERIPHRIA is trying to engender must first confront the fact that innovation policy is a contradiction in terms. True innovation of the sort that can make a policy investment worthwhile is something unexpected and disruptive, coming from where one least expects it and often challenging the very beliefs and institutions of those who make policy to support it. Policy, at least in the sense of what politicians and governments do, can only move through certainties in terms of objectives and structures, if nothing else for respect of the public nature of the funds it manages. Despite this structural contradiction, there is an increasing recognition that innovation is of central importance to policy, especially in the context of the current crisis, where most of the policy approaches to address issues such as social welfare and environmental security are proving ineffective and in any event have run out of money. Indeed, innovation has become the main keyword of the entire Europe 2020 vision, [7]

accompanied by its policy-action word smart. This can only have a powerful impact on the future of city and regional sector and spatial policies as well. Given that Social Innovation has only recently appeared with force in regional and urban development policy, its effectiveness in this arena has yet to be tested. While we welcome this trend, we hold that a sober assessment is required in the face of the significant risk of underestimating the challenge involved. We in fact should not be distracted by the ease with which it is possible to analyze the dynamics of social innovation ex post (i.e. when it has already happened), in stark contrast with the difficulty of making it happen in the first place as well as making it happen in a direction that is coherent with shared values and objectives. This is what PERIPHRIA aims to do, building on the experience gained to date of real people in real places while paying careful attention to the institutional and policy framework that shapes that interaction. What emerges is a broader concept of policy that draws on the partially unconscious, unpredictable and unexpected outcomes of the interactions between people (and among other entities) and between people and the environment, to define a collective strategy for the polis perhaps a politics of innovation more than innovation policy as a new way of framing the scope for potentially more efficient and effective government action.

Scope and Nature of this Document


This document aims to set forth a policy vision that has emerged through this process, aiming to address the key concerns voiced by citizens and city leaders for a more Human approach to the Smart City model. It is not based on a deductive, evidence-based methodology but rather a constructivist discovery-based approach whose criteria for success is resonance with the different stakeholders involved as a means of building consensus for shared Smart City strategies and paving the path forward. As the second iteration of the recommendations document foreseen for this policy-oriented activity in the project, incorporating as well the exploration of governance issues in the pilot projects and networking among cities, the aim here is to build a coherent, clear and actionable vision, situated in the current policy context and in the lessons learned in project activities. Finally, the document sets forth policy recommendations that have been tested with key actors and a Human Smart Cities Manifesto through which to build a network of cities committed to facilitating the development of effective Smart City strategies and its uptake across a range of cultural, geographical, and infrastructural contexts. This White Paper is structured as follows: Chapter One describes the policy context of Future Internet, Smart City, and social innovation mainly in the European framework Chapter Two develops on the five key lessons learned throughout the Periphria project as regards the issues at the core of the policy framework Chapter Three develops the Human Smart City model that has emerged through the Periphria project in its strategic, process, and instrumental policy aspects Chapter Four specifically explores the issues of local governance of Smart City communities and transfer and learning across cities. Chapter Five concludes with specific recommendations to the key actor communities and the proposed Human Smart Cities Manifesto through which to operationalize the policy model.

[8]

2. The PERIPHRIA Policy Framework

[9]

The ex-ante Policy Framework


PERIPHRIA unfolds in a moment of policy transition for the European Union, from the Lisbon and i2010 strategies to the new framework of EU 2020. The main ex-ante policy framework can be said to consist of the following elements:

The CIP ICT PSP Programme


The ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) is one of the three specific programmes of the Competitiveness and Innovation framework Programme (CIP), running from 2007-2013. CIP in general was set up to promote innovation, rather than research and development, and thus encourages take-up of new technologies and the development of trans-European services through pilot experimentation. The ICT PSP in particular was designed to support innovation in areas related to ICT policy as set out in the i2010 strategy. One of these is defined as Open Innovation for Future Internet-enabled services in "Smart" Cities, the objective under which the PERIPHRIA project is partially funded as part of the CIP Smart Cities Portfolio.

The Future Internet


The Future Internet Research and Experimentation (FIRE) programme launched its first projects in 2008, while the thematically related Future Internet PPP (Public Private Partnership) was launched in 2011. The CIP Smart City Portfolio addresses the uptake of Future Internet technologies, and in this context PERIPHRIA is distinguished for its very people-centric vision in this respect.

The European Network of Living Labs


European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) was constituted under the auspices of the Finnish Presidency through the Helsinki Manifesto of 2009. Living Labs are defined as open, user-driven innovation ecosystems based on a partnership between business, citizens, and government, that allows users to play an active role co-design in processes of research, development, and innovation. The Living Lab approach has been supported by a range European Commission initiatives including the CIP Smart Cities Portfolio, and is at the heart of PERIPHRIAs user-centred methodology.

The European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things (IERC)


The aim of the IERC is to address the large potential for Internet of Things (IoT) based capabilities in Europe and to coordinate the convergence of ongoing activities. The IERC evolved from a portfolio of research projects on RFID, and is framed in the EUs IoT Action Plan of 2009. PERIPHRIA was selected as the first project in the Smart Cities Portfolio to participate in the IERC, and has provided specific inputs especially as regards the citizens standpoint on privacy and security issues.

European Initiative on Smart Cities


This is an initiative launched by DG Energy to deply the Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (SETIS), the Commission's Information System for the SET (Strategic Energy Technology)-Plan, established in 2007. The aim is to mobilise the Covenant of Mayors network to achieve significant carbon emission reductions in the areas of buildings, energy, and transport, at a cost of an estimated 10-12 billion Euro between public and private investments. Although SETIS is not directly related to PERIPHRIA, the significant scale of its implementation strongly influences the Smart City agenda.

[10]

The FIREBALL White Paper


The recently concluded FIREBALL project1 was a Coordination Action in the FIRE program with the specific aim of bringing together communities and stakeholders active in three areas Future Internet, Living Labs, and urban development in order to build a coherence Smart Cities vision. FIREBALL explored cases studies and foresight reports on how the concept of smart city is currently adopted by European Cities and what the ambitions and expectations are in using this concept. The FIREBALL project thus constitutes one of the main foundations for PERIPHRIA. FIREBALL published the White Paper Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems Sustained by the Future Internet2 in May 2012. The document includes a discussion on the drivers and components of smart cities, strategies towards smarter cities, assets and infrastructures for smart cities innovation ecosystems, and balancing bottom-up and top-down: engaging towards smarter cities. The view developed in FIREBALL is that cities constitute innovation playgrounds, hence, may act as agents of change. Smart City internet-based innovation ecosystems are effective, open and user driven settings where methodologies, approaches and resources of the constituencies can be aligned and shared, benefiting a rapid adoption of internet services and the economic and social development in cities. Particularly relevant to PERIPHRIA is the tendency identified towards more decentralized and bottom-up approaches to planning and innovation, leading to networking and collaboration among stakeholders, which eventually extend to real innovation communities.

Europe 2020
Framing the new EU policies for the 2014-2020 programming period, and thus the future Smart Cities initiatives which this document is addressing, is the Europe 2020 Strategy, launched in March 2010 to address the economic crisis and prepare the EU economy for the challenges of the next decade. Europe 2020 sets out a vision to achieve high levels of employment, a low carbon economy, productivity, and social cohesion, to be implemented through concrete actions at EU and national levels, with the overall objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. These three goals are further developed through seven Flagship Initiatives, the most relevant of which fall under the objective of Smart Growth: the Digital Agenda for Europe and Horizon 2020. Among the policy shifts evident in Europe 2020 and particularly relevant to PERIPHRIA is the emphasis on innovation as the key path to achieving the new objectives. Indeed, the Competitiveness Council in one of the preparatory statements to its launch acknowledges the importance of encouraging all forms of innovation technological as well as non-technological in particular those that bring innovation closer to market needs and respond better to user needs.

Digital Agenda
The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE), the first Flagship Initiative under Europe 2020 and launched only two months later in May 2010, defines the key role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for Europe to succeed in its ambitions for 2020. The objective is to chart a course to maximize the social and economic potential of ICT, targeting a broad range of concrete actions to be taken both within the framework of EU initiatives and at the Member State and regional levels. The underlying assumption is that wider

1 See www.fireball4smartcities.eu 2 Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/94651094/FIREBALL-White-Paper

[11]

deployment and more effective use of digital technologies will enable Europe to address its key challenges and provide Europeans with a better quality of life through, for example, better health care, safer and more efficient transport solutions, cleaner environment, new media opportunities and easier access to public services and cultural content. PERIPHRIA touches on several of the seven priority areas identified, such as greater interoperability and enhancing digital literacy, but its main focus coincides with the final priority, applying information and communications technologies to address challenges facing society. PERIPHRIA is also much aligned with the various Local Digital Agenda initiatives launched across Europe, providing a more bottom-up, participatory dimension to the DAE and integrating it with Smart City strategies.

Innovation Union
The Innovation Union is a key Flagship Initiative of Europe 2020, launched in October 2011. It embodies the new emphasis on innovation, aiming in fact to improve conditions and access to finance for research and innovation in Europe, to ensure that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services that create growth and jobs. The Innovation Union plan includes measures to strengthen Europes knowledge base, bring good ideas to market, maximize regional and social benefits, and promote innovation partnerships and international cooperation. The Innovation Union policy also frames most of the future research and innovation activities in Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy.

Horizon 2020
Horizon 2020 brings together the Framework Programme, the CIP ICT PSP programme, and the European Institute of Technology (EIT) for the 2014-2020 period, and will therefore be an important source of funding for future Smart City initiatives aiming to follow up on the PERIPHRIA outcomes. Beyond introducing a series of procedural innovations in funding mechanisms, Horizon 2020 addresses a broad area of its research agenda towards Societal Challenges, including most of the key areas of interest for a Smart City policy: Health, demographic change and wellbeing; Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research, and the bio-economy; Secure, clean and efficient energy; Smart, green and integrated transport; Inclusive, innovative and secure societies; Climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials.

Smart Cities and Communities


One of the first European Innovation Partnerships to be launched in the logic of the Innovation Union policy is the Smart Cities & Communities Initiative, a joint initiative across three DGs Energy, Transport, and Connect. Launched in July 2012, this program essentially aims to enact the SETIS strategy described above, and thus appears to emphasize Smart Cities infrastructures over the participatory, citizen-driven approach advocated by PERIPHRIA. The first call for proposals is open as of this writing.

Cohesion Policy
Cohesion Policy makes up nearly half of the EU budget through the so-called Structural Funds, and is also redefining strategies and plans for the 2014-2020 period. As a part of its role in implementing the goals of the Innovation Union, Social Innovation is identified as a key theme across several aspects of the new Cohesion Policy, with a role in both the European Social Fund and innovation strategies. [12]

Smart Specialisation
Research and innovation has played an increasing role in Structural Funds spending over the years, to reach a total for the 2007-2013 period of over 86 billion Euro. The definition of regional innovation programs for the new period is now framed in an EU-driven strategy called Smart Specialisation, which aims to focus national and regional policies on specific strengths, competitive advantages, and potential for excellence, including both technical and social innovation. Of key relevance to PERIPHRIA and Smart City strategies in general are two key elements of the Smart Specialisation approach: an extension of the innovation strategy to embrace not only technical but also social and organizational innovation the engagement of local stakeholders in defining and carrying out innovation strategies.

Urban Policy
Another area of regional policy of relevance to PERIPHRIA is the Urban Agenda, originally adopted in 1997 with its main emphasis on the need to adopt integrated strategic planning across urban areas, and now guiding Cohesion Policy for urban areas. The regulations for the 2014-2020 programming period has yet to be approved, but the proposed document calls for at least 5% of the ERDF to be dedicated to integrated actions for sustainable urban development. These actions would include delegation to urban authorities with the aim of tackling economic, environmental, climate, demographic and social challenges, in line with the actions of the PERIPHRIA pilots. In addition, there is a specific proposal for innovative actions in sustainable urban development, up to a ceiling of 0,2% of the annual funding, to support new ways of working, focusing on tomorrow's challenges; this appears to be specifically aimed at Smart City type initiatives.

Innovative Instruments
Specific innovative instruments are identified both across the policy spectrum and specifically within Cohesion Policy, of which three are particularly relevant to PERIPHRIA: Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP), following an exploratory action of the 7th Framework Programme, has established itself as an new and effective way to promote innovation. In essence, a competitive tender process is transformed into a process supporting the generation of ideas, the development of prototypes and adoption of the most promising solutions. PCP inspires the Challenges process explored in the PERIPHRIA pilots, and is also being promoted as an appropriate instrument for both Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy. Community-led Local Development (CLLD) is appropriate for the Smart co-design communities formed in the PERIPHRIA pilots. CLLD focuses on specific sub-regional territories and is community-led, by local action groups composed of representatives of public and private local socioeconomic interests. It carries out integrated and multi-sectoral area-based local development strategies, considering local needs and potential, include networking and cooperation. Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) are a mechanism adapted for the kind of infrastructural investments that underpin a Smart City strategy. As described in the Common Provisions for the ERDF and ESF, ITI is an implementation tool for area-based strategies requiring integrated investments under more than one priority axis or operational programme, and is focused on urban areas or other functional territories.

[13]

3. Insights from the PERIPHRIA Experience

[14]

The PERIPHRIA Approach


The PERIPHRIA project is coherent with the policy aims of the CIP call in that it brings together Smart City and Living Lab concepts with the objective of promoting innovation. Within the context of the Smart Cities Portfolio projects, however, PERIPHRIA stands out for three distinctive aspects of its approach, already evident in the projects statement of objectives: The common portal as developed in the project does not directly support service delivery, a feature of the Smart City concept, but rather stakeholder interaction in a Living Lab environment, framing its development paths in the Challenges framework. The focus is on attaining sustainable lifestyles above and beyond the satisfaction of functional needs such as transport or health, again a common feature of Smart City services. This implies that the approach towards technology is not as stand-alone applications but rather as integral parts of patterns of human behaviour. The emphasis in the pilot experimentation is in peripheral cities, implying that the project is aiming to capture emergent transformational innovation processes more than codify traditional ICT-based innovation practice. This situates PERIPHRIA in the Territorial Living Lab paradigm, which focuses on social innovation deriving from the interaction between ICT and different aspects of territorial capital.

The Future Internet vision set forth in the PERIPHRIA project sees ICT as shifting from bounded, do-it-all applications to a universe of ubiquitously available fragments in the form of apps (Internet of People), sensor feeds (Internet of Things), resources (Internet of Services), etc. The integration of these elements occurs in part through technical interoperability, as has always been true, but also through an increasing role for people-citizens-end users who compose the way different apps fit together through human action: People in Places.

Figure 1. The PERIPHRIA Future Internet model.

In addition, since this service composition occurs only in a sort of run time where actual people do something specific, the role of the place where this happens takes on increasing importance. The rise of location-based apps is a first testimony of the importance of place not only in defining the context for automatic service composition and delivery (see for example Google Now), but also for defining the human sequence of events that gives meaning to the use of technology. Conversely, the use of a given technology (through the presence of a given infrastructure) in a given place changes that place as well. In such an event-based logic, the key insights to be gained through the experimentation in PERIPHRIA can be framed as lessons learned. These are generalisations based on trends including weak signals [15]

observed in the course of the projects development, with specific implications for policy formulation and implementation.

Five Lessons Learned


Lesson one: Convergent Future Internet service platforms need to combine the technological, social, and spatial dimensions.
The Future Internet has in the first instance been defined by a series of attributes of its underlying technologies (in PERIPHRIA synthesized as IoT, IoS and IoP), which in some way come together through a dedicated architecture that however resembles system architectures currently in place (ie layered models with middleware services, application modules, etc.). In our experience with PERIPHRIA (in conjunction with our experience with the FI-PPP), a different view is emerging. In contrast to the holistic and omnicomprehensive architectures we are used to, the FI appears to be characterized by fragmented applications whose interoperability is driven by on-the-fly service composition, in turn driven by users on-the-spot needs more than by pre-determined standards. Equally, underlying data structures escape systematic ordering between the extremes of messy Excels from public administrations and terabytes of sensor data from environmental monitoring. PERIPHRIAs intuition that FI convergence will be driven by People in Places appears to be confirmed, starting from the Arena Modelling activity with the concretely located nature of the As-Is scenarios that bring the social and technological dimension together. Here, the specific aspects of the physical city location in which interaction occurs play a determining role in shaping the liquid socio-technical systems capable of generating innovation. The Challenges portal developed in PERIPHRIA integrates both the social and technological dimensions supporting human-driven convergence and interoperability through co-design rather than mere technical compliance. Indeed, the pilot cities are discovering how the actual platform where the virtual and physical worlds come together and where different apps become integrated into a city service, is far broader than any technology infrastructure, including human collaboration organisational and governance protocols that accompany service co-design and development.

Lesson two: Engaging stakeholders in the co-design of FI technologies must provide a substantial and relevant motivation and address technology potentials in the context of their social and political impacts.
As a corollary of the above, many of the technology components of the Future Internet especially the Internet of Things can already be said to be available on a mass scale (with some elasticity in definitions). Further technology R&D will certainly increase the scale, scope and effectiveness of these technologies, but it is today possible to experiment the interaction of these elements with the social dimension, which is central to convergence. Apps such as Cosm (ex-Pachube, an aggregator of sensor feeds) and Layar (mobile 3D augmented reality aggregator) can act as front ends and spark off co-design processes for Smart City FI paradigms. Paradoxically however, as Facebook surpasses 1 billion subscribers and Smartphones are the only product category to flourish in the midst of our economic crisis, it has become increasingly difficult to engage Smart City stakeholders in the co-design of these technologies, as people remain in the frame of service users rather than service designers. On the other hand, such mass take-up is a prerequisite for even a preliminary understanding of the potential and impact of paradigms such as mobile location-based services. PERIPHRIAs Pilot cities thus attempted to align their citizen engagement activities with on-going initiatives to the degree possible, in order to capture existing active citizenship processes within which to introduce or reinforce the Future Internet dimension. The Toybox repository developed in PERIPHRIA is in fact structured to encourage reciprocal learning about technologies, The discovery approach to technology adoption and [16]

integration has shown how active engagement in technology co-design therefore requires that technologies be situated in their social and political contexts in order to appear relevant to the needs at hand.

Lesson three: Broad and ambitious re-shaping of Smart City structures and services requires both top-down and bottom-up approaches, with a key role for evaluation and impact assessment.
Combining the disruptive potential of the Future Internet with a focus on the transformational changes required to attain sustainability situates PERIPHRIA in a wide open space where traditional methods appear increasingly inadequate. Sectoral classifications that structure the IT Smart City market to date (e.g. energy, health, transport) remain valid within goals based on efficiency, but can equally hinder our understanding of the dynamics of social innovation and service co-generation, which instead require more transversal approaches. In addition, the market framework which has traditionally structured our understanding of sustainability fails to suggest alternatives to growth, while failing to capture emergent patterns of exchange in the gift economy. As both sector and market structures fail as reference frameworks for innovation processes and instead become themselves objects of innovation, through eg the Rainforest model explored in PERIPHRIA, the place-based model appears to offer a structure within which to shape these new dynamics in a multi-level governance framework while allowing for participatory co-design and open institutionalization processes to take shape. PERIPHRIA has applied the Arena concept, derived from the tradition of participatory software design, to a systematic analysis of city structures as a starting model for framing open, broad-reaching co-design processes, but in order to actively engage stakeholders this requires a dialogue between top-down and bottom-up approaches. This dialogue places ex-ante, in itinere, and ex-post evaluation and impact assessment in a key role to support the interaction between the two, though here again traditional deductive and empirical approaches are giving way to evidence of a more political nature and indicators based on a participatory definition of criteria of success.

Lesson four: Participatory service co-design processes require institutional framing and flexible yet stable governance mechanisms in order to have a lasting impact.
The past decades have seen a growth of participatory processes in a range of contexts, with a gradual professionalization in terms of methods and approaches. The Living Labs movement is one such area, where in its initial phases there was a shift from participatory evaluation (or user-centred design) to actual codesign; such participatory approaches prove successful as long as the organizational framework of the Living Lab remains committed to actual implementation of outcomes.3 As the Living Lab movement broadens its scope from university and industrial contexts to institutional and political ones, as is the case for Smart Cities, ensuring commitment becomes far more problematic. In the early months of PERIPHRIA in fact, we found that citizens are reluctant to engage in technology co-design processes if it is not clear why their involvement is requested and who is to benefit from the outcomes. Stakeholder engagement strategies thus followed different approaches that were mainly defined by the specific city partner involved and their specific sociorelational network. This also led to different governance approaches for the communities developed within the pilot activities, ranging from continuous and flexible re-alignment of resources and plans to the drawing up of formal agreements. PERIPHRIA as a whole thus worked in parallel and in sequence at the institutional, associational, and citizen levels, first ensuring reciprocal commitment as a prerequisite to the actual initiation

3 The first Living Lab project to note this was ITAIDE in 2008-09.

[17]

of more visible participatory activities and then gradually exploring the most appropriate governance mechanisms to ensure sustainability.

Lesson five: The development of Human Smart City ecosystems requires specific methodologies for process management and scaling up.
As an extension of the previous point, the Living Lab methodology as declined in PERIPHRIA sets as its goal the creation of Human Smart City ecosystems, aiming to integrate the social, societal, and technological dimensions of innovation and aiming also to create stable structures that go beyond the scope of one or more individual projects. While the existing concept of digital innovation ecosystems may offer an analogy with a sufficient degree of clarity, our understanding of it is primarily based on ex-post analyses rather that experiences of creation of these ecosystems from scratch. The latter is a very complex matter indeed, which requires the orchestration of various dynamics to be set into motion often with parallel or divergent trajectories and following non-linear paths. PERIPHRIA experimented the construction of human-digital ecosystems in the broadest sense, and thus experienced difficulties with stakeholders and even at times with project partners who are more used to linear development methodologies where it is clear what each partner is supposed to do. The ecosystem vision shifts the emphasis to creating the conditions for creativity and interaction and allowing individual players to do what they decide to in their best interest. The experience of PERIPHRIA illustrates that even though successful results may be obtained, the lack of a traditional (linear) development or transfer methodology can be disorienting. It is thus necessary to maintain a strong and fluid communication between all parties, with a constantly updated overview of the dynamics in play, so that all actors know where they are with respect to the overall ecosystem, and ensure that the systemic co-design interactions continue to develop in a coherent way and move in the direction of the desired objectives. Specific discontinuous shifts occur at two stages in the process: a) the shift from open idea generation and fragmented service ideas towards integration and scaling up to become a full-scale city service, and b) interaction and networking with other communities (often in other cities) to reinforce and enrich city services into service systems. These final two points, governance and scaling up, are discussed in further detail in the Chapter 4 below.

[18]

3. Towards a New Policy Framework

[19]

The Human Smart City Model


The Lessons Learned in PERIPHRIA , interpreted within the logic of people in places, leads us to a human centred idea of Smart Cities, which we are calling Human Smart Cities to emphasize the anthropological (and social and political) reading of the technical and social innovation processes occurring in PERIPHRIA Arenas. In this context, culture - that specific mix of regional cultures, institutional cultures, technical cultures, value-based cultures, etc. - becomes the key interpretative filter for capturing the policy implications of PERIPHRIA pilots. Indeed, lifestyles and workstyles are culturally shaped, and the radical transformations required to reach sustainability is in ultimate analysis a cultural and technical process together, just as the effects of the financial crisis can be read in cultural terms - from differing visions of Europe to ways of adapting to economic difficulties for a fuller understanding than just an economic reading. PERIPHRIA has thus been working very much in the cultural dimension, in particular through its emphasis on the spatial and territorial aspects of Smart Cities, a perspective which allows us to view technology as a non-neutral factor with the potential for both positive and negative influences. In addition, this cultural dimension appears to be central in addressing issues of time and history, emerging as an important aspect for the sustainability of any Smart Cities model. Indeed, a common trait across the five lessons is a positive tension between the future we are moving towards and the past we are still in, identifying those elements of tradition to retain or recover and those elements of progress and innovation to promote. It is important for cities to learn how to manage these dynamics between the old and the new, the past and the future, but also the global and the local (glocality), dematerialisation and rematerialisation, etc. From the PERIPHRIA experience, a new vision thus arises that builds on the work to date in the Smart Cities movement and enriches it with these aspects of the human perspective as can only be gained through the citizen-centric Living Lab approach. Indeed, it is becoming clear that smartness alone - sensors, meters, infrastructure - places the citizen outside of the process, as a user who never takes the kind of ownership of the services that can only be ensured by engagement in their co-design from the very start. Of course the infrastructures for reliable, fast, and secure communications and data management need to be in place, but the options to achieve this do not necessarily imply one-off large scale implementation. There are open architectures that can grow organically and can in fact be independent of the services design, creation and business model exploitation. The concept developed in PERIPHRIA - like the projects such as SAVE ENERGY it builds on - is built on complementary human features of smartness such as clarity of vision, citizen empowerment, participation, etc. The User Driven Open Innovation of Living Labs can, from a policy perspective, complete with its human centric approach the technological push of many Smart Cities projects led by the major IT vendors. The difference here is not between "technological" and "social", but between socio-technologies that embody a vision aiming to favor one of the stakeholders as against a more inherently "social" (though equally technological) vision that results from a balanced construction of city strategies. In order to build a policy that is in line with the broad objectives of Europe 2020, it is therefore necessary to clarify the concepts, approaches, advantages and disadvantages, in short the policy role, of such an approach. In the following, we develop a possible Human Smart Cities policy framework along three axes:

Strategic framework: mapping the Human Smart City vision in comparison with other approaches and exploring the innovation ecosystem model. Process framework: the four steps of service development, in particular the Challenges process as a roadmap providing direction within an ecosystem development approach for Human Smart Cities.

[20]

Policy enactment: an overview of emergent and potential policy instruments for deploying a Human Smart City strategy.

Strategic framework
The first step in defining the Human Smart City policy is to clarify the strategic framework, namely a mapping of the different Smart City models in a way that provides a clear vision of their different approaches and how a given city can evolve from current practice towards the Human Smart City vision. In this context, we can begin by mapping Smart Cities models along two axes:

Innovation strategies, with those with a predominance of technical innovation (traditional approaches) to the left and those with a shift towards social innovation to the right. City strategies, with the lower extreme representing infrastructure and platform investments and the upper quadrants a greater emphasis on network-building, citizen empowerment, and stakeholder engagement

Figure 2. Mapping Smart City Strategies.

These axes then give rise to four Smart City models:

Smart Grids and Sensors, to the lower left with the pair technical innovation - infrastructure policy. This approach characterises the large-scale Smart City initiatives such as U-City Songdu (S. Korea) but also the first Commission initiatives such as SETIS (Strategic Energy Technologies Information System) and FIRE/Smart Santander and the general IERC approach to the Smart Cities problematic even within the CIP ICT PSP context. Open Data, to the upper left with the pair technical innovation - empowerment policy. This approach is emerging with force across the digital innovation community and with several leading public administrations, and is also the focus of interest of several more recent projects in the Smart City Portfolio. Open Data emphasizes the free publication of public sector information, under the assumption that external developers build applications to access these datasets to provide services, and is essentially a technical approach to citizen empowerment. Service Apps and Platforms, to the lower right with the pair platform policy - social innovation. This approach is often but not always complementary to Open Data strategies, and places the emphasis on the development of open participatory platforms and the development of Apps for city services. Although shifting the emphasis to social innovation, especially as regards the development of new services, this approach still relies on technology development as its main strategy.

[21]

Community Living Labs, to the upper right with the pair empowerment policy - social innovation. This approach relies on technology as the enabling infrastructure more than the final purpose, while shifting the emphasis to putting citizens and communities in full command, at the centre of the Smart City vision. This can be said to be the embodiment of the PERIPHRIA People in Places concept and the foundation of the emergent Human Smart Cities vision.

From the above diagram, it becomes clear that while the Human Smart City approach can be clearly distinguished from more technology-oriented approaches, it can also be seen as an integration of the different models. The PERIPHRIA policy framework thus also provides an evolutionary path from current technologypush policies towards the citizen-centric Human Smart Cities vision.

The Smart City Ecosystem Methodology


A key feature of the evolutionary path described in the strategic framework above is the shift from policies based on large-scale infrastructure projects towards policies that aim to create and nurture human-digital innovation ecosystems, often with simple and frugal technologies. Building an ecosystem is quite a different matter than, say, building a new electricity grid, and the traditional policy instruments generally fail to capture this organic dimension, significantly increasing the risk of failure. If social (or societal) innovation occurs through processes that are more ecosystemic than institutional in nature, policy needs to find a way to promote the birth and development of innovation ecosystems in the desired directions without killing them in the process. Our experience in PERIPHRIA shows that in order to promote an innovation ecosystem the first step is to define a map of the ecosystem in question with its key components and dynamics. Actions within this policy can be initiated from any point on this ecosystem map and can be preferably carried out in parallel as independent strands of development, but the fundamental point is to maintain an orientation within the ecosystem overall and how each for the strands is contributing to its systemic development. In this process, the dialectic between top-down and bottom-up needs to be re-read in terms of roles rather than weights: the role of the top-down as the political component of policy can no longer be to plan or design social innovation (which is in contradiction with the open nature of innovation itself) but rather to cultivate and accompany emergent processes and help them to synergize and scale up towards becoming new societal structures: the polis component. This means that the top-down perspective must learn to read weak signals and recognize and capture processes at the micro-scale, forming innovation clouds rather than networks, in the sense that the connections are liquid and not always readable. We have also learned from experience that the development of an ecosystem model is a fundamental step for orienting co-design participants and stakeholders, since the process of its development is quite different from the traditional linear development model where different actions are related to each other as sequential steps on the same critical path. The PERIPHRIA ecosystem model is therefore proposed as an example, which may need to be adapted to different contexts for other Smart City strategies. The model first identifies two axes to define the ecosystem space within which the strategy is to be developed, in our case: [22] An innovation axis, from social to institutional, in a more city-oriented continuum as compared to the strategic framework above. A purpose axis, from open exploration to structured experimentation.

This structures the relations between the four main components of the PERIPHRIA ecosystem:

Arena Models: these are the spatially specific settings where co-design processes occur and the framework for transfer to other places.

Smart Citizen Communities: this represents the communities of Smart Citizens/Users acting to achieve new sustainable lifestyles and workstyles. Pilot Platforms: these are the Smart City Service environments (technical, social, and institutional) that allow for concrete experimentation. Challenges: this is the process framework for service development as supported by the PERIPHRIA platform, developed in the following section.

Figure 3. The PERIPHRIA Ecosystem Model.

The key aspect of this model is that it aims to structure multiple, concurrent processes. Maturation processes that move in the clockwise direction in general characterize social innovation processes (for example, Challenges shaping the action of Smart Citizen Communities), while the counter-clockwise direction generally consists of technical innovation processes (for example, Smart Citizen Communities gaining technology literacy in order to better formulate Challenges). Ecosystem development thus occurs through the alignment of a series of actions in the same setting, each of which may start from one point in the model and develop in either direction through it. The essential point is that each process develops some aspect of the model and that the sum of the actions contributes to cover each of its dimensions, not as a linear sequence but rather as a systemic development of the whole.

Process framework
Although the ecosystem development approach described above appears to suggest a somewhat chaotic series of unrelated actions, and indeed the PERIPHRIA methodology is represented as a metro map with different methodological lines linking steps through alternative paths, the overall direction of progress matters. Our ability to read that direction allows us to promote those aspects of its self-organizing development that we hold are working in the desired direction, in accordance with the agreed policy strategy. At the most general level, we have identified four main steps: Identifying the ingredients for innovation in a given city, including the local community of citizens and (non ICT) businesses, including the third sector; the ICT community, comprising universities, R&D centres, industry, SMEs, micro-firms, and even individual would-be entrepreneurs; and the city government and the various public agencies and administrations that play a role in policy making and service provision. Activating one or more Arenas, ie identified places in a given city where a specific mix of Human Smart City ingredients comes together to spark off co-creation processes for new urban services.

[23]

Moving from a broad set of creative service ideas and concepts towards the co-design of innovative projects for city services that effectively blend technological and social innovation. Scaling up to a full-scale city service and sharing and interacting with other cities and communities.

The key to the overall process is in the third step of identifying the common issues and moving towards structured co-design. For this purpose, PERIPHRIA developed the Challenges schema as a process framework that allows at each stage of development of the ecosystem an orientation of where we are and whats the next step; a scalable, organic approach to implement the basic infrastructure driven by the co-design and cocreation of services led by citizens in cooperation with other stakeholders. Here it is useful to review some of the main features of a Challenge in its operational definition in PERIPHRIA and as implemented on the Challenges portal: A Challenge is an open call for proposals for innovative services, normally city services, that use one or more technology tools (either existing or developed ad hoc) within the logic of Future Internet, in the process. A Challenge is generally proposed by a local public administration, although it can also be eg a University or citizen group having identified possible resources, and the Challenge is launched with the commitment to implement appropriate proposals. A Challenge project is co-designed by a multi-disciplinary group, with the objective of moving in the direction of more sustainable lifestyles, often with a dimension of gamification to influence individual and group behaviours.

The co-design of the Challenges process and platform in Periphria has addressed a broad set of issues, including the motivation for people to participate, the political engagement of city governments the link between interaction in real and virtual spaces, etc. but what interests us here is the way the Challenges framework can provide a roadmap for the governance of Smart City ecosystem development.

The Challenges Schema


The process framework for Challenges has two main stages, definition and development, that are both characterised by co-design processes. In synthesis, Challenge definition can be seen as a co-created policymaking process, while Challenge development applies co-creation to the policy implementation process.

Figure 4. The Challenges Definition Process.

The above figure shows the Challenges Definition process, which is similar to citizen participation processes adopted in strategic planning, but with the difference of the focus on technology-enabled innovation as the ultimate means. This process is carried out by the public administration together with citizen and business groups, but needs to be one of peer dialogue even if one of the two sides initiates the process. It is preferable [24]

if the process is framed in a Living Lab partnership that constitutes a neutral table, such as a PERIPHRIA Arena, which brings partners together with the common purpose of developing innovative services in specific city spaces. Challenges definition is structured into three main steps:

Desires, wishes and problems, the initial open step of gathering first ideas from individual citizens and stakeholders. The main focus here is to allow people and groups to express their needs and aspirations and thus become engaged in the co-design process. Tools such as BarCamps or the *Open Space method are useful here. Issues, is an intermediate phase that draws out common themes across the different positions expressed in the previous phase, through a process that results from the convergence of ideas and thus the aggregation of interests. This is an inherently political process, although it may be also driven by technology possibilities, and is generally carried out through reciprocal consultation. Challenges definition occurs when there is a coherent alignment with the current political landscape and the convergence of needs and issues with the stakeholders and resources available for the possible implementation of innovative projects. According to the specific context, the Challenge definition can influence the way the Challenges development phase is carried out, ie following a specific timetable, working in a specific place, etc.

The next phase is the Challenges development process, which generally initiates when a Challenge has been defined and launched, for instance as published on the PERIPHRIA website. It should be remembered however that the Challenge carries with it a broader significance, in that it assigns an institutional value to a problem. Each Challenge reveals a problem that is a) identified by an institution as a key obstacle to policy goals; and b) arising from within the city and recognized as an issue having a collective, urban relevance.

[25]

Figure 5. The Challenge Development Process

As shown in the above diagram, the Challenge development process involves different steps of maturation of project ideas towards the co-design of a Smart City service that can be implemented with the resources earmarked by the Challenge. The steps identified (and supported by the PERIPHRIA platform), are as follows:

Ideas: following the launch of a Challenge, a first step is the open exchange of ideas from citizens, businesses, and even civil servants that are openly related to the Challenge. This is an exploratory phase, a form of collective brainstorming, whose aim is to reinforce engagement and open the process up to innovative approaches. Ideas are then commented, discussed and rated by other citizens, businesses, and civil servants on a peer basis. Projects: are born normally through the maturation of an idea, with a project proposer taking the responsibility of carrying it forward. The proposer then builds a project team, using different tools and media to develop the starting idea and explore different aspects of feasibility. This includes the exploration of technical tools that can support the service concept as well as interaction with city authorities to make the project fit with the administrations goals and structure. This processes takes place in a transparent manner, with citizens and businesses following and commenting on the development and joining the team if desired. The public authorities also follow the development process from the standpoint of project implementation, with the objective of adopting and resourcing projects in line with their Smart City policies as expressed in the Challenge.

As is evident from the above, the development or co-design of an innovative city service is not something that can occur in a half-day workshop, but requires time not only to develop the concept but also to fully engage all of the stakeholders in the relevant phases. In addition, it should be noted that this is not necessarily a linear process, as is evident more in the methodological metro map in correlation with the somewhat linear maturity model of the Challenges. Many experiences in the PERIPHRIA cities have shown how service development can in fact lead to a return to the definition phase, and the link between ideas and projects is quite often a back-and-forth process.

Policy Enactment
The ultimate goal of a Smart City strategy is of course to implement it in practice. In the case of a traditional infrastructure-based approach, the policy instruments currently available to public authorities tenders, grants, regulatory measures, procurement, etc. work just as well as in any other sector of public works. In the context of Human Smart Cities, however, traditional policy instruments need to be used with an awareness of their substantial (and structural) inadequacy. As said previously, social innovation cannot be programmed, ecosystem development is not a linear process, and innovation communities as such cannot act as direct beneficiaries of policy actions. Apart from some specific innovations, however, we must deal with the policy toolkit available to us. In order to best adapt existing instruments to the needs of a Human Smart City strategy, the following paragraphs discuss policy from two different standpoints: thematic and procedural.

Thematic policy
Most policy programs, like the departments or administrations that manage them, are divided according to thematic definitions such as transport, energy, etc. This is policy of the traditional sort, funding initiatives in different sectors addressing specific themes in order to encourage the development of innovative products and services, despite the recognition that most innovation objectives are transversal and multi-disciplinary in [26]

nature. Some recent policy programs try to overcome this issue through the definition of broad areas such as Horizon 2020s Societal Challenges, but the main problem is not so much which themes are identified, but the fact that the main policy instrument is funding. It is extremely difficult - if not impossible - to fund many of the structures, networks and initiatives where digital social innovation is happening and that constitute the core of any Human Smart City strategy. Only if there is an awareness of this intrinsic shortcoming, which can be balanced by, say, provisions for inclusion of civic groups, shift of emphasis from outputs to impacts, etc. can funding programs adapt to emergent innovation needs.

Innovative policy instruments


Innovative policy instruments such as the Citizen-led Local Development and Integrated Territorial Initiatives mentioned at the outset allow to define Human Smart City strategies in a cross-sectoral manner more appropriate to open innovation. Procedural issues involve more the rules of the game, which can ideally be designed to allow for innovative practices to emerge; this may generally consists of regulatory policy but it can also include procedural innovations, such as Pre-Commercial Procurement, also mentioned above. Other innovative approaches currently being explored include Finlands new Open Ministry platform, which essentially uses crowdsourcing to create new laws,4 and other proposals such as Participatory Certification, Ethical Tendering, and reward schemes for eg saving energy or money. To some degree, the Challenges process as proposed by PERIPHRIA constitutes an innovative policy instrument and could be adopted by cities as part of formal procurement processes.

4 http://gigaom.com/europe/online-crowdsourcing-can-now-help-build-new-laws-in-finland/

[27]

4. Governance and Networking

[28]

Governance of innovation communities


The Human Smart Cities model implies the exploration of new institutional or political roles and structures through which innovative communities can form and prosper. The PERIPHRIA pilot communities are an example of this, based on a new multi-stakeholder peer relationship between citizens, public authorities, and the ICT industry. Public-private partnerships are often considered to be a step forward, but are in most cases too top-down to effectively gain the trust of citizens and local business groups. Collective intelligence or crowdsourcing approaches are sometimes purported as governance innovations, but often the temptation of maintaining a strong guiding hand defeats their potential attractiveness to real innovators, the greatest risk in policy terms. In the same way, the Memorandum of Understanding that unites the members of a Living Lab partnership is not always the most appropriate tool in terms of the balance between commitment and openness. Governance is therefore an open issue which needs to be explored in some depth as the operational basis for any Human Smart City ecosystem that aims for effectiveness and sustainability. In standard definitions, governance includes three main actors (government, the private sector and civil society) while also emphasizing process: it recognizes that decisions are made on the basis of complex relationships between many actors with different and sometimes conflicting priorities. Whatever the form of governance, partnership is at the basis of collaboration, as recognized by the standards defined by the United Nations in 2008 for good practice in public-private partnerships: participation, decency, transparency, accountability, fairness, efficiency, and sustainable development. The experience of the PERIPHRIA project shows that a Human Smart City can only be developed under the above mentioned principles, but it also shows that the operationalization of these principles requires that effective governance is the open-end and dynamic result of a process of collaboration based networking. This in turn requires a more complex concept of partnership in order to be consistent with the digital perspective on social innovation. Social innovations can be understood as addressing social needs in that they: enhance the quality of life by offering new responses to pressing social demands (BEPA, 2010)5; address social needs 6,7 have sustainable benefits8; and offer social value for the society as a whole, providing solutions for a social problem9. ICT can enable the diffusion of new daily practices and forms of organisation based on sharing, exchange, and participation at the local and global scale (see European projects like SAVEnergy; Periphria, Life2.0);

The digital dimension is introduced by the following considerations10:

5 BEPA (2011) Empowering people, driving change. Social Innovation in the European Union

[http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf].
6 In January 2009, President J. Manuel Barroso declared: The financial and economic crisis makes creativity and innovation

in general and social innovation in particular even more important to foster sustainable growth, secure jobs and boost competitiveness.
7 8 9

Basset, 2010. Hochgerner, 2012. Phills, Deiglmeier and Miller, 2008. Sestini, 2011.

10

[29]

Access to ICT has the potential to regenerate the social fabric, creating meaningful bonds between individuals and resulting in the creation of new sustainable ways of living. In the Smart Cities context: new transformations result from the digital coordination of human activity on an unprecedented scale.() Smart cities are rich of people able to shift resources back and forth from cyberspace to cityspace; here citizens are not only intelligent but also accessible and able to make the city be an engine of choice11, engines of innovation12.

Over recent decades, ICT has been one of the key drivers of innovation; this was initially so in the business domain (see the extensive literature on technology transfer in the 80s) and has recently been applied to the social sphere as though the dynamics were the same. In PERIPHRIA, ICT is instead considered as an enabler of social innovation in the broadest sense: it is not only instrumental to social innovation mechanisms, it also transforms the conditions by which social innovation is possible. ICT thus enters social innovation processes not only as a driver of innovation, but also as structural component of the new social environment, enabling new mechanisms from within and thus affecting the way such contexts can host, take care of, activate, and generate innovation. This requires a new form of governance for innovation in public services, and this is what the PERIPHRIA pilot communities explored in the final months of their activities.

Experimenting governance at the local scale


Why Public-Private-People (PPP) partnerships?
Local authorities increasingly need to rely on innovative multi-stakeholder partnerships to address increasingly complex problems with urban services that can answer pressing challenges with increasingly fewer resources. The concept of partnerships is the cornerstone of the innovative participatory governance theory and has been discussed at length in the literature. Generally described as a mechanism allowing the mobilisation and co-operation of a great number of actors in order to mould the necessary political and operational consensus to affect directly the everyday life of all members of society, partnerships are believed to embody many advantages which are coincident with the presently acknowledged main criteria for sustainability it requires consideration of multiple stakeholders interests, implies a long term perspective based on common goals, and can accommodate a wide range of conflicting perspectives. 13 Traditionally, the majority of partnerships is between the public and private sectors, having often proven effective for securing economic, social, and community development. Public-private partnerships can build collective responsibility pertaining to the combined process of activity development: planning, decisionmaking, problem solving, project implementation and evaluation. In many instances they have created networks to share knowledge, resources, and common goals. Increasingly however, public-private partnerships are seen as too top-down to effectively capture the trust of citizens and local business groups. An emerging model introduces the civic dimension to form Public-Private-People partnerships, whose triangular, participatory structure serves to catalyze sustainable community dialogue, integrated solutions, and long-term local change. As experimented in the PERIPHRIA pilot communities, flexible design and a constant feedback mechanism have proven critical to success. The PPP partnership model can thus be an effective tool for participatory governance when it accounts for both (i) specific activities and their execution and (ii) the implications for development of the broader community.

11 12 13

Gibbson, 2011. Glaeser, 2011. Paskhaleva, 2001.

[30]

Towards open and dynamic partnerships


Partnerships that can be considered as dynamic relationships among the diverse actors are based on mutually agreed objectives and pursued through a shared understanding of the most suitable distinctions of roles and reciprocal advantage. Two dimensions14 are central for defining open partnerships: mutuality of partnership principles and organizational identity as driving the rationale for selecting particular partners and maintaining the added value of participation over time. Mutuality can be distinguished as horizontal, as opposed to hierarchical, coordination and accountability, and equality in decision-making, as opposed to domination of one or more partners. () Identity generally refers to that which is distinctive and enduring in a particular organization. While the importance of these two dimensions has been validated by the PERIPHRIA pilot communities, a third dimension emerged as crucial: openness. The activation and maintenance of co-design partnerships in PERIPHRIA required the exploration of new institutional and political roles and structures enabling innovative communities to take shape. This implied that public and private institutions be willing to experiment the new forms of collaboration and interaction required to shape the innovative organizational environments. The Challenge driven process as developed in PERIPHRIA was in fact devised to activate such experiments of networking between citizens, public authorities, and the ICT industry, and has demonstrated how the keeping the networking process open over time increases the opportunities for innovation. When openness is a key innovation strategy and the role of civic society is stressed, a dynamic perspective of public-private-people partnerships is required, although here there is a need for a more consistent formulation15. Existing literature in fact mostly takes a static perspective, with a co-evolutionary perspective of partnership dynamics emerging only recently in some domains.16 PERIPHRIA has instead demonstrated that this is the only possible approach suitable to open innovation environments such as co-design Arenas, with the further need to re-conceptualize these partnerships in an openness perspective, in order to be able to promote fluid, dynamic networking in which trust and ethics assume contractual value among participants17. The PERIPHRIA governance model, at the local scale of the co-design setting, can thus be summarized as an architecture for fluid networking through open and dynamic partnerships evolving according to constraints in the political, cultural, economic, and participatory dimensions to ensure a proper balance between commitment and openness. Specific partnership strategies that proved effective for such a fluid, dynamic networking include: Continuous alignment of interests and resources (flexible work plan and allocation of resources) Continuous dialogue and facilitation of interactions leading to match-making (value sharing and creation) Coordination of top-down and bottom-up initiatives Maintenance of the long-term perspective keeping (vision consistency) and trust-building Synchronization of activities among different parties and actors

14 15 16 17

Brinkerhoff (2011). See a discussion by Pallot 2009. De Reuver, 2009. See Blomqvist (2002) for a discussion on this.

[31]

Formal agreements can play a role in consolidating specific arrangements provided that they are framed within the model of dynamic and fluid networking. In this context, decisions and agreements can assume the role of identifiable partnership elements to be associated (patchworked) with others, arising in different forms and times, all together formally structuring the fluid networking without jeopardizing the openness of the innovation ecosystem. This relation between formal steps and the fluid framework within which they take place equally applies to the scaling up of ideas and projects within the environment of the same or extended partnership as that of the co-design setting. In PERIPHRIA many service ideas were suggested, with people self-organizing solutions to problems they experience in everyday life. These solutions are not innovative services but rather service innovation moments that often integrate alternative economic models, thus suggesting paths towards innovative services within a public-private-people partnership. These moments can be transformed into innovative services if scaled up under a governance strategy that is able to integrate different approaches: alignment (concurrent pacing with social dynamics), diffusion (replication of a service in different contexts), amplification (extension of the extent and dimension of a service), constellation (creation of synergies with other services); and sustainability (allowance for each of the stakeholders to have a long-term benefit, see the sustainability document).

The transfer of urban innovation


While the issue of governance applies to the sustainability of the local innovation partnerships that are at the core of the Human Smart Cities model, an equally pressing issue is the ability of such communities to inter-connect through networks able to attain the degree of impact that the societal challenges require. Cities are prone to networking, as evident through numerous examples of existing city networks such as Telecities18 or the European Initiative on Smart Cities19. Nevertheless many networks are not achieving the promised effectiveness and advantages.
In spite of a proliferation of innovative approaches to urban challenges, the seriousness of urban problems is accelerating and threatening all societies. For more than two decades, foundations and government agencies have supported innovative projects in the anticipation that they would be expanded citywide or replicated across cultures. Sadly, however, successful small-scale initiatives are rarely replicated, if at all. Given the magnitude of urban problems, new methods must be developed to support, adapt and replicate innovative solutions and to speed up the process of incorporating new approaches into public policy. One of the key challenges we face at the international, national, and local levels is to reduce the time lag between urban innovation and its implementation. 20

Later in her article on the Mega Cities project, Perlman states


In these times of severe resource constraints, citizens need to discover new ways to learn from each others successes and to multiply the impact of approaches that work. It is through replication and adaptation that innovative solutions can have a significant and sustainable impact on our cities. 21

The need for cities to share (transfer) what they have learnt from their innovation initiative is clear; according to Elfrink cities by the thousands all around the globe are increasingly exchanging ideas between and among themselves. Some of them create learning processes by exploring other

18 19 20 21

Mayer-Schoenberger et al., 2007. SETIS, 2011. Perlman, 1996: 1. Perlman, 1996: 2.

[32]

cities best practices and/or facilitating transfers/exchanges of all kinds. Most of them have already achieved important transformations based in part on what they have learned from others 22. How do these transformations take place? How is transfer carried out in the learning processes activated? Transferring the results of innovations performed by other cities can help a city develop and modify its own practices. Although this concept of inter-city transfer is not well explored in the literature, it is generally shared that transferring innovations or successful practices can provide a tangible basis for learning based on established solutions to common problems or issues: one city recognizes that another city has successfully implemented a solution for a set of problems or issues and is willing to inspire its own actions on the lessons derived from that success. The transfer of an innovation between cities, in fact, is a structured process of learning23 whereby one city learns from another city about a practice that has proven to be an effective solution to a urban problem. It is essentially an adaptation of an innovation to new circumstances, i.e. it is an innovation in itself; this is the approach adopted in PERIPHRIA. The necessity of designing a methodology of innovation transfer has been raised24 but an appropriate structure has yet to be identified, for a series of reasons: the importance of the context and of the actors: the results are different if the context of its implementation is different, etc; the interpretative flexibility of results; results could represent different things according to different actors; the fact that most of the experiments and of their results are unknown (because unmonitored and unevaluated); the absence of agreed success criteria: notions of success and failure, even of best practice, are highly subjective. In the PERIPHRIA pilots three modes of transfer were explored donor/adopter, peer-to-peer, and patchworking considered as non-exclusive and different ways to implement the transfer process as a function of the kind of interaction between cities. The first two are the most familiar, while the third proved most suitable to the Human Smart Cities approach in the PERIPHRIA pilots.

Donor/adopter mode
In this mode, cities may be: donor (or origin) cities, i.e. cities that have innovated and, consequently, have an innovative concept to offer or adopter (or recipient) cities, i.e. cities wishing to adopt an innovative concept already implemented in a donor city. the donor/origin city is isolated from the recipient city; the learning and adopting process is a one-way process; transfers are just donor-to-recipient exchanges;

The donor/adopter mode assumes that:

22 23 24

Campbell, 2012: p. xii. CityNet et al., 1998. van Bastelaer, 1998.

[33]

According to this conceptualisation of transfer, the main challenges for both cities are: to exchange the right information in order to make an estimation of the appropriateness of the innovation for the recipient city; and then to introduce and adapt the innovation. This implies not only a willingness to learn and a willingness to share, but also a willingness to change based on lessons learned. Current guidelines25 propose a transfer process which involves three main steps: acknowledgement of a problem and identification of a suitable solution knowledge transfer organizational change

A transfer implies, at a minimum, the identification and awareness of solutions, the matching of demand for learning with supply of experience and expertise and a series of steps that need to be taken to help bring about the desired change26. Such change may range from policy reform, management systems and technology to attitudes and behaviour. Experts on transferability27 recognize that it is not possible to transfer experience and good practice from one place to another just by copying approaches and methods. On the contrary, these approaches and methods need to be adjusted to the situation - in our case, to the circumstances prevailing in the recipient city.

Peer-to-peer mode
Transfer of urban innovation can also be carried out within a peer-to-peer perspective; such peer-to- peer transfers are characterized by: exchange of knowledge, know-how, expertise and experience between people and organizations, facing similar issues and problems; decentralized cooperation that implies a supply and demand driven process in which one city is willing to learn and the other city is willing to share the lessons derived from its own experience28 as well as to learn from the process of adaptation; Peer to peer transfer promotes the kind of technical cooperation, as opposed to technical assistance, that leads to appropriate adaptation, new problem solving, and longer-term relationships between innovators29. The literature on peer to peer transfer argues that transferring best practices is a complex management process, which requires the support of expert facilitators and change agents. It is defined as a process of identifying and learning from best practices and applying them in a new configuration or a new location. The key factor in the transfer of best practices is to make the recipients of best practices understand the need for implementing best practices. Managers of the recipient organisation should focus on how to create this perception among those that need to be persuaded to support the transfer. As a result, the transfer of best practices demands changes in performance, communication and behaviour potentially on both sides of the transfer. Therefore,

25 26 27 28 29

CityNet et al., 1998; NICHES+ , 2011. CityNet et al., 1998. Cortazr, 2006. CityNet et al., 1998. Perlman, 1996: 3.

[34]

the two parties involved in the exchange of best practices, the donor and the recipient should work together on the teaching, learning and improvement process. 30 In this context, peer-to-peer transfer is more a process of collaboration than an analysis of achievable change. Rather than simple adoption, cities are instead engaged in an active process of learning about new policies that could be transferred, or perhaps even transformed, to fit local circumstances and requirements. This type of learning may take many different forms, including formal training, coaching, expert inputs and advisory services, site visits, study tours, staff exchanges and joint ventures.31

Patchworking mode
A third conceptualisation acknowledges that innovation may also take the form of a new combination of pre-existing elements and actions32 with new ones. This patchworking mode does not focus on a pair of cities interacting and transferring, it rather considers many-to-many transfer networks in which each city acts innovatively by combining and adapting (patchwork) elements (chunks of solutions) either made available by other cities or developed within its own urban context. In the patchworking mode: Innovations developed typically involve a combination of lessons composed from a few comparable sites, together with local adaptations to the program or project design, plus adjustments to local policies. Innovation may therefore be new and progressive in the context of a particular city, even if it is not the first time that a proposal has been made or the first implementation of it.33 The importance of human interaction in providing a validation of experiences is well understood in the literature on organizational learning.34 Shared working experiences showed how resource limitations (both time and financial) and cultural barriers (the view that learning from cities overseas or other national cities that arent like us might be wasteful) were important constraints in some of the cities studied, and these constraints have also emerged in other studies"
35The presence of a supportive organizational environment that encourages the search for

lessons from elsewhere seems to be an important factor in the extent, or at least the speed, with which innovations are considered.36 Risk is clearly an important part of any innovation process. Technological advances occur rapidly, and not being the first mover has distinct advantages.37

PERIPHRIA network cities found this mode to be the most suitable for the Human Smart Cities model, as its aim is to activate a learning process by fostering internalization of the mechanisms necessary for effective

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Jarrar and Zairi, 2000. CityNet et al., 1998. Albury, 2005. Marsden at al. 2010: 94. Hartley, 2005, Sauquet , 2004; Engestrm 2001. Marsden at al. 2010: 95. Op. cit. 35 Op. Cit. 35

[35]

innovation. It calls for a network of cities sharing principles of inter-urban interaction in a perspective of collaboration and learning.

[36]

5. Recommendations and the Human Smart Cities Manifesto

[37]

Audiences
The previous sections highlight how the development of a Human Smart City strategy is a collective and collaborative process, neither exclusively top-down nor bottom-up and neither entirely city-driven nor citizen-driven. On the other hand, Smart City partnerships are made up of different actors with different standpoints, goals and objectives, and criteria for success. In this final section we provide specific recommendations for five different stakeholder audiences as follows:

Citizens, the driving force in a Human Smart City strategy Cities, the public administrations providing the governance framework
The Digital Innovation Community, individuals and SMEs driving the co-design process for smart services The ICT Industry, providing the essential Future Internet infrastructures, and finally The European Commission, with particular attention to DG CONNECT but also other related DGs (areas such as energy, transport, etc.) and in particular DG REGIO

Citizens
1

Engage in shaping your future and making the best of the opportunities of the Future Internet. Active citizenship is a fundamental component of any possible strategy for a sustainable future. Only by engaging with others and with your city can you have a say in its future developments. Take advantage of social technologies to promote participation. Experiment with technologies, not succumbing to the role of passive user and consumer of media content and services. You can only be an effective co-designer if you explore what you can do with technologies together with what they can do for you. Media and game enjoyment is best when you are taking an active role engaging with others, rather than as a passive consumer of entertainment. Theres usually much more to a given technology that what appears at first sight: explore and enjoy. Promote creativity in your community and the exchange of views with others to encourage reciprocal learning. Although our standard image of innovation is through the lone inventor, creativity best happens in a group that brings together different competencies and views on an issue. Networking with similar groups in other communities can add to the relevance and potential impact of your ideas. Control and monitor the actions of industry and the public sector as regards technology investments and services. Work for the optimum transparency and citizen participation. Citizens should maintain a watchdog function on both the public and private sectors. The main concern for the public sector is transparency and openness, while for the private sector the issue can be open standards, possibility of choice, fair and respectful use of data, etc. Be aware of the impacts of what you do on your own privacy and security, and contribute actively towards an aware public debate on the issues. While citizens are increasingly concerned about their own privacy and security, they often take actions which themselves are in contradiction with their desires in this respect. It is good to reflect on the implications of actions or authorizations provided for apps and web services, and share those reflections with your wider community. Only through a broad public debate on privacy and security issues will we be able to devise the best policies.

Cities
1 [38]

Explore the potential of possible new roles for the public sector in the management of city innovation partnerships in the public interest. Addressing todays social challenges requires opening up enough

channels of participation for the energy that exists in society for change.38 Increasing, the city is becoming an innovation laboratory, requiring new approaches to the orchestration of diffused microexperiments able to capture and nourish weak signals emerging from within the city fabric. This is a new role for the public sector, from buyer of public services to orchestrator of innovation partnerships, including the administration itself in innovation processes; managing this transformation is the biggest challenge facing public administrations today. 2

Be aware of the territorial and spatial impacts of ICT investments and innovation processes in general. The Future Internet and Smart City strategies are bringing about significant changes in social activities whose spatial impacts are largely ignored, not to mention the role of the spatial dimension in shaping the dynamics and outcomes of innovation processes. A deeper integration of spatial planning with strategic programming is required, and a participatory approach here can be a strong driver of a Human Smart Cities strategy. Steer available and programmed resources in the direction of innovative approaches across the range of policy areas, also exploring innovative instruments such as crowdsourcing and Pre-Commercial Procurement. The PERIPHRIA Challenges mechanism demonstrates that many innovative policies can be enacted by the appropriate use of existing budgets and funding instruments rather than calling for new resources. New procurement-based strategies can go further in this direction, using the city governments basic needs as a platform to explore innovative solutions including both technical and social innovation. Promote the shift towards openness and transparency in line with the Open Government model, including embracing open data throughout the public sector but also keeping open the debate on issues of privacy and security. The public sector has an important role to play in building and maintaining trust, and the best place to start is by opening up public sector information. Human Smart City approaches exist to engage citizens and the digital innovation community in this process to significantly lower costs, reap the added value, and adequately address privacy and security issues as a collective endeavor. Network with other cities adopting the Human Smart Cities approach to share experiences and promote reciprocal learning. While each city has its own specific needs and potentials, there is much to be learned by sharing and exchanging experiences including the value of failure and building innovation patchworks. Many Human Smart City initiatives are born from civic groups that in fact are already networking across countries and regions, and apps and software platforms can and should be designed for open development and re-use. Above all, through networking cities can engage in policy learning processes that improve their strategies and build critical mass for the Human Smart Cities movement.

Digital Innovation Community


1

Address your energy and creativity towards addressing the real needs of cities and citizens in the communities where you live and work. As a member of the digital innovation community, you are probably aware of the increasing attention in Dev Fests and App Contests for the potential role of the technologies you develop in addressing social challenges. The best place to look for inspiration for apps and services that contribute to sustainable development is in the city where you live and work.

38

Manuel Castells, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n9yg1/Analysis_Alternative_Economic_Cultures/

[39]

Open up the tech-dev community to interact with common citizens and businesses in order to codesign optimum solutions with greater market potential. The best way to understand the needs of your local community and develop innovative solutions is to work directly with local citizens and businesses, even if they dont fully understand the technologies you are working with. They may be eager to learn about the potentials of the new tools, and will ultimately constitute the market for your new products. Take advantage of gamification to encourage people to think, interact, learn, and even have fun. Competitions, badges, and awards are an increasingly present component of location-based and other applications. Serious games, which bring the gaming dimension to applications addressing social challenges, can have a real impact on peoples values and behavior. Work together with public administrations to identify opportunities for applying your talent to the public interest. By embracing a Human Smart City strategy, your local administration is opening up to the creativity of people like you to collectively solve common problems. Rather than ask for direct funding, look together for opportunities where public programs in existing budget lines could become business opportunities for apps and services you can develop. Together with different user groups and stakeholders, explore new business models that can guarantee your ability to prosper and continue to innovate. The increasingly fast pace of innovation is making most business plans and models obsolete, but the new opportunities need to be explored in a business ecosystem model, such as the Rainforest canvas, where all players re-think the added value they bring and the role they can play. Try to engage client communities, the public sector, and industrial players in discussions as to how the future innovation canvas may unfold and explore their willingness to experiment new business models with a solid future.

ICT industry
1

Beware of the fate of large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly in these times of crisis; where possible break projects down into more incremental development paths. The economies of scale of large-scale projects has always made them an attractive offer to the public sector, and the Smart City seems a promising model for such projects. On the other hand, cities are increasingly strapped for cash, and many ambitious initiatives have been placed on hold. It is thus advisable to define an incremental deployment strategy avoiding potential bottlenecks on the critical path. De-couple communication infrastructure, data infrastructure, and service development, allowing for each to develop in an autonomous fashion. The Open Access Network (OAN) model not only allows for a more open business environment, but it also promotes innovation at the network, services and applications levels. Due to its open structure and potential for incremental development, OAN can be considered the most appropriate infrastructure for the Human Smart Cities approach. Listen to cities and citizens and the real service needs expressed by them, in a logic of competitiveness through shared value. While the ICT industry, like any other, can only provide social value if there is a business case for it, engagement with the local community is also becoming an increasingly important component in what Michael Porter calls shared value.39 A Human Smart Cities strategy allows for the ICT industry to engage directly with local citizens and businesses, and by addressing their concrete needs discover new business opportunities applicable elsewhere.

39

http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value

[40]

Be pro-active in developing solutions to address privacy and security issues in a way that meets citizens needs and concerns. Privacy and security are becoming an increasingly important issue for consumers and customers, and if addressed only in a defensive manner may soon cause a backlash for some of the more promising Future Internet technologies. The ICT industry needs to play a pro-active role in listening to citizen and business concerns and addressing them in a creative and serviceoriented way. Take advantage of Living Lab partnerships as an opportunity to re-invent business models. Living Labs have proven their value for the development of innovative ICT products and services, but through a broadened peer engagement with local stakeholders can offer even greater benefits. Partnerships for Human Smart City strategies bring together the key actors for innovative service models that can in turn devise and test new business models that can potentially solve the increasing pressures facing the ICT industry today.

European Commission
1

Integrate social innovation into technology RDI projects wherever possible. Despite the proclamations of the EU 2020 strategy, most EU R&D programs remain anchored to a linear research-to-market model of innovation. Social innovation is most policy-effective when it happens in parallel to, and not as a consequence of, technical innovation. The Human Smart Cities model demonstrates the added value of developing technical and social innovation in concert and not in sequence. Explore the ecosystem development approach and promote its further experimentation. The ecosystem development approach appears to be capable of successfully integrating social and technical innovation, but it also goes against the grain of the engineering methods and exploitation planning that shape most research methodologies today. The approach, as well as the dynamics of social innovation and its governance, requires further experimentation in order to consolidate its uptake across the ICT research community. Broaden and open up the Smart City concept and the debate amongst stakeholders. The European Commission is moving more slowly than local communities and their city governments in embracing the Human Smart City approach. Until the stakeholder community is broadened beyond the ICT industry and utilities and infrastructure agencies, EU policy will remain trapped in a purely infrastructural, technology push logic that risks alienating citizens, businesses and even city governments looking for alternative solutions and more socially oriented and creatively innovative services. Take Smart City as an opportunity to collaborate across DGs, in particular engaging DG Regio. Smart City programs are already promoting horizontal collaboration across DGs, as is evident in the new joint program on Smart Cities and Communities. The Human Smart Cities approach suggests broadening this collaboration to include the Social Challenges of Horizon 2020 from the perspective of the Social Sciences and Humanities, as well as collaboration with DG Regio and on-the-ground regional development initiatives. In particular, the Commission should support the bottom-up coordination and integration of Smart City and the social innovation component of regional Smart Specialisation strategies. Promote the Human Smart City approach as a specifically European one, based on the values of citizen participation and engagement as well as the added value that derives from it. The Human Smart City approach embodies European values of social engagement together with the valorization of cultural diversity and territorial capital. It captures the emergent nature of innovation and drives

[41]

policies that can successfully create enabling spaces within which innovation can be generated, nurtured, and scaled up. The special features of Europes cities as creative places can thus constitute a rich environment for the development of applications and services, creating new opportunities for its citizens, businesses and local administrations alike.

The Human Smart Cities Manifesto


While the identified audiences may individually benefit from the above recommendations, it is clear that only by working in partnership can the vision be achieved. To that end, the PERIPHRIA partners want to make their experience and the Human Smart Cities perspective that emerged from it become the beginning of an international network for collaboration among cities willing to co-experience citizen-driven innovation. We therefore call on Mayors and city governments to constitute the backbone of this network, as only through deep political commitment will it be possible to have an impact in and across innovation communities. This is the purpose of the Human Smart Cities Manifesto set forth on the following pages, which will be formally launched at the PERIPHRIA final conference in Rome, 29th of May, 2013, where representatives of participating cities join forces to share and carry forward the Human Smart Cities vision.

[42]

THE HUMAN SMART CITIES MANIFESTO


Networking Citizen-driven Innovation
Preamble We, the signatories of this Manifesto, come together to address the three main challenges facing the our cities today: The devastating effects of the financial crisis undermining the European social model. This is leading to severe limitations in cities abilities to invest in new infrastructures, and in some areas even for the provision of basic city services such as transportation and social services. The increasing threat and disruption brought about by climate change to our territories. As major floods and droughts become ever more common, the environmental effects of urbanisation and the lack of adequate tools and behaviour patterns becomes increasingly evident. The demand for more effective representation set forth by our constituencies. The so-called democratic deficit is a cause for alarm for governance at any scale, but it also adds to the difficulty of building trust and engaging citizens in addressing common problems. These challenges call for a transformational change in the way we all work, live, play, and build our future, which in turn places a special burden on those of us holding the responsibility to govern such processes with an optimum usage of the public resources available. We are deeply convinced that technological and social innovation can make an invaluable contribution in that direction, if urban policies adequately consider citizens and their innovation capacity the most valuable resource. In this crucial time and with these challenges in mind, we reach out to our citizens and enterprises to join us in a broad endeavour of co-creating the most appropriate strategies for each of our cities, as well as implementing them jointly in the years to come. Vision Human Smart Cities are those where governments engage citizens by being open to be engaged by citizens, supporting the co-design of technical and social innovation processes through a peer-to-peer relationship based on reciprocal trust and collaboration. The Human Smart City is a city where people citizens and communities are the main actors of urban smartness. A Human Smart City adopts services that are born from peoples real needs and have been co-designed through interactive, dialogic, and collaborative processes. In a Human Smart City, people are not obliged to adopt technologies that have been selected and purchased by their municipal governments; they rather are encouraged to compose their own services using available technologies in simple, often frugal solutions. Co-creation initiatives at the heart of the Human Smart City concept also stimulate local development, creating new business models and new apps, products, services and solutions. Indeed, the solutions for the big challenges of our time require not only innovative technologies but, above all, mass behaviour transformation of the kind that can only be achieved through the involvement of people. Through the appropriate governance of social and technical innovation and the integration of Future Internet technologies, Living Labs and Social Innovation, the Human Smart Cities vision aims to build on a new sense of belonging and identity, wellbeing and community, to shape a better and happier society.

[43]

Partnership With this Human Smart Cities M anifesto, we signatories join forces to build a network of Human Smart Cities the HSC Network throughout the world that share this common vision and learn from each other to find the right path towards social and urban innovation. In accordance with the Human Smart Cities Roadmap, we agree to the following 7 commitments. 1. We place trust at the foundation of the HSC network, agreeing to abide by the standards set by the UN for good governance: participation, decency, transparency, accountability, fairness, efficiency, and sustainable development. All participant cities are considered to have a unique role, contributing to innovation initiatives and policies on an equal, peer basis. 2. We will apply the Open Government model to our citys use of ICT, including transparency and Open Data, an appropriate role for Open Source and re-usability, and citizen and stakeholder participation in decisions related to key ICT infrastructures and services. Where possible, we will favour the adoption of simple, frugal solutions that can be shared across the HSC network. 3. We will explore where possible the citizen-centred approach for the co-design of all new city services, promoting creativity and engagement as well as active participation in service delivery. Together with our economic partners, we will also explore potential new business models for the promotion of innovation ecosystems and the delivery of services in the public interest. 4. We will promote institutional innovation within and across our city administration as an integral part of our role in service co-design. This includes the exploration of Pre-Commercial Procurement and other procedural and financial innovations, and collaboration with regional and national authorities to promote policy coherence across instruments and programmes. 5. We will actively participate in networking among signatories to this manifesto, actively contributing to its shared resources, attending the HSC networks yearly conferences, and collaborating to define a sustainable institutional structure. We will also leverage the potential of relevant networks at both international and national level. 6. We will together define measurable goals, success criteria, and performance indicators allowing our stakeholders to assess their progress towards objectives and promote scaling up and transfer. In sharing our evaluations, we will aim to promote learning from different cultural and urban contexts rather than competition, while still demonstrating the concrete benefits of the HSC approach. 7. Finally, we will promote the HSC network itself globally, as an innovative and open multi-level partnership ideally suited to implementing bottom up the policy goals of Europe 2020 and similar frameworks. To that end, we commit to bringing one new signatory per year.

Launched in Rome, 29 May 2013


[44]

8.References

[45]

References
Albury D. (2005) Fostering Innovation in Public Services, Public Money and Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, 51-56. Basset J. (2010) Innovation Policy Workshop # 6, 25-26 March 2010, Brussels. Social innovation in Europe Mobilising people and resources. Report. BEPA (2011) Empowering people, driving change. Social Innovation in the European Union [http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf]. Blomqvist K. (2002) Partnering in the Dynamic Environment: the Role of Trust in Asymmetric Technology Partnership Formation. Accessed May 2013: http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/38551. Brinkerhoff J.M. (2002) Assessing and improving partnership relationships and outcomes: a proposed framework Evaluation and Program Planning 25, 215231. Campbell T. (2012) Beyond Smart Cities: how cities network, learn and innovate, Earthscan, USA and Canada. CityNet, UNDP & UNCHS (1998). Guidelines for Transferring Effective Practices: A Practical Cortazar J.C. (2006) Learning from best practices in public management, in Innovation in Governance and Public Administration: replicating what works, DPADM, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, United Nations Publications, New York. De Reuver G. A. (2009) Governing mobile service innovation in co-evolving value networks. Accessed May 2013 http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:e9e31abe-440b-4440-a5bb-f6760251601f/. Elfrink. W. (2012) Foreword, in Beyong Smart Cities: how cities network, learn and innovate, Campbell T., Earthscan, USA and Canada. Engestrm Y. (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1, 133-156. Gibbson W. (2011) Life in the Meta City. Scientific American, September, 88-89. Glaeser E. (2011) Engines of Innovation. Scientific American, September, 50-55. Hartley, J. (2005) Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present. Public Money and Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, 27-34. Hochgerner J (2012) Social Innovation: the concepts and its potentials [https://www.zsi.at/attach/Hochgerner_Kiev_25-04-2012.pdf] Jarrar F.Y., Zairi M. (2000) Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: A study of best practices. Total Quality Management, No. 7. Manual for South-South Cooperation, Thailand. Accessed april 2012: http://www.blpnet.org/learning/transfers/transfer.pdf. Marsden G., Trapenberg Frick K., May A.D., and Deakin E. (2010) Transfer of Innovative Policies Between Cities to Promote Sustainability Case Study Evidence, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2163, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 89-96. Mayer-Schoenberger, V. and Lazer, D. (2007) Telecities: Sharing Knowledge among European Cities, in Mayer-Schoenberger and Lazer (eds.), Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government, 279-280, MIT Press. NICHES+ (2011) Guidelines for assessing the Transferability of an Innovative Urban Transport Concept, Report of Coordination Action funded by the European Commission. [46]

Pallot M. (2009). The Living Lab Approach: A User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem. Webergence Blog. Retrieved January 2011: http://www.cwe-projects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi1715404 Paskaleva K. (2001) Innovative partnerships effective governance of sustainable urban tourism. Accessed May 2013: http://sut.itas.fzk.de/papers/pack1/SUT_Deliverable1_FrameworkApproach.pdf Perlman J. (1996) Sharing approaches that work: transfer and adaptation of urban innovations, The Mega-Cities Project, Publication MCP-040. Phills J.A.; Deiglmeier K., Miller D.T., 2008) Rediscovering Social Innovation. In Stanford Social Innovation Review 6 (4), pp. 3443 Sauquet A. (2004) Learning in Organisations: Schools of Thought and Current Challenges, in Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning (J. J. Boonstra, ed.), John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, United Kingdom, 371-388. Sestini F. (2011) Global Resource Constraints and ICT-Enabled Lifestyle Changes [http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/collectiveawareness/background/index_en.htm ] UN (2008) Guidebook on promoting good governance in public-private partnership. Accessed May 2013: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ceci/publications/ppp.pdf. van Bastelaer B. (1998) Digital cities and transferability of results, 4th EDC conference on digital cities, Salzburg - October 29 & 30. Verilhac I., Marc Pallot, Francesc Aragall (2012) IDeALL: Exploring the Way to Integrate Design for All within Living Labs. In B. Katzy, T. Holzmann, K. Sailer, K. D. Thoben (Eds.),Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation.

[47]