CThere is no such thing as a Smart City on Planet Earth.

Ok I said it. Im a Chief Innovation Officer trying to build one, just like hundreds of
my colleagues in government, industry, academia and the non-profit / think tanky
world. But as far advanced as Kansas City, Missouri is, were not there yet. We have
an awesome Smart District adjacent to our Streetcar Line, and we have a plan to
move from being a Cool City to a Smart City within the next four years. There is
a lot of work to get done in that time.
There is a lot of talk about Smart Cities in the world today, and coming to an
agreement on a clear definition for the term may be a good first step.
Unfortunately, the dynamic ecosystems in which cities evolve prevent any
standardization. Cities by design are hyperlocal. If a mayor is failing he or she
doesnt need to consult a poll; the mayor hears about their shortcomings in the
produce aisle in the local grocery store. Because of this hyperlocal nature, each
Smart City addresses the needs of exactly one community. This is an easy
accommodation for a city to make, but industry or academic leaders who seek
common platforms or replicable models grow frustrated due to the lack of
standardization that drives their business model.
The Kansas City model will create the smartest city in the world within four years
from Kansas Citys perspective. Elements of it can and should be replicated across
other communities and metropolitan areas. These replicable elements can form a
loose set of standards that differentiate a Cool City from a Smart City and may
help all Smart City contributors agree on a rough framework that allows cities to be
appropriately focused on one communitys problems while allowing industry and
academia to develop products and methodologies that apply across multiple
cityscapes.

Cool Cities have IoT infrastructure or software deployed that make citizens
lives easier or improve city services in a limited scope or small area.
Examples may include a WiFi network in a public space or an interactive kiosk
that enhances a visitors experience in a historical area.
Smart Cities have IoT infrastructure and software deployed that make
citizens lives easier and improve city services based on both the capability
itself and the data generated by the IoT infrastructure.

The key difference between cool and smart is data. Smart Cities collect data,
analyze data and use data to inform / accelerate decision making. The data
collection plan cannot be based exclusively on the capabilities of sensors, it must be
informed by a citys goals. This is the critical collaboration point between cities and
their industry / academia partners. A sensor will collect zeros and ones, but a city
leader needs to define success algorithmically. When the data are collated in a
platform that transforms the zeros and ones collected on a city street or in any one
of hundreds of other open data sources into an assessment of the Economic,

Education, Efficiency or Enforcement programs in a city administration, then the city

moves from being cool to being smart. To do that effectively, about half a citys
population or jurisdiction needs be included in the sensor footprint (from there,
leaders can effectively extrapolate models to the remainder of the city not under
coverage).
Making the transition from Cool to Smart also requires a culture change within
city government. Cities cannot control a data-driven environment; a local
government is one of many players in the ecosystem. Mega communities including
for-profit businesses, community organizations, schools and otherwise disconnected
citizens all contribute to the Smart City environment. To meet the requirements of
this diverse group, centralized planning must evolve into collaborative planning
among many stakeholders. Objectives must be described with several terms so that
each contributing entity can work toward their own success while contributing to
the success of the larger endeavor. In this planning environment, success is better
defined by a Venn Diagram than a tweet (the tweet can define the sweet spot in the
middle of the diagram where all organizations share success).
Achieving this level of collaboration also requires an adjustment to many city
procurement processes. Partners cannot be selected episodically for a single
project; success in a Smart City initiative often requires long-term commitments and
delayed payouts for the industry partners. Partner selection is a key component of
success. Kansas City has three-four key partnerships that endured from Phase I to
Phase II of the Smart City initiative and an additional ten or so partners who
contribute as needed by the three-four leading partners. The partners succeed
fiscally over the long term. The city surrenders some control of the partner roles in
this environment to a leading partner, and this can challenge a citys normal
procurement process or culture. This culture change is part of the megacommunity
ecosystem, and, over time, it will just be part of the environment. But today,
adjustments to the procurement system or management system generate angst in
most City Halls.
Cities will become smarter over time, and data analytics tools and IoT systems will
evolve to become part of the ecosystem in most communities. Kansas City is well on
the path and is learning a lot often by adjusting our plan as we learn the initial
design is less than optimal. Our city is committed to continuing to grow and
continuing to share experiences with other cities who are learning many similar
lessons. Through open dialogue, all of us can quickly change the dynamic and
create multiple smart cities and enable all of them to claim to be the smartest on
the planet (from their perspective).