Elevating people-centricity for a successful digital city

If anything, with the ever-increasing prevalence of technology in cities and its ability to shape both the fabric of the city and the interactions of those within it, this question is even more pertinent now than it was then. But the answer is, perhaps, a little clearer now.

In the 1960s, city technology was just starting to become digitized. The first automated traffic intersections were introduced in Toronto, for example. But the reason for that technology was mostly focused around finding new technological ways to do existing manual tasks — somewhat technology for the sake of technology. Proving a city was more advanced than its peers. As we move through an era of omnipresent automation and seemingly unlimited applications of technology, driven even harder by the coronavirus pandemic, it can be confounding to city leaders as to where, how and what technology should be applied. But the overarching theme, as we have seen throughout this report, is that the ultimate aim of a city, and therefore by extension, a digital city program, should be elevating people-centricity — to create the concept of “shared public value”, a more livable space and better equity. Technology should simply be a tool to that end.

Delivery of a successful digital city therefore must pay detailed attention to five key aspects:

• Governance
• Measurability
• Co-creation
• Equity
• Citizen activation

Firstly, as Prof. Dameri described, governance is key. Attempting to deliver technology in departmental silos, and without an informed citizen base rarely achieves the desired impacts. Organizing the people around integrated delivery and ensuring the inclusion of citizens is critical. Often it is forgotten that digital applications in cities are inherently for the citizens, even if the citizen is not the one overtly using the solution.

Next, once you have the correct setup to deliver technology, the ability to measure impacts is key — how can justification for expenditure be given to tax payers and citizens in general if improvements to the city fabric cannot be identified? As the chapter on measuring outcomes noted, we can pretty much measure anything. However, understanding what we want to measure and why is key. And how that information is presented should be tailored towards informing and driving real discussions and actionable insights with both city stakeholders, decision makers and citizens alike.

Co-creation is an ideology that is rapidly gaining traction in digital cities as Veronica Siranosian described in her piece. The idea that the best acceptance of change comes from including the subjects of change in the solutioning. In the cities’ context, that means broad consultation and ideation from all people and organizations, critically including citizens. Additionally, digital tools are increasingly being used to aid that engagement, providing an interesting circular paradigm.

As solutions are developed, equity must be a central lens through which to make decisions. As cities increasingly digitize, the use of data and machine learning inherently spreads. And as many studies have noted, algorithms include the subconscious biases of those that created them. Therefore, extreme care should be taken to develop equity frameworks that actively dial out algorithmic biases that have the potential to further polarize existing equity challenges. The work described with the city of Baltimore provides an excellent reference point for including such a framework in digital city delivery.

Finally, while a digital city may have arrived at its intended solution, it cannot be assumed this solution can simply be deployed, turned on and everything will function as intended. While people should be the core reason for digital city ecosystem development, they also tend to be the critical failure point for lack of success in digital cities.

Much of this stems from lack of adequate integrated activation. In her chapter, Vidhatri Gohil describes not only a successful approach to bringing people up to speed ahead of a technology launch, but the idea of a concept of experience. This approach provides an integrated description of how technology, people and process work in concert to deliver defined outcomes, and therefore enables the measurement and successful activation of key infrastructure such as airports and indeed cities too.

So, to provide Mr. Price an answer in 2022, the question is the people — what their needs are, how they are included in not just the solutions but the creation of solutions, and how can a people-centric approach across a digital city provide measurable and communicable improvement for citizens.

The answer, in part at least, is still technology. But technology should simply be a utility and a means to an end and not the reason — a means to a more equitable society in general, and one where the citizens have real agency and control. That is what can make an already smart city, smarter.