Key issues in integrated planning and management of smart city projects at district level

More often than not, the timeframe of policies and decisions is limited to the current political cycle, what makes it difficult to fulfil long-term obligations and ambitions the city has committed itself to, regarding adaptation and mitigation of climate change, enhancing energy affordability and security, improving environmental quality. For example, SDGs, COP21, national and EU policies need a long-term vision to plan things within a certain timeframe.

A genuine long-term perspective beyond the current political cycle, agreed upon with the stakeholders, is key to ensure that short term actions during the political cycle contribute to long-term aims, and helps cities to fulfil their obligations. 80% GHG reduction in 2050 is a result of energy and mobility decisions taken now. What is more, the long-term perspective makes the long-term aims resilient and robust through endorsement of the local community.

Generally speaking, the focus is on specific issues and technologies, without taking much of a holistic, interdisciplinary approach. As a result, potential synergies remain usually unrevealed when projects are prepared, while they might significantly contribute to meet the targets. Synergies need to be identified and seized long in advance and can save money by a smarter use and operation of the built environment, often with the help of ICT and sensors, but also by better planning. For this reason, a holistic approach is closely linked to a long-term perspective.

The holistic, interdisciplinary and multi- sectorial approach identifies and stimulates to exploit potential synergies, such as the deployment of bi-directional exchange of energy between buildings and electric vehicles in districts. The advantage of contemplating different options and their pros and cons from the viewpoint of potential synergies, has been amply demonstrated in the eea cross-sector approach, where an external advisor educates staff in inter-disciplinary thinking. What is more, it ensures that added value is created for citizens by high-quality smart sustainable development.

The involvement of many government and business sectors while lacking experience in interdisciplinary collaboration or having unclear mandates, can lead to the so-called “siloes”, hampering smooth collaboration.

Internal and external vehicles for collaboration in smart city projects, such as interdepartmental taskforces, special staff units, or legal entities as associations and public- private partnerships (PPP’s) are needed to overcome siloes within government sectors and businesses and to enable public-private collaboration.

Key stakeholders as citizens and local businesses, but also energy network and transport operators, might be difficult to engage or having other priorities. Besides, many interdependencies exist among these stakeholders during the planning and implementation phases of smart city projects. Each stakeholder possesses a piece of the jigsaw puzzle but must be willing

to put it in place. Deregulation and privatization of local government entities in the past might have led to other priorities, such as operational reliability and profitability, over energy efficiency and sustainability.

Wide, early and in-depth stakeholder engagement is needed to achieve agreement

on the final aim of the project and the proposed measures, and to tie in other benefits important to the users and owners of the buildings and infrastructures, such as more comfort, a new kitchen, less air pollution or more playgrounds. Co- design, co-creation and co-production is therefore quintessential features of integrated planning and implementation.

Business cases and business models might be less attractive than regular investment opportunities. While the financial burden

of refurbishment and upgrading of urban infrastructures and buildings can be too heavy for individual owners and operators, proposed investments in projects are often too small for finance industry, leading to higher transaction costs and thus less profitability. Besides, innovative solutions are often perceived as riskier, while financial industry might lack the technical skills for proper assessment of perceived risks. As a result, an aversion to these risks makes it difficult to finance smart city projects

An early exploration of new business opportunities, of possible changes in value chains not only

in the private but also in the public sector, of preconditions of different sources of financing and of instruments to “de-risk” investments, can help to develop better business cases and find investors, while developing the contours of the smart city plan. By creating more trust, plans are de-risked and become more attractive for financial investors.

A systematic scan of areas where particular

smart city solutions could be applied within the local governments’ jurisdiction, can help to bundle demand and define better business cases or set-up instruments such as revolving funds.

In a common municipal culture of outsourcing and subcontracting, the final performance of subcontracts and their contribution to cities’ overall aims, is usually not assessed and thus often unknown. Subcontracting and tendering is done without a long-term vision in mind.

Monitoring and evaluation of progress according to Quality Management Systems approach, ensures that the cities’ overall end goals are eventually met. The SCGP lists a few major sets of KPI’s, to help cities and communities to track and evaluate the progress of their smart and sustainable projects and programmes, both for sectorial management and reporting or communication purposes.