Smart City: From Concept To Implementation

I. Introduction

The development of smart cities is a result of the implementation of projects, namely, organizational projects intended to achieve unique results. The results of projects enabling the implementation of the idea of smart cities are specific products or services, as well as specific technological or organisational solutions. The uniqueness of Smart City Projects (SCPs) lies in the fact that they are characterised by a specific, unique configuration of tangible and intangible resources and the creation of new values and ideas, as well as the implementation of different solutions to particular local social problems than to date. Other than the unique results, the distinctive features of the projects include a strictly defined implementation time (the so-called project temporality), the need to use differentiated resources, as well as implementation risk (related to the implementation of the project) and operational risk (related to the use of the resulting solutions).

The article has the objective of (1) presenting four interpretations of the term smart city, which are not competitive with each other, but even so, municipal authorities knowingly choose the so-called strong preference, as well as (2) showing the conditions for implementing SCPs, which is treated as one of the mechanisms of implementing the idea of the smart city. We also draw attention in the article to the logic of preferences, which is rooted in every decision-making process of municipal authorities, which were forced to make constant choices in conditions of conflicting expectations of stakeholders.

II. The Logic Of Preferences

Having objectives is an inherent feature of every organisation, regardless of its type (public or private), the sector in which it operates, its size or age. A city is not only an area but primarily an organization (a socio-economic system) that pursues its own interests, just as takes place with respect to companies. At the economic level, a city is a separate tangible and organisational socio-economic system, the overriding objective of which is to satisfy the collective needs of the local population. In legal terms, the interests of the local community are identified through the recognition of the city as an entity of rights and obligations and the establishment of an appropriate guarantee of the legal articulation of its interests.

The interests of the local community are specified in the process in which the municipal authorities, which are responsible for creating the city's policies (the transport, urban, economic, educational, environmental and municipal waste management policy, as well as combating crime, etc.) in a specified area, set objectives, after which they implement and enforce them. A city's policy is understood as a collection of operational and long-term objectives related to satisfying the needs of the residents. The process in which the municipal authorities determine (identify) the objectives comprising the individual policies of the city is not indifferent to the residents, as these objectives directly or indirectly affect them and, in this sense, have a general public attribute.

The hierarchisation of objectives is a part of the mechanism of creating a city's policies. A city's specified policy regarding its objectives must be choice, whilst the choice from the abstract point of view involves:

1. the establishment of what is important to the policymakers and the distinction of these possible objectives from everything that is unimportant to the policymakers;

2. the establishment of what is more important what is less important in the selected set of possible objectives.

Formulating this differently, hierarchisation (choice) involves the determination of a set of objectives and putting order to them according to the accepted criterion of importance.

The hierarchisation of objectives, that is, the determination of the criterion for assessing the chosen objectives made by individual people and small business entities may be – and sometimes is – of a fully subjective nature. Account does not need to be taken of the preferences of other people; it is sufficient that they take into account their needs and preferences and pursue them in the choice of their objectives.1 The problem of hierarchising objectives appears differently in the case of a population of people who are residents of the city, who are not a homogeneous group. Different groups can be distinguished, each having different interests, objectives, preferences and views – similarly, the reduction rule is activated, that is, the urban community, which is formed from groups with diverse objectives, is only able to implement some of the objectives of all those articulated by the individual groups that make up the population of the city. Therefore, the situation of various groups constituting the urban community is not identical: it is least advantageous for those groups, none of whose objectives are accepted by the municipal authorities as objectives of the whole community; it is more advantageous for those groups for whom at least some of the objectives have been accepted as being objectives of the community, whilst it is most advantageous for those, all of whose objectives become the objectives of the community.

Raising these comments helps show that hierarchisation of objectives is important to members of the urban community, that is, the stage at which the municipal authorities specify the criteria for choosing the objectives. If the municipal authorities only accept the subjective criterion – reflecting only the preferences and interests of the municipal authorities – there is no place for the idea of the smart city, understood as smart people in the city, smart collaboration in the city, to become a reality. This is because urban communities have no influence on the shape of urban policies. The model of goal-setting constituting an antinomy with respect to the model described above, namely, one in which the municipal authorities are guided in the process of hierarchising objectives by the preferences of selected groups forming the urban community (objective selection criterion) should also be distinguished.

The term smart administration can be viewed in the context of the decision-making processes, which take place in the city's space; it is related to the analysis of relationships that appear between the objectives of the individual groups of the community and the objectives adopted by the municipal authorities as the objectives of the whole of the community. This is about establishing a relationship between the mechanism of setting the objectives for the urban community and the objectives of the individual groups, as well as specifying the conditions that smart administration needs to satisfy under the assumption that the objectives of the group are to be respected by the municipal authorities.

The key concept is that of preferences, because the starting point is the acceptance by the municipal authorities of certain states of affairs as being more valuable (more preferred) than others. These states of affairs (objectives of specific urban groups), which the municipal authorities consider preferential (most preferred choice), are then treated as objectives and they only take steps to achieve them because of these objectives. Smart administration should pursue the logic of preferences, which is made up of three concepts: strong preference, weak preference and indifference. These notions are the basis of formalising terms from everyday language, for example, smart technology in the city is preferred to smart collaboration (strong preference), smart people in the city are just as good as smart collaboration in the city (indifference). This means that if all states of affairs constituting an object of choice are indifferent to the urban authorities, there would be no logical or axiological grounds for making the choice and, hence, taking action at all. Ergo, these states cannot be indifferent to the urban authorities. The municipal authorities make choices and take action on their basis when they prefer certain objectives – they place values on certain states of affairs differently. And it is precisely in the process of valuation that four possible interpretations of smart city are reflected.

III. Smart City. Scope Of Activity

A city's ‘smartness’ is indexed by its ability to efficiently and effectively rationalize the planning and management of cities.2 The literature on the subject contains four approaches defining the concept of smart city: (1) smart technology in the city, (2) smart people in the city, (3) smart collaboration in the city and (4) combinations of smart technology, smart people and smart collaboration in the city.

Within the first group of definitions, emphasis is placed on technology, seen as a driving force and a sine qua non for the conversion of the socio-economic system – namely, the city – into the desired state of affairs, that is, the smart city. It is claimed that IT increases the productivity of the municipal infrastructure and its constituent components.3 The basic assumption is that it is the technology and its associated infrastructure that is the initiator of the changes. Therefore, the task of the public administration is to focus on technology and initiate – often from scratch – urban centres equipped with advanced infrastructure.4 This assumption is visible:

1. From the point of view of the smart city as a ‘city where new technologies are intelligently implemented to provide more efficient, secure, safe and sustainable everyday activities and services’.5

2. Synoptic ‘top-down’ projects dominate in the logic of the structure of projects.

The common element for both the next groups of definitions of a smart city is the assumption that it is the people and not the technology and infrastructure that are the initiators of change.

Publications can be mentioned, in which emphasis is placed on the need to develop and improve qualifications, knowledge and skills of the inhabitants. The objective of the municipal authorities is to bring about a unique transformation of inhabitants into human resources who contribute to the development of the city, attract investment and determine its competitive advantage.6 Reference to the logic of preferences mentioned in the article means that it is possible to notice that preferences regarding objectives are complementary to preferences regarding actions; this is about the so-called problem of compatibility of objectives and actions. If urban authorities consider a certain state of affairs to be valuable and desirable (in this case the creation of a relatively large group of human resources with a high level of scientific and technical potential within the population) and want to implement it, they also consequently assess various actions and projects for their relevance to the pursuit of the intended objective. In practice, such activities are smart inhabitants, in terms of their educational grade, assigning urban areas and financial resources to the formation of scientific and technical campuses and creating channels for transferring knowledge between universities and business entities.7 The assumption that human resources are the source and the driving force behind the changes is noticeable:

1. in investments, which can lead to the creation of a knowledge-based economy within the city's space;

2. in the creation of cultural conditions, which not only, but also facilitate and encourage the inhabitants to attract and develop knowledge, skills and qualifications and simultaneously build projects of an incremental nature.

Another aspect that is emphasised in the literature is the ability to create relations of cooperation between various entities: government institutions and business entities, as well as non-profit organisations of various provenances. The assumption that creativity, inspiration and innovation cannot arise where direct interpersonal contacts are difficult or absent is appropriate for such a view of a smart city. The city's potential can contribute to generating and conducting socioeconomic changes. The intensification of interpersonal relations, the rapid flow of information in the urban environment, cooperation and participation drive economic development, increase innovation and facilitate the effective performance of municipal services. Therefore, the main task of the municipal authorities is the ability to identify who is the key to the achievement of the objectives and initiate and facilitate connections between them. The result of these processes is to be the creation of ‘innovation hubs’.8 The identification of the smart city with activity that is smart collaboration in the city is reflected in the theory and practice of the functioning of the public administration.

The expression of this is the development of administrative phenomena that are not rooted in the Weber tradition: governance and public–private partnership.9 The assumption that inter-sectoral cooperation is a source of radical changes and progress causes:

1. ‘A shift away from vertical, often government-controlled integration to environments involving a mix of multiple public, private and quasi-private entities that manage and govern urban infrastructural systems’.10

2. The need for the self-government authorities to also obtain new skills and knowledge capabilities. The self-government administration performs its tasks not only within a hierarchical structure but also within hybrid structures and affects other entities not only within the hierarchical structure but also within the framework of the information and capital ties.11 Similarly, incremental projects dominate.

The ability of the municipal authorities to create a configuration of these elements – smart technology, smart people and smart collaboration – is emphasised in the last group of definitions.12 It is appropriate in this approach to assume that the organisational skills of the municipal authorities and primarily the skills of effective horizontal coordination and building relationships based on relational contracts constitute the driving force behind urban development. The ability to initiate and implement combinations of smart technology, smart people and smart collaboration in the city's space is the most advanced, complex and simultaneously demanding form of transformation of the city. The expressions of this are the formation of administrative phenomena, which include governance network, heterarchy and coopetition.13 The assumption that the organiser's skills generate change requires the following of the municipal authorities:

1. Awareness of the existence of common and conflicting objectives alongside each other; without the ability to find common objectives, cooperation cannot be taken up, and, therefore, there is no need for the configuration and its consequential vertical coordination and, without the existence of conflicting objectives, there is no need to look for coincidence. Therefore, coopetition is a form and simultaneously a plane for arriving at an agreement containing elements of cooperation (the parties look for agreement – ensure consistency of urban objectives – coordination of activities) and competition (all parties obtain the best possible result for them).

2. The awareness of the formation of relations, which, on the one hand, are an expression of the flexibility of the municipal authorities and learning and, on the other hand, the relationships alone increase this flexibility and learning ability. A high level of complexity and uncertainty of the urban system based on the combination of smart technology, smart people and smart collaboration imposes the need on the urban authorities to adapt, including that which requires being flexible.

3. Choice between a synoptic and an incremental structure of the project.

IV. Smart City Projects. Conditions

The notion and characteristics of the project are a continuous matter of interest of the representatives of theory and practice of dealing with the issue of project management. It is noted that the project is an organisational project within which human, material and financial resources are configured in an innovative way to achieve unique and desirable objectives in qualitative and quantitative terms, within the framework of specific financial and time constraints.14 At least four distinctive features can be mentioned, which set the projects in opposition to other organisational projects:

1. Uniqueness: Each project has a specific configuration of tangible and intangible resources within the existing organisational structures.

2. Innovativeness: Each project is an organisational project facilitating the creation of new values and ideas and implementing different solutions to specific local social problems than to date.

3. Timeliness: Each project has a precisely defined start and end date and specific stages and is, therefore, a venture that is limited in time. The temporal feature of the project means that its implementation is related to the need to provide the desired results at a specified time.

4. Product: Every project is initiated to achieve the intended effects. The effect presents the result of the implementation of the organisational project, namely, the intended effect as an objective.

Since the 1960s, the issue of projects has given rise to questions about factors affecting both the shape and the possibilities, as well as the methods of managing a project in such a way as to effectively enable the achievement of its intended objectives. The issue of projects is currently increasingly being considered from the point of view of the implementation of the assumptions mentioned in the article, which are appropriate to each of the four interpretations of the notion of the smart city. In this context, the aim is to separate the categories of SCPs from among the whole group of projects and identify the circumstances of their effective implementation.

The literature describes SCPs in two ways: either utilitarily, as a mechanism for effectively implementing the appropriate assumptions, especially for the idea of smart technology in the city,15 or in the axiological plane, as a mechanism for implementing the four assumptions of smart cities discussed in the article, which are essentially of the nature of public objectives. Attention is drawn in this second meaning of SCPs to the fact that their subject matter is the implementation of projects of a public nature, namely, those that serve the public interest and the common good.16 The objective of the SCP is public in the sense that it remains in the well-understood public interest – namely, by assumption, it is to serve the common good of the residents of the city. In this context, it should be accepted that the criterion for isolating public and private projects is the criterion of interest, which is additionally based on certain subjectively and/or objectively accepted values. Within public projects, which refer to ideologically and axiologically determined attitudes of local authorities, SCPs that can be activated in different areas can be specified, as presented in Table 1.

The determinants of the effectiveness of the project vary over time and are of a dynamic and individualised nature because of the uniqueness of each project. Three conditions may be mentioned with regard to SCPs.

First is the equilibrium. This applies to the balance between the planning approach17 and the adaptive approach.18 Drawing attention to the meaning of the importance of the ‘planning-adaptive’ contrast in the application to the problem of the determinants of the effectiveness of the SCPs shows that, owing to its uniqueness, there is a need to precisely set the objectives and main parameters (scope, quality, time, cost) and prepare a reliable and comprehensive plan preceding the implementation phase.19 Undoubtedly, the opposition understood in this way must also be taken in to account, taking into consideration the fact that ‘projects require a high degree of flexibility, understood as the ability to quickly introduce ad hoc changes and adapt to the changing conditions’.21 The approaches mentioned and, in fact, their methodologies are in conflict with each other, which, in the context of the management of SCPs, is primarily expressed in the skills and the need to reconcile the directives of the actions of their appropriate approaches.22

Second is the oscillation. SCPs feature a certain degree of ambiguity; in particular, the study project plan can demonstrate only estimated data on costs, deadlines and quality. The project plan is concretised at the stage of identifying the detailed functions and objectives to be achieved within the framework of this organisational project. Even so, an inherent property of SCPs, which is also their weakness, is a certain degree of risk that, in practice, the project plan may not provide the desired results or generate the expected changes.23 Therefore, possible oscillation (Lat. oscillatio – rocking, fluctuation) should be taken into account during project management. In the case of projects implemented by the municipal authorities, it is important to separate the so-called external oscillation, the frequency and nature of which is a consequence of the changes taking place in the project's environment, for example, changing legal regulations, the market situation and the so-called internal oscillations, which arise from the objective and the values of the parameters of a specific project.

Third is the skilful integration of resources and coordination of activities.24 This determinant should be considered in the context of the issue of autonomy of the project. The autonomy of the project applies to the possibility and the need to isolate the project from the organisation in organisational, economic, and sometimes also legal terms. The variant of isolating the project adopted in each specific case should reflect the adequacy of that variant to the optimum achievement of the project's objective. In the area of the projects implemented by the territorial self-government, it is possible to apply two variants.

The first variant constitutes intraorganisational projects, embedded in the organisational structure of the self-government administration.25 In this variant, integration means the need to cross individual organisational divisions of the office in which the project is being conducted. The commitment of human resources from various divisions is required, which forces the coordination of cooperation within the project team, as well as the harmonisation of the cooperation between the project manager and the line managers; the elimination or restriction of the powers of any of these managers is undesirable. Projects of this type usually assume the form of ‘top-down’ synoptic projects. Their potential weakness is the centralised nature of planning based on rigid assumptions regarding human expectations; they can, therefore, be insensitive to changes and unexpected situations. This explains why the implementation of many SCPs has failed, because their initiators wrongly foresaw the method of use of opportunities in everyday life and did not provide appropriate flexibility.

The second variant is that of intraorganisational projects, which should be seen as mechanisms of participation of various groups in the performance of public tasks. Intraorganisational projects are often activated in order to conduct investments in the area of technical and social infrastructure; the projects feature:

• – a scope exceeding the capabilities of an individual partner (lack of know-how, financial resources, technology),

• – a high degree of complexity and complication forcing the creation of interdisciplinary organisational projects,

• – a high degree of risk that, in the case of large projects, the distribution of the cooperation on all the partners.

The essence of the integration in interorganisational projects lies in the objective plane both in terms of the methods of their definition and the expected ways of achieving them. The effectiveness of the implementation of an interorganisational project is a function of the skilful reconciliation of the logic of functioning, which is appropriate to each of the sectors and the assurance of intensive coordination of tangible and intangible flows of resources between them.

V. Summary

Up to 200 years ago, location was the main factor determining whether a city would develop harmoniously. Urban centres were built, for example, at the confluence of rivers or on the shores of bays, namely, in places enabling the use of maritime routes for trading purposes. At present, the greatest assets of cities are education, high-quality urban infrastructure, the transformation of existing cities into those that are more environmentally friendly, diversity and tolerance, namely, values as a result of which investors, specialists and technologically innovative industries come to cities. Creativity and inspiration cannot arise where direct contacts between people are difficult. If municipal authorities take into account the socio-urban potential, this can contribute to the faster implementation of changes in urban space. These changes usually require the use of advanced technologies. SCPs are launched to implement assumptions that are appropriate for smart cities; in particular, the use of ‘bottom-up’ incremental projects creates an opportunity to rethink the concept of future cities – methods of their design, construction and functioning. By opening up the opportunity of a smart life to the urban community, the municipal authorities ensure that the community formed by them – which is the actual embodiment of the city – will also be smart.