Image Credit: Salpiconcultural
Many local governments – most in fact — already have a phase one smart city initiative. These are producing exciting, highly visible benefits for the council, ratepayers and visitors. So why on earth should they want to start on something as foreign as an open data policy now?
Most local governments have started using technology to improve their services and, by doing so, improve the lives of their citizens. These projects tend to focus on a single service — such as smart lighting, bins, or parking — and have been started within the department responsible for the individual service. These are phase one smart city projects.
A few parties – including Australia’s Commonwealth Government* are making noises that now is the time to start drawing up a data sharing policy. Why? There are reasons against doing this. Some of these reasons fall into the “I don’t see an immediate benefit” category, some into “not our job”, and others into “don’t know what you’re talking about” category.
Some of the benefit from starting on a data sharing policy won’t be immediate. It’s also a challenging process that requires absorbing some quite difficult concepts; and maybe seeking buy-in from people you might rather not engage. Also, it takes a while: implementation can only begin when datasets start to be shared between separate departments.
You say: it’s too early to start on nebulous things like policies on data sharing. We have real, tangible work to do – bringing benefits that our ratepayers can see and appreciate. But, to push on with individual smart projects without starting on data sharing would be like laying the first bricks for your new house without having a sound architectural plan.
The policy is the plan. What you want to achieve is the house: but once you start building, you sure are glad the plan exists.
A phase one project will bring its own IT “platform”. This may be homemade; or may be an expensive, all-singing solution from a major vendor. In phase two, bright minds in will spot the opportunity to bring together data from two or more different projects. An example might be a successful smart waste management project that will spark the idea of managing other council assets.
At that point, the data on these other assets, if there is no policy, might have to be force-fed into the platform that was designed for smart bins. Or each project might already have its own platform – and two different owners then arm-wrestle over “whose platform is more suitable”. By phase three, when there are multiple technology-enabled automations across different departments, the problem gets compounded.
This is like building an extra storey onto your house, renovating the kitchen, and re-situating the granny flat — with three different builders, but still with no architectural plan. Are you getting the picture? Now is a good time to be thinking about a data sharing policy. I’d go so far as to say it’s the very basis of a smart city strategy. At the least, it’s the “nervous system” without which the whole thing can’t function.
Governments around the country are entering an exciting time. Most are already in phase one of their smart city journey. But to rush ahead without a plan, without a policy — and specifically a policy for open data — is asking for trouble.
_____________________________
* “Merit criterion one: the extent to which your project is innovative and uses smart technology and open data. In assessing this criterion we will consider: the extent to which your project aligns with the smart cities plan, including the extent that your project uses smart technology and promotes open data”.
