General Political Science Articles

Article / Updated 10-10-2023

Since 1948, Israel has controlled most of Palestine. Throughout a decades-long conflict, several critical issues have prevented Israel and the Palestinians from concluding a lasting peace. Here are the basic positions of the two parties. Neither side holds a single position. Moderates and extremists exist on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. Right to a Palestinian state Several legal scholars dismiss the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood. These scholars generally argue that Palestine lacks a legitimate sovereign and Israeli claims to the remaining Palestinian territory are the most valid. In addition, some legal experts observe that while there is little doubt Palestine will emerge from the ongoing peace process as a nation, statehood has not been established. This argument suggests that Palestine doesn’t fully satisfy four criteria of statehood outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In contrast, other legal experts argue that the State of Palestine already exists and when judged by the Montevideo Convention criteria is on at least as firm a legal footing as Israel. This view holds that the development of a democratically elected Palestinian government that enjoys the approval of the international community now exercises effective control over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state’s population lives. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the prohibition under international law against territorial acquisitions by war. Israel’s right to exist
 From the perspective of many Jews, Israel is a refuge even if they never set foot there. From the Israeli and Jewish vantage point, only a homeland can provide a safe haven from a world full of anti-Semitism. Strength and constant vigilance are necessary to preserve the security of the Israel, surrounded as it is by enemies. For Palestinians, Israel is a rogue state, an interloper that confiscated their land and forced them out. The belief that Israel does not have a legitimate right to exist is still a common among some Palestinians, despite reluctant acceptance of Israel in recent years. The borders of Jerusalem The border of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue with each side asserting claims over the city. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam consider Jerusalem an important setting for their religious and historical narratives. Israel asserts that the city should not be divided and should remain unified within Israel’s political control. Palestinians claim at least those city sections that were not part of Israel prior to June 1967. Palestinian refugees’ right to return Palestinian refugees are people who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation was estimated at 711,000 in 1949 and as of 2010 the descendants of these original Palestinian refugees number 4.7 million people. Palestinian negotiators insist that refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Resolution 194 as evidence. The Israeli government’s position is that Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that the Palestinians fled to escape the war. The Palestinian’s believe the refugees were expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and the Israeli army. Violence by Palestinians and Israeli security concerns Throughout the conflict, Palestinian violence has been a concern for Israelis. Israel, along with the United States and the European Union, refer to the violence against Israeli civilians and military forces by Palestinian militants as terrorism. Suicide bombing is a tactic used by Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. During the late 1960s, the PLO became increasingly infamous for its use of international terror, perhaps the most notorious terrorist act being the capture and eventual murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games. Since 2001, the threat of rocket attacks from the Palestinian Territories into Israel has become a great concern. Significant debate exists within Israel regarding how to deal with these security concerns. Options have included military action (including targeted killings and house demolitions of terrorist operatives), diplomacy, unilateral gestures toward peace, and increased security measures such as checkpoints, roadblocks and security barriers. Since 2007, Israel’s primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, which has reduced West Bank violence. Access to water resources Israel receives much of its water from two large underground aquifers that continue under Palestinian lands. In the Oslo II Accord, both sides agreed to maintain “existing quantities of utilization from the resources.” In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel agreed to provide water to supplement Palestinian production and to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer. Many Palestinians counter that the Oslo II agreement was intended to be a temporary resolution and that it was not intended to remain in effect more than a decade later, noting the agreement’s name is “The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement.” Israeli presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza The West Bank and Gaza Strip continue to be considered Occupied Palestinian Territory by the international community, notwithstanding the 1988 Declaration of Palestinian Independence, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as part of the 2005 Israeli unilateral disengagement plan. The Israeli government uses the term Disputed Territories, and argues that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967. Israel’s position is that most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip will eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State but the precise borders are in question. Some Palestinians claim they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any move to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute, and believes negotiations will define the final borders.

Article / Updated 07-12-2023

You’ve decided that a smart city initiative is right for your community. You now have a bold and ambitious vision. It’s time to get started so that you can actually realize this vision. You must initiate a process of translation to move from your smart city vision to a set of actions. For this, you need a plan. Do not let the enthusiasm for progress and results curtail the essential and sometimes tedious upfront work of strategic planning for you smart city. This popular adage is a favorite of mine: Failing to plan is planning to fail. You always increase the chances of success in an effort if you have a plan. (Having a Plan B is a good idea, too.) Most people have some sort of plan in place when they embark on a major work project. But is it a viable and flexible plan? Is it a plan that can actually absorb the pummeling a long-term effort will experience and still succeed in its goals? There’s a big difference between having a plan and having a great plan. What you need in order to get started is a process to define the strategy of how your smart city vision will be realized. You need a systematic process of envisioning and executing the steps to a desired future. Urban planning and development are typically deliberate and detailed activities. A smart city initiative is fundamentally an urban plan and therefore requires much of the same rigor. You’ll make complex decisions that include trade-offs and compromises, and you’ll do all this with many other stakeholders. The art and science of strategic planning is a repetitive, inclusive, often exhaustive exercise, which is a characteristic of much of the work in the public sector. You really do produce better results when you include as many people (those who can add value) as possible in almost any process. People want to be involved, and they want to have a voice in decision-making. After all, decisions that are made that affect the nature of a city have the potential to impact a lot of people. Everyone is better served when input is derived from the broadest set of participants. A strategic plan is a living document. That is, it is never locked down. It must be open to revisiting and to making course corrections as circumstances dictate. The plan must also be an artifact that’s referenced often, and progress must be measured against it. The worst strategic plan is the one that’s developed and agreed on and then never consulted. It’s the one that sits on the shelf, gathering dust. It’s pointless, and even soul-destroying. A strategic plan must be shared widely. It becomes a communication tool that helps stakeholders know what’s happening and when events will take place. The plan must be posted for easy access and made available in both electronic and physical forms. Your smart city initiative should have a dedicated website, or at least a dedicated section of your city’s website. A large number of people — ranging from community members to city staff and from other cities to the vendor community and more — will be interested in what’s coming their way. It’s worth spending the time to create a well-developed strategic plan. From better outcomes to clear directions for all who are involved and impacted, the benefits are numerous. But let’s be sober about this point: Creating a well-developed strategic plan is difficult, and the plan can be contentious. Be ready for the work ahead. Sure, it’s hard, but it’s well worth it. Perhaps this deserves a new adage: Preparing a well-developed plan is planning to succeed. Developing a strategic plan for your smart city Though business books might use different terminology, critiquing several of them reveals a consistent set of logical steps to move from an idea or need to a result. Whether it’s creating an art piece, developing a project, or planning a strategy, the following four steps typically spell out what needs to happen (Let’s call them the four D’s): Define. Design. Develop. Deploy. Some form of measurement should be baked in, too, to hold everyone accountable. Look below to see how this process can be applied to the development of a smart city. Keep in mind that the work of urban planning and development is never done, so by extension, it’s a little misleading to think in terms of completing a smart city. It’s a topic of considerable debate. (Another, similar debate involves determining which city in the world is “the smartest.” It’s not a fair question — each city is smart to the degree that it reflects the needs, culture, and aspirations of its citizens.) Returning to the idea of the process of creating a smart city (assuming the assertion that, by definition, this process can never be completed), it should be clear by now that this may be an iterative process. Thought of another way, smart city efforts may have phases, and they may be redefined as time passes. This topic gets a lot of attention because it directly relates to how you might think of scoping the smart city strategy exercise. Specifically, what are you including in the scope of the process to define, design, develop, and deploy? The answer is that you and your teams must decide what to include. Having a vision that may take a decade or more to accomplish is reasonable, but, realistically speaking, it’s likely a series of shorter actionable and consecutive strategic plans rather than a single big plan. Therefore, you should focus on the activities that are doable, relative to the larger vision, with the understanding that you’re dealing with a shorter time horizon. Take another look at the image above. Strategic planning involves Steps 1–4. The first step is to create your smart city vision. The next step is to define your goals —the desired results of the vision broken into specific, measurable areas. Moving from vision to goals, which is an exercise that is fun and critical, requires what is called the envisioning process. Envisioning a smart city At its core, envisioning is an interactive process for engaging stakeholders in imagining a desired future and identifying the activities in support of realizing it. It can be thought of as a more rigorous brainstorming process. Envisioning takes many forms: It’s performed at the beginning of an initiative but can also be used at various other times during the course of an initiative if it’s deemed valuable. Done well, envisioning can bring with it many of the following advantages. It Gets everyone on the same page Identifies creative ideas Builds cohesiveness in a group Enables all voices to be heard Supports achieving consensus Reduces the risk of pursuing ideas that may not be practical To help guide you through the envisioning process that forms the basis of your strategic plan and goals, follow these steps : Define the scope of your smart city vision. Using the smart city vision that has been already determined, identify and debate (using the tools of your choice) the major city areas within the scope. Though it’s tempting to use only existing challenges to lead the process, turn those challenges into what you want the city to become. For example, instead of saying “Fix transportation congestion,” perhaps consider saying “Implement innovative and efficient transportation options that provide more options and shorter trips.” The details of how you go about achieving these in-scope items come next. Create a short list of goals.Step 1 will likely result in a large number of scope areas. Be sure to validate them carefully against the agreed-on smart city vision. A scope item not aligned with that vision might need to be tabled, or it might mean that the vision needs expanding. Next, group together common scoping areas and consider new language to cover the range of these areas in a single goal statement. For example, many ideas might be related to transportation, but they should roll up to a master goal. Later, you will create objectives for these goals that will define specifics. Here’s an example of a transportation goal: “Create a transportation environment that is friendly to the environment, is efficient, and reduces parking needs by 60 percent.” There’s no hard-and-fast rule on how many goals you should have, but you should be guided by what’s possible. If you have 50 goals for your small city, well, you’re probably kidding yourselves. Each goal generates many objectives, which in turn generate even more projects. Be realistic about what’s achievable at least from the perspectives of capacity and budgeting. Consider a time frame.By definition, executing on a vision takes a long time. You’re certainly looking at several years, but not so long that it becomes impractical. Agreeing on a general time frame around the defined goals in Step 2 creates an important boundary and helps to sharpen everyone’s focus. Though recognizing that a smart city strategy is never finished, you must articulate a time frame for this round of visionary goals. Identify your city's strengths.This step requires some careful and honest introspection. Articulate your city’s qualities that lend themselves to the work ahead. Recognizing these strengths helps you focus everyone’s efforts, understand potential risks, optimize for strengths, and assist in prioritizing objectives. Create a first draft of Steps 1–4.Combine Steps 1–4 into a cohesive narrative. This isn’t an essay. It should begin with the agreed-on vision. Additional support for the vision can be considered — notes on how the vision was derived, including some background and motivation, for example. This is followed by each of the goals, listed in sequence. Under each goal, provide additional supporting details and desired outcomes, and specify how they align with the vision. Include a statement on how city strengths support each goal, give approximate timelines, and provide a proposal on how the goal may be measured. Don’t make the strategic plan document a massive tome. If it is, you’ve done something wrong. Make it succinct enough that most stakeholders are comfortable reviewing it and can recall many of its highlights. Circulate the draft to your smart city stakeholders.The next few steps are what is called rinse-and-repeat. The draft strategic plan for the future of your smart city must be circulated among a broad and diverse community. Create a mechanism to make it easy to elicit feedback and track changes. Review, redraft, and recirculate.The first round of feedback will likely elicit a high volume of comments. In subsequent circulations, you should expect reduced volume. Finalize and socialize.With several iterations completed, it’s time to lock down the document. It’s clear at this point which topics have resonated with your stakeholders. Try to engage the right talent to create the final strategy document. Make this document easy to consume — one that everyone is proud to reference and share. Make the document version-controlled because you’ll create many versions. Be comfortable having the document undergo regular reviews and updates. If changes are requested, follow a similar rinse-and-repeat process. You’ve reached the end of a major milestone in the strategic planning process. Now share it widely and often. With so many channels available for both analog and digital sharing, use them all. For the core online presence — possibly, a standalone website, or separate section of your city’s main website — consider a way for people to provide comments and information on how to reach members of the team. Converting your smart city vision to action Now that you’ve completed a high-level strategy document and it’s been endorsed by all the right stakeholders, you’re ready to move on to how the strategy will be put into action. The document so far includes your city’s vision for what it wants to become, and it lists the major goals that manifest the vision. Each goal is a specific area that articulates a desired future result within some defined period. A goal typically doesn’t provide the level of detail necessary to follow a set of steps. What you need are supporting objectives for each goal. These objectives then tie directly to projects, which is how the work gets done. (The image below should help you visualize the relationship between a vision, goals, and objectives.) What is an objective? It’s a specific action that supports a result in a defined time frame. It’s short-term with a clear definition and is a necessary building block in a strategic plan. Let’s use the example of transportation to explain how you take a goal and create objectives. In the example smart city, Goal 1 is to implement innovative and efficient transportation options. The smart city steering committee or the operations team may designate a group of people who will work on determining the supporting objectives for this goal. In a smaller city, assigning a new group may be impractical, so perhaps the operations team is appropriate to do this work. At minimum, people with the proper expertise should be part of the team. In this area, you definitely want experts in the transportation and planning areas, with input from public safety team members also potentially quite valuable. The team who is assigned should be fully aware of the purpose of the goal, the way it supports the vision, the desired timeline, and the manner it is being proposed to be measured. This content lies in the approved strategy document as it stands. Conducting interviews with relevant stakeholders is a good approach as well — it might mean reaching out to people who haven’t yet been engaged in the process. Stakeholders are both internal and external to the organization. Once the team is comfortable with scope, it’s time to think about objectives. You can follow any number of models, including brainstorming and design thinking. For more on the latter, check out Design Thinking For Dummies, by Christian Müller-Roterberg. The team must always be conscious of available capacity and funding and the timeline. Deviating from this guidance may result in objectives that, when reviewed, are quickly discarded and considered a poor use of everyone’s time. To return to the transportation goal,” here's what the objectives associated with that goal might look like: Goal: Implement innovative and efficient transportation options. Supporting objective 1.1: Support migration to electric vehicles by providing electric charging stations at 60 percent of city-provided parking spaces by 2025. Supporting objective 1.2: Upgrade all traffic signals to enable dynamic signaling based on real-time data by 2024. Examples here are deliberately lightweight for the purposes of simplicity and clarity. Your actual goals and objectives may be more detailed. Let your teams determine what’s appropriate for your agency and for the purpose of increasing understanding. It’s a good idea to include clear details on any mentioned technologies and unfamiliar terms. You want all stakeholders to understand what is being proposed. After all the goals have their associated objectives identified, you enter into a cycle of rinse-and-repeat, when the document is sent out for review and comment and then updated and reviewed again. This process repeats until general agreement is reached. The steering committee then needs to sign off on the approved objectives. Finally, the completed strategic plan should be brought to your elected officials, or the equivalent, for sign-off. Want to ensure your smart city is on the right path? Avoid these ten problems.

Article / Updated 07-12-2023

Beginning the journey to create a smart city is a bold and courageous first step. The risks and costs are high, and positive outcomes aren’t guaranteed. Most cities that haven’t yet committed to a strategy may be able to detect an element of inevitability that the day will soon come. Evolving needs and community expectations will demand it. The promise of new technology in solving urban issues and delivering better results is simply too compelling — and in some cases too urgent — to ignore. But you do need to recognize pragmatic hesitancy. Those risks and costs are concerning. Reputations are at stake. The work is difficult and complex. However, the day will eventually come when a vision and a plan for a smart city (or whatever other term is used) are demanded and when work will need to begin. Cities won’t be able to sit this one out. Action will be required. When the decision is made to move forward with a smart city strategy, it’s time to evaluate the risks and come up with steps to lessen the danger. That means an ongoing risk management strategy must be part of the work as well. Consider establishing a risk register — a tool for documenting risks and the actions taken to address each risk. Fortunately, many case studies are available for review from cities of all sizes all over the world. Learn from them. Here, you discover ten smart city pitfalls to avoid. If you avoid these pitfalls, you will certainly reduce risk throughout your smart city program. But this is only one short list: Do your homework and identify issues that may be specific to particular initiatives — for example, around energy, transportation, health, or drone usage. It’s smart to be smart about smart city risks. Making your smart city project a tech program and putting IT in charge With the focus of smart city work revolving around the use of technology, it seems intuitive to consider it a technology program. Following that logic, it would seem to make sense for many cities to assign the work to their information technology (IT) team. Both assumptions seem reasonable but may be mistakes. Certainly, smart city technology is a core requirement; however, this program is about people. Keep in mind that technology adoption is an enabler, not the outcome. You must always return to fundamentals. Smart cities are about improving the quality of life for communities. Use this core belief to drive the work, and remind stakeholders frequently. The risk of making a smart city strategy a technology program and assigning it to the IT team is high, for the reasons described in this list: Placing the focus on technology can alienate many stakeholders. They may feel that they cannot contribute because they have insufficient knowledge or prerequisite skills. The fact is, smart city programs have greater success when all parts of an agency and the community have high levels of engagement. Your IT leader and team, despite their brilliance, may not be qualified to take ownership of this multidisciplinary program. It’s a leap to assume that knowledge of technology equates to competence in running projects that span across city domains. Sure, your IT leader may be a superstar who has the capability and knowledge to lead a smart city strategy. In that case, embrace this approach. In most cases though, it’s unlikely. Placing the emphasis on technology may result in a program that receives less priority and attention than it deserves. The smart city program has the potential to be seen as simply another set of technology projects. The reality is that smart city work needs leadership at the highest level of the organization and that the focus at all times must remain on benefits to people. Despite any caveats you might be given, your IT leader and team must be essential and valued program partners. There’s little doubt that their contributions will be critical to the success of the smart city program. Garnering insufficient support and engagement from stakeholders for your smart city On any given day, a government agency is managing numerous projects. Big cities may even have hundreds of projects running, which is what consumes a good deal of city staff capacity. For this reason, the processes for identifying projects, getting them budgeted, and then executing them is fairly routine. More often than not, a project is managed and delivered by a single department. Sometimes, more than one department is involved, but an all-departments program remains quite rare. You should consider the smart city program an all-department effort. As a result of continuing routine practices, departments may be inclined to move forward with smart city projects with insufficient engagement. Sure, they’ll embrace their normal network of involved participants, but they may not extend across other city departments and deep into the community. It’s not deliberate — it’s just that everyone defaults to their own routine. After a smart city program is approved — the emphasis must be on stakeholder engagement. Spend some time determining who should be considered a stakeholder. Be liberal in your inclusion of people you may not typically consider. The work to create a smarter and more sustainable city is a long-term effort. Engaging stakeholders and advocating for success early is a valuable approach. After stakeholders are identified, you must work with them to include them in discussions related to defining the vision, agreeing on goals and objectives, identifying projects and vendors, and more. Engagement at this level builds trust among participants. It may create a heavier administrative burden, and it can slow the process, but the dividend makes it worthwhile. Certainly, a lack of support and engagement always guarantees bigger and more frustrating challenges. To be inclusive, use a variety of platforms that include everything from traditional in-person meetings to online collaboration tools. Limiting efforts to your smart city boundaries Suppose that the mayor proposes that your city work on becoming a smart city. It sounds like you need to build a vision and a strategy for your community. That’s reasonable. But wait — might there be an opportunity to engage participants outside the city limits? All too often, the natural inclination is to focus solely on a single city. It makes sense on many levels. However, is it possible to be completely successful if the broader world isn’t considered? The term broader world may refer to adjoining cities or to the local region. It may also mean engaging with federal organizations. Cities don’t exist in a vacuum. They are entirely dependent on their interdependence with other communities and external organizations. Here are some examples: Public transportation: A public transportation system that serves a region can’t be considered only in the context of a single city or a few cities. If your smart city work impacts public transport, you need to engage with regional transport providers. Public safety: Your city might invest heavily in new technology to combat crime, but if you limit that work to your city’s borders and fail to engage surrounding communities, you might be restricting the effectiveness of your efforts. Environment: One of the most obvious suggestions for engaging participants beyond your own city is any effort related to the environment and climate change. Most people acknowledge that humans won’t solve air, water, and climate issues, for example, by doing work in a silo. These areas don’t respect borders. The best outcomes will be achieved when collaboration exists at the regional and national levels, where appropriate. Finally, smart city leaders can explore regional efforts if it means sharing cost. It’s highly possible that the work you’re doing would be of interest to cities nearby. Go ahead and have that conversation with them. A smart city effort executed by several cities will reduce costs and may even be more successful due to regional collaboration. Even if it’s more difficult, the effort may well be worth it. You won’t know unless you explore it. Paying insufficient attention to inclusiveness issues Most everyone enjoys using new technologies. But there’s always a risk that deploying a new smart city technology and process may have a positive impact on one part of the community while overlooking, or even limiting, others. That is unacceptable. Cities belong to everyone. Cities must serve everyone. Private organizations may have the right to choose their customers, but cities do not and should not. For example, even when a city digitizes a simple analog process, such as putting a form online, it must retain alternatives for those who lack the technological savvy or access to the necessary technology. It’s a unique city characteristic and responsibility. Because smart city efforts can range in their impact on a community, careful consideration must be given to inclusiveness. Urban innovation has the real potential to create and increase social inequity. Specifically, in the design of a new service, teams must assess whether everyone who may be impacted by the change continues to be served with equal access, respect, and attention. Ensuring analog options for online services may be relatively straightforward, but many smart city projects involve both the digital and physical worlds. For example, services that use audio and visual cues must be accessible by those who have limitations in those sensory areas. Inclusive smart cities require broad community engagement and collaboration — and a commitment to human-centered urban design. To date, the lack of a focus on inclusiveness in smart city programs has been an area of notable criticism. It’s time to make inclusiveness a priority and a mandatory part of the work. Improving the quality of life in cities must not be an experience for only a subset of a community — it’s a goal that must benefit everyone. Moving forward with a smart city without adequate governance For many people, the term governance may not be familiar, but the purpose is typically well understood. Simply defined, governance involves the structures put in place by organizations and teams to achieve measurable results toward achieving their goals. These goals can include the strategy of an entire organization, a project, or a program. The structures of governance can include these tasks: Identifying leadership and staffing positions Defining reporting relationships to be put in place Determining how decisions on funding are made Choosing how issues are escalated Selecting which processes are adopted To launch a smart city program without agreement on a rigorous governance structure (also called a framework) is a recipe for possible failure. The skills in putting together a governance framework may not be present in many cities. This is why you’re encouraged to seek assistance from an external party. Good governance can produce good results. It’s worth the time and expense needed to produce an agreeable approach. You’ll know whether your city has good governance in place if qualities such as clear accountability, process documentation and transparency, specific role definitions, reporting structures, goals, objectives, program and project alignment with strategy, and metrics are all defined and agreed on. Consider these and more as the pillars of governance success. Working with no clear vision of the smart city program Let’s be honest: Running a small handful of technology-related city projects does not a smart city make. That’s just a handful of technology projects. The work to create a smarter community will likely be a multiyear effort with clear, bold, and ambitious goals. A meaningful shift must take place in terms of how services are delivered and operations are conducted. Quality of life should be measurably improved and experienced. This kind of game-changing work requires a vision — preferably, one articulated by way of a vision statement that includes a short description of what the organization wants to become. The vision, which is a signpost of where the enterprise is headed, guides all stakeholders in their decision-making and their actions. A smart city vision should be aligned with the city’s broader strategy and approved by the community. In fact, determining a vision for your smart city work is an important way to engage constituents. Don’t stop at the vision, either: It’s the starting point that gets converted to goals, objectives, and then projects. Deep engagement with city staff and community members helps to ensure that the right priorities are identified and there’s agreement on the work to be done. Bring lots of data to these decision-making activities. A great vision is a great start to your smart city work. Without this vision, you have no signpost. Later, you may find that this lack is a guarantee of facing program challenges further down the road. Make the creation of a smart city vision one of the first things your team does. Downplaying the essential roles that security and privacy play in a smart city A trade-off will continue to exist between the benefits that technology and data bring to the world and the attendant risks that come with them. As people acquire and deploy more digitally based solutions in their homes, businesses, and cities — and even on themselves — everyone clearly recognizes the many advantages that each new innovation brings. Emerging technologies are rapidly changing the world in surprising ways. What isn’t clear is the extent of any risks that each one may present. Part of the challenge is that the nature of the risks continues to evolve. Cybersecurity is a particularly dynamic space: The bad guys are generally outpacing anyone’s ability to fully protect software and hardware security vulnerabilities. Leaps in cybersecurity are being made, but a long road lies ahead if we humans are ever to have the upper hand in completely protecting our systems. One of the core by-products of city government services is the collection, management, and storage of data. It’s the one asset that every government has in abundance. Just consider all the services that need system and data support. The amount of data collected in forms alone is humungous for most agencies. Now cities are deploying an array of different sensors that capture details such as video, air and water quality, traffic information, and much more. All these devices collect and produce data. Though protecting city data has always been important, the volume, velocity, and variety of it now has significantly elevated the risks to it. As remarkable as it may sound, the responsibility and degree to which protections are put in place in many cities around the world is at each city’s discretion. That said, many efforts are taking place, ranging from new industry standards to new regulations and laws that are being applied. For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a law that’s being enforced across member nations to protect the personal data of EU citizens. In California, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a similar law, albeit less restrictive, that attempts to protect the personal information of Californians. Not making cybersecurity and privacy a priority in all city operations today is a mistake. The financial costs, loss of organizational credibility, damage to brand, severe disruption of services, potential downstream crimes, and pain to individuals it may cause make the stakes simply too high. Your smart city strategy will increase these cybersecurity and privacy risks. As one public sector cybersecurity professional once advised, “We shouldn’t be creating smart cities — we should be creating safe and secure smart cities.” Sharing smart city successes and failures too narrowly Government workers often take the brunt of stereotyping that characterizes them as lazy and unproductive. A few of those might exist, but isn’t that true in every industry? The truth is often quite different. Often, these people are some of the most passionate, selfless, and hard-working people you’ll ever meet. Some of the work can be thankless, but still, so many do the necessary, routine work of ensuring that their government services can function. What also strikes many involved is the volume of important work that gets done that nobody notices and is never publicized. Few cities have marketing departments, in the private sector sense. Sure, they have communications teams who do vital work — such work may even include creating campaigns to attract businesses and tourists — but the everyday achievements of most cities are lightly reported on municipal websites and, at best, in local newspapers. In other words, cities can do a much better job of telling their stories. Given the broad interest in smart cities, this work has received more attention than many of the programs that cities work on. The scale and transformational potential of the work is attractive for journalists and analysts, and so a decent amount of new content is being produced on this topic. So much of it, though, is being led by third parties, not by the city itself. Managing the narrative may be limited to infrequent press releases. Cities need to tell their smart city stories. They need to do this as not only a marketing tool but also a way to keep their communities apprised and engaged. They also need to do it to help other cities. Of course, they’d love to share only the good stories and best practices, but enormous value lies in sharing the failures as well. Of course, no city leader wants to expose the bad things that happen, so this strategy won’t be wholeheartedly embraced. However, the value in sharing those failures not only demonstrates transparency and honesty but can also be helpful in communicating the complexity and difficulty of the work for the benefit of other communities. Embrace and share your smart city strategy strengths and weaknesses. More communities will reap the rewards of this approach and, as a result, many more may prosper. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Sticking stubbornly to the old ways of doing things Most people love predictability. They enjoy their routines. It’s a lovely experience to visit a favorite restaurant after a long absence and find that the dish you love is still on the menu and tastes exactly how you remember it. But predictability and routine in a work context — particularly, as humans traverse the fourth industrial revolution — may not be that desirable. This isn’t a reference to the comfort of a paycheck or the reliable trust of a colleague. Mostly, this refers to the need for organizations to change — often quickly — to respond to a world in transition. The biggest risk to organizations today is the lack of relevancy. If you’re doing the same thing while everything around you (including your customers) is changing, you’re not demonstrating your relevancy and you’re likely on a trajectory toward failure. Continuous modifications of products and services, and even operations, is becoming a characteristic of the times. The ability to evolve and reinvent at a moment’s notice appears to be emerging as a competitive advantage. In city government, change often happens slowly, and for plenty of good reasons, such as not having the budget to change or not wanting to upset a community by introducing a new process or having little appetite for even a modest amount of risk. Each of these is a legitimate concern and must be respected. But can the slow pace of city government innovation and a conservative mindset be sustained and acceptable when the world is rapidly changing? With city complexity and community expectations increasing, and with a growing number of intractable issues emerging, business-as-usual for a city appears to be under pressure. Because a smart city strategy is often a response to these challenges, this means that the capacity to embrace change must also expand. Sticking to the old ways of doing things while simultaneously pursuing a smart city program would appear to be incompatible. Leaders who are more flexible, ready to change, and prepared to take more risks may drive more success in their efforts than those who cling to the predictability of the ways things have always been done. Thinking too short-term when developing your smart city goals Depending on the political system of a city agency, projects may be tied to the term of leadership. In the United States, terms typically last four years, so many initiatives are targeted to kick off and be completed in that period. Though getting the right things done well is the purpose of leadership, it’s reasonable to also say that there may be additional motivations too. For example, if the initiative is a success in a single term, an official may take credit for the change and also increase their chance of being reelected or appointed to another term. Sometimes the reason for the timing is that the budget exists and the need is now greatest. There are a whole lot of reasons why, and when, work is done in a city. Many are specific to the particular city. It’s fair to say that many smart city projects can be completed in a reasonably short period (at least in a city context). For example, it’s possible to create and deploy apps that can be quite useful to a community well within a four-year time period. That said, the complexity and reach of an entire smart city program will likely stretch over much longer periods. A smart city strategy typically has bold and ambitious goals. It requires a lot of individual projects, many of which are interdependent and require new, complex software, hardware, and process requirements. You can easily fall into the short-term trap, where the team is looking just a few years into the future. Like everyone, they’re impatient to realize successful outcomes. A more pragmatic approach to the smart city work is to see it on the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. As Steven Covey, educator and author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, has famously said, “Begin with the end in mind.” A smart city strategy requires a long-term mindset, but with a focus on delivering value along the way. Too much short-term thinking may result in these errors: Incorrectly setting expectations for the organization and community Underspecifying the overall smart city architecture Poorly communicating the long-term budgeting requirements Sprinting at the start when everyone should be preparing for a marathon A smart city strategy is a long-term effort. Plan for it. Want to see some examples? Check out these smart cities.

Article / Updated 05-24-2023

The LGBTQ+ community has had an unfortunate history of persecution in Western society. For many decades, homosexuals were tolerated, as long as they didn't overtly show that they were gay. And, others who identify within this acronym today were, for the most part, "invisible" to mainstream society. The 1960s witnessed an increased drive to publicly assert sexual identity, and events at the end of the decade helped forge a full-fledged movement in the U.S. and other countries. Coming out As a result of the women's movement and the increasing overt nature of sexuality in society, as well as the high visibility of the civil rights and antiwar movements, gay men and women began to feel more comfortable about asserting who they were and demanding the right to be treated equally to other citizens. The 1960s began a time when women felt more comfortable exploring and enjoying their sexuality, which then fostered a freer atmosphere for others to explore individual sexuality as well. And when gay people saw this change happening, they began to believe that they, too, could advocate for their own rights. They were tired of being "in the closet," pretending to be heterosexual in order to keep their jobs, families, and friends. Americans began publicly discussing homosexuality after the 1948 publication of Alfred Kinsey's book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which said that approximately 10 percent of males have a homosexual experience in their lives. The most visible sign of gay activism during the 1950s and early 1960s was an increased willingness for gay men and women to come out of the closet and identify themselves as homosexuals, even to a straight society. They began to congregate in gay communities in large cities and in gay bars, which were long considered a hotbed of immorality. Gay people became less willing to be considered social outcasts, and by the late 1960s, the community began to demand equal treatment with heterosexuals. At that time, the main focus was on ending discrimination, repealing "sodomy" and other repressive laws, and changing the public view that homosexuality is a sin. In more recent years, the scope of LGBTQ+ activism expanded to include freedom from hate crimes, equal employment and housing opportunities, the right to serve openly in the military, and most recently, gay marriage. Rioting at the Stonewall bar Before 1965, raids on gay bars were fairly routine. However, that year a politically involved gay activist — Dick Leitsch of the Mattachine society, a gay rights organization dedicated to improving homosexuals' lives and working for equality — challenged the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA), which had a policy of taking away the liquor license of any bar serving three or more homosexuals at one time. In 1966, after alerting the media, Leitsch held a "sip-in," intending to have a drink with two other gay men at a bar. When the bartender turned them away, they complained to the city's human rights commission. Embarrassed by press coverage of the event and its aftermath, the chairman of the SLA denied that the department prohibited selling liquor to homosexuals. The following year, the courts determined that the SLA couldn't revoke a liquor license without evidence of violations (which didn't include serving gay people). However, on June 27, 1969, police thought they had a good reason to raid the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village in New York City. The police asserted that the bar didn't have a valid liquor license, had ties with organized crime, offered scantily clad boys as entertainers, and brought an unruly element to Sheridan Square. So that night, after 1 a.m., police raided the bar. Although many patrons escaped arrest, the cops nailed anyone without an ID or anyone who was cross-dressed. The patrons were incensed, and the riot was on. Competing accounts of the chaotic event make it difficult to determine whether the riot was started by a drag queen clubbed by a policeman or a lesbian crowded into a squad car, but whatever the cause, the anger was contagious, and the crowd moved to overtake the police. The police tried to retreat into the bar, but when they grabbed and beat an innocent bystander, the violence escalated. Some rioters set the bar on fire, and others ripped parking meters from the sidewalk to use as weapons. Soon, not only were the patrons of the Stonewall lashing out — the entire neighborhood got involved in the melee. Even a tactical force sent in to quell the riot was unable to control the angry mob, who protested throughout the night. The crowd returned for the next few nights. Although the violence lessened as the nights wore on, the protesters, chanting "gay power!" were no less outraged at the way police had treated gay people for years. After the Stonewall riots were over, the gay community decided to turn their anger to positive change. By the end of July, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was formed in New York. The Stonewall Riots mobilized the gay community — homosexuals, who were no longer content to hide at the margins of American society, started newspapers, formed community organizations, and became politically active. By 1970, the GLF had chapters across the country. In June, it held a march to commemorate the Stonewall riots. Between 5,000 and 10,000 men and women marched from Greenwich Village to Central Park, which inaugurated the tradition of the gay pride celebration. Today, in many American cities, gay pride parades are normally held on the last weekend in June to honor the Stonewall riots and celebrate LGBTQ+ identities and pride. Much progress has been made for the rights of LGBTQ+ people since the 1960s. But, unfortunately, hate crimes, discrimination — including harmful legislation — continue to be realities for many in this population, even all these decades later.

Article / Updated 12-23-2022

Political science is the study of power. The discipline is enamored with the concept of power, namely how A gets B to do what A wants. Therefore, political science studies who holds power and how it’s being used. Political power is the ability to get others to do what you want. It can take force or peaceful means, such as persuasion, to achieve this. Political power is exercised over people in many ways. In the U.S., for example, the federal government exercises political power over its population by forcing its citizens to pay taxes. Who would volunteer to pay taxes once a year unless the federal government had the power to force someone to pay up! Most importantly, this use of power of the U.S. government is considered rightful by its population. Therefore, the federal government possesses the legitimate use of power over its population. Exercise of political power In the U.S. and other federal societies, such as Germany, states, or regions also exercise political power over their population. In the U.S., the states set speed limits on their roads, and in Germany, states have the power to set tax rates. Finally, specific people, such as teachers, can also exercise political power. Whenever teachers assign homework, they’re exercising political power over students. Students consider teachers to have authority and their use of power legitimate and therefore will do something, such as homework, they wouldn’t normally do for fun. Authority refers to a general agreement that a person has the right to make certain decisions and that these decisions should be complied with. Different thoughts on political power Both ancient and modern political scientists were concerned with how power is used in societies. The famous Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed that political power should be held by the best educated in society and should be used for the good of society. Niccolo Machiavelli disagreed in his seminal work The Prince. He argues that power is needed to maintain the security of the state both at home and internationally. His work focuses on how to acquire power and then use it for the good of the state. Fellow political philosopher Thomas Hobbes not only agrees but also claims that political power shouldn’t be used for ethical governance but to prevent conflict both domestically and internationally. The more modern theorists such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argue differently. They believe that the people should exercise political power in a nation-state and need to be able to hold their leader accountable. For Locke, whose work became the foundation for the American political system, a contract exists between leaders and citizens on how to exercise political power. If leaders violate the contract, the people can remove them from their positions. More recent thinkers such as John Rawls have added the components of social justice and economic equality to their theories. Views on who holds the political power One of the ongoing questions in political science is how can the researcher determine who holds power in a society. Over time, six different explanations were developed. Bureaucratic theory Bureaucratic theory assumes that bureaucracies in countries hold power and make the most important decisions for society. It’s therefore not politicians nor other leaders but top-level bureaucrats who run a country. They work for the good of the country, not to amass wealth, and their policies are based on what’s best for a country. When studying France or Japan, two countries with powerful bureaucracies, bureaucratic theory can be used to study political power. Pluralism Pluralism, as developed by James Madison in Federalist Paper Number 10, believes interest groups will be created as societies become more economically and socially complex. People will join together to push for their own interests and for government benefits. These interests can be economic, professional, ideological, environmental, or even religious. All these diverse groups will now compete for public benefits, ensuring that public policy will benefit not only a few people but a majority in the country. Political power is therefore held by interest groups, representing the people. As soon as one group of citizens feel disadvantaged, they’ll begin to organize and compete for benefits. Suddenly, many interest groups are competing for political benefits and hopefully balancing each other out overall. Pluralism assumes that everybody will get a little bit from policymakers, but nobody will get everything he asks for. This balance makes every interest group accept lawmakers’ policy decisions without complaining or, more importantly, without taking action against policymakers. Corporatism Corporatism also deals with interest groups. However, there are not tens of thousands as in the U.S. but a lot less. There may be only three. These groups are large and powerful and directly deal with the government when it comes to policy making. Therefore, a few but very powerful interest groups hold power in a society . The political scientist needs to study these to find out who holds power in a society. Examples of corporatist countries include Germany, Austria, and most of Scandinavia. Elite theory Elite theory, as created by the great Italian social scientists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, states that every society has an elite that holds political power. That elite differs from society to society. In some societies, it’s blood based, meaning you have to be born into it. A monarch with a ruling aristocracy comes to mind. In other places, wealth puts you into the elite. The more money you have, the more influential you’ll be. This is often the case in capitalist countries like the U.S. or Great Britain. Another determinant of power is religion; Iran is governed by a religious elite. Membership in organizations such as an elite political party, for example, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or the military can put someone in the elite. A military dictatorship such as found in Chile from 1973 until 1990 under General Pinochet is an example. In a nutshell, elite theory states that in every society an elite holds political power. Marxism A Marxist believes that whoever holds economic power also hold political power. In other words, control of the economy equals control of government. In a capitalist society, the economy is controlled by the upper and middle classes, and therefore they control government. In a feudal society, the king and his aristocracy control the economy and therefore government. Sources of political power Two models explain where political power comes from. First is the percolation-up model. It assumes that power rests with the citizens of a country. The citizens in turn elect leaders and give them political power to run the country on their behalf. If the citizens are satisfied with their leaders, they can reelect them. On the other hand, if they’re dissatisfied, they can replace them. An example is a representative democracy. The second model assumes the exact opposite. It’s called a drip-down model. Here, ultimate power doesn’t rest with the citizens but with the leadership of a country. For example, in authoritarian and totalitarian systems, the leader has ultimate power and makes policy for the country. The citizens have no input and can’t hold the leadership accountable. Historically, this type of power model was the most widespread of the two. Examples include the monarchies of the past, totalitarian systems such as the Soviet Union, and more modern dictatorships such as Belarus or Iran.

Article / Updated 10-18-2022

There may actually be no such thing as a smart city. Wait — what? That’s certainly an odd comment coming from an article about smart cities. Okay, let’s explain. There’s no such thing as a completed smart city. It would be difficult to find an example where all the work has been finished and the designers and implementers have, after completing their tasks, washed their hands and said, “We’re done. Voilà! Here’s your smart city.” Nope. Doesn’t exist. After all, is a city ever completed? With a few rare exceptions, cities are in a constant state of change. Whether they’re being updated and improved or expanding upward, downward, and outward (or all of these); our cities are living, evolving entities. Cities are a work in progress. They are shaped by (among many factors) community needs, by societal trends, by crisis, and by better ideas. They shrink and expand, they decline and are reborn, and they are destroyed and rebuilt. They are never finished. And so it’s a logical return to the idea that there’s no such thing as a smart city. Instead, there are compelling and urgent needs, and a necessary response to demands, for cities that function with greater “smartness” to be smarter in all areas and in every way. A smart city isn’t a city that has merely achieved some level of satisfactory smartness. A smart city is one that identifies with the need to be smarter and then bakes that knowledge into its functioning, action-oriented DNA. It doesn’t continue to use obsolete 20th century solutions. A smart city implements 21st century solutions for 21st century problems. If there’s one aspect of smart cities that can be chastised for continuing to cause confusion and excessive debate, it’s the absence of agreement on the definition of the term smart city. Here you get a brief breakdown of what constitutes a smart city and what does not. What a smart city is As Sicinius, the bearded protector of the Roman people’s interests, states in Shakespeare’s play Coriolanus, “What is the city but the people?” Indeed, what is the city but the people? This is the right place to start when discussing the future of cities. After all, cities are defined by the human experience. They exist in support of people, are the invention of people, and deeply reflect a people's culture. In Bangkok and Tokyo, the city landscapes are replete with temples, like Budapest is with hot baths, Amsterdam is with coffee shops, and Vegas is with casinos. The feel, the look, the behavior, the heartbeat of the city — these are all a reflection of people. Cities communicate the history and life of those who live there. (Some like to say that architecture is the language of the city, which is a fitting way to look at things.) Across the planet, cities have emerged for different reasons, and their design has been shaped by various influences. There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to cities. Though they share some common needs, such as energy, transportation, communications, and sanitation, they have as many differences as similarities. Sure, a city can be defined and categorized by such characteristics as its geography, governance, population, and infrastructure, but its purpose, needs, and culture cannot be so easily abstracted and normalized such that you can generalize about their nature. The uniqueness of each city must be viewed through this lens. Many cities suffer the same challenges. Finding a parking space, for example, is a universal pain. But the way problems are solved is often specific to each community. For every challenge that is similar, others are often unique. It’s this backdrop that is essential for an understanding of how to think about smart cities. To be able to confidently say that Barcelona and Dublin are smart cities (or are becoming smarter) means that there would need to be a globally agreed-on definition and an agreed-on set of extensive standards and measurements. These don’t exist, and they may never exist. Okay, to be fair, there are a small number of proposed and voluntary standards for smart cities. Two strong examples are: International Organization for Standardization (ISO), sustainable cities and communities; indicators for smart cities British Standards Institute, smart city standards The term smart city is much less important than the purpose of the work and the outcomes. In fact, to clear up confusion, many other terms are used that are all simply synonyms. They include connected city, hyperconnected city, intelligent city, digital city, smart community, and others. Smart city (or smart cities) is the term that has stuck. A smart city is defined by its people, not by some outside arbiter. If Helsinki believes that it’s creating a better quality of life for its people in its innovative use of technology, it has the right to call itself a smart city. John Harlow, a smart city research specialist at the Emerson College Engagement Lab, states that “smartness in cities comes from people understanding what's important to them and what problems they are experiencing.” The most basic definition of a smart city is one that responds to its citizens' needs in new and improved ways. You’ll learn more regarding this definition shortly, but first, some additional contextual basics. The future of humanity is firmly rooted in cities. For better or worse, as rural communities rapidly decline, immigration to cities is booming. By the end of the 21st century, all things being equal, most humans will live in urban settings. This remarkable shift will define the future more than just about anything else humans do (other than perhaps populating other planets). Despite our many misgivings, on balance, cities are largely a success story. More than anything else, they have lifted billions of people out of poverty, providing jobs, shelter, accessible healthcare, and other support systems and regulations to assist in life’s needs. Edward Glaeser, the American economist and author of Triumph of the City, makes a compelling case that cities are humanity’s greatest invention. But it’s been a tough, ugly journey. The world’s early cities weren’t pleasant places for most people, and suffering was common. Fortunately, cities are now in much better shape, and an urban migrant should find options and opportunities to at least have the choice of a better life. However, though conditions in general are better than they’ve ever been, the challenges presented by cities today are more complex in many ways and are vastly more difficult and expensive to solve. Here’s a list of just a few of the smart city challenges awaiting solutions: Overburdened and inefficient social support systems Transportation congestion and poor public-transport options Inequality Poverty Crime Homelessness Environmental damage Poor air quality Aging and broken infrastructure Lack of jobs Weak civic engagement Food insecurity Inclusiveness This list is only a small reflection of the massive number of unique challenges that cities on every continent have to address. But it should be suggestive to you of the type of work that lies ahead. An obvious question right now is this: Why haven’t humans solved these types of problems? Some of the answer lies in leadership priorities and insufficient budgets as well as in the scale and complexity of the problems involved. Clearly, if these problems were cheaply and easily solved, they’d have been addressed by now. They are neither. However, the history of innovation is a reminder that humans have the capacity to solve big, intractable issues. Improved sanitation changed the trajectory of healthcare, for example, and fertilizer made food abundant. Might innovation also help with the current challenges of the world’s cities? Many would argue yes, and technology powered innovation might offer some of the best opportunities. This kind of thinking may draw you closer to a definition of what a smart city is. The Smart Cities Council, a network of companies advised by universities, laboratories, and standards bodies, maintains that smart cities embody three core values: livability, workability, and sustainability. Specifically, the council states that using technology to achieve improvements in these three areas is the definition of what a smart city needs to be. So, considering everything you’ve learned so far, including researching the literature on the topic, what might a definition look like? Here’s a proposal: A smart city is an approach to urbanization that uses innovative technologies to enhance community services and economic opportunities, improves city infrastructure, reduces costs and resource consumption, and increases civic engagement. Fair? Many smart city definitions include references to specific technologies — often this is a mistake. The definition should be about outcomes, and it should outlive technologies that come and go. There will always be better tools in the future. Limiting a definition to tools that exist now will make any definition quickly outdated. Finally, don’t lose sight of these two important qualities that are essential for smart cities: Technology use: There are many ways to address city issues, but when technologies are used as the primary tools, this helps to make the city smarter. A smart city is a system of systems that optimizes for humans. People first: Don’t become too enamored by the use of technology. When deployed correctly, technology is largely invisible, or at least non-intrusive. What matters are the outcomes for people. A smart city is ultimately a human-centric endeavor. After all, what is the city but the people? What a smart city is not Establishing the definition of a smart city is vital because it helps you comprehend the scope of the topic. But recognizing what a smart city is not also has value. Here are five things that a smart city is not: An upgrade from a dumb city: There are many smart cities events each year, and inevitably a speaker or panelist makes a joke about cities being dumb before they were smart. The joke usually draws a chuckle. Fair enough — the notion of “smart” isn’t precise enough for what it is, but it’s the title that has stuck. All cities are complex, amazing feats of human creativity. They aren’t dumb and have never been — quite the opposite. Becoming a smart city is more about becoming smarter in the use of technology to make what the city does better and to provide solutions to problems that traditionally have been difficult to solve. One last, related point on this topic. One point of view is that a smart city can exist only with smart people. This perspective is far from fair or inclusive. Communities are made up of all types of people, and everyone, if they choose, has something to contribute. When building smart cities, ensure that all your efforts and experiences embrace the majesty of all people. You should, in fact, add this as a goal in your strategy. A surveillance city: Implementing a smart city should not mean the end of privacy for its residents, businesses, and visitors. It’s true that smart cities deploy sensors in support of their efforts — possibly for monitoring air and water quality, improved traffic management, noise detection, energy management, and much more. It’s important to acknowledge privacy concerns where they arise, and city leaders need to listen carefully and respond with assurances. However, you should recognize that these efforts are made to improve services, not to impinge on privacy or create a surveillance city where everyone is being monitored. In developing and executing on a smart city strategy, stakeholders must ensure that privacy is upheld, data is anonymized, and the community is engaged in the process to provide transparency and build confidence. Deploying smart city technology that includes sensors should be specifically and carefully regulated by rules — even legislation — in order to protect the community. Make that a priority. A strategy about gadgets and apps: Yes, technology is definitely at the center of developing a smart city, but if you look at many of the vendors in this emerging space, you can easily believe that the subject is really all about cool new toys and apps. Sure, plenty of those are available. However, transforming a city, solving complex challenges, and creating a higher quality of life for the greatest number of people are goals that require comprehensive changes in processes, rules, technologies, and the talent and skills to plan and implement it. Don’t be distracted by novel, piecemeal solutions. Sure, consider those factors in the mix, but recognize that creating a smart city is an undertaking that requires a significant focus on technology strategy, extensive solutions architecture, and systems integration. Remind yourself (and others) often that smart cities are about people, not technology. A temporary technology trend: You might believe that the smart city movement is a recent development, perhaps just two or three years old. In reality, applying technology to make cities operate better has been under way for several decades. It isn’t possible to determine the first-ever use of the term smart city, but it certainly has references at least to the early 1990s. Even with a reasonably long history already, the real action of smart cities is happening now, and the most significant results will be seen in the years ahead. More than some sort of temporary trend, for cities to function well and bring a high quality of life to as many people as necessary, the smart city movement will last for multiple decades. Though the smart city concept may change over time, the goal doesn’t really have an expiration date. For many skeptical city leaders, it’s time to shrug off the belief that it’s a passing fad and get on board to embrace the benefits of urban innovation. A concept that matters only to big cities: If you review the literature on smart cities, it certainly would appear that only big cities can be smart cities. The same names pop up all the time: London, Paris, Moscow, Melbourne, Dublin, Vienna, Barcelona, San Francisco, and others. Sure, these incredible cities have impressive smart city initiatives, but any city can pursue the goal of becoming smarter. After all, most cities in the world today are small. The big ones are the outliers. Interested in learning more? Check out our Smart Cities Cheat Sheet.

Article / Updated 07-28-2022

So you, your colleagues, and members of the community have decided that increasing the quality of life and solving complex challenges by using technology — coupled with data, new processes, and a progressive disposition toward innovation — is the right path for your city. You want to take a smart city approach going forward. Well done! No, seriously. The decision to act on something, to take a particular path relative to the action itself, can be the hardest part. It’s always possible to become entrenched in debate, to fail to find common ground, or to reach an impasse. But once some form of agreement is reached, even if just marginally directional, you should celebrate. Anyone who has worked on a project of some significance knows the difference between the big decisions and the many small decisions that happen. Without those big decisions, the project team might struggle. But it’s a great relief when direction is given. The project team can then move ahead with their work. One of the most important big decisions that has to be made at the beginning of a smart city effort is the establishment of a vision or vision statement. This vision is a top-level guide for almost all decisions to come. Singularity University has a term for efforts with a bold vision that motivates meaningful change. It’s called massive transformative purpose (MTP). An MTP is aspirational and focused on creating a different future. Realizing an MTP requires a mindset and work environment that leans into complex problems and strives to think big. MTP needs talented and dedicated teams working smartly with a huge amount of motivation. They have successes and sometimes failures. Creating a smart city may not be the equivalent of finding cures for all types of cancer, but the outcomes of smart city efforts are significant and can impact a lot of people. Consider your vision exercise as your MTP. The smart city movement remains largely in its infancy. The vast majority of cities in the world have yet to embark on this journey (assuming that it’s the right direction for many of them). They are starting from zero. As with any initiative, it’s easy to jump directly into the tactics after receiving direction to pursue smart city goals. But that would be a mistake. The first step on any smart city journey needs to be the establishment of an agreed-on vision. That vision guides strategy, and strategy directs the work. Identifying the role of leadership for your smart city Leadership and management are terms that are often used interchangeably. That’s a mistake. Although there are some underlying similarities, they are different. Each requires and utilizes a specific approach and mindset. Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right things. It’s an essential distinction attributed to the management guru Peter Drucker. It’s one of the reasons that management can be learned, but leadership has qualities that some fortunate people possess from birth and can’t be easily acquired by training — such as charisma. Sure, many aspects of leadership can be learned, but it’s obvious that remarkable leaders don’t necessarily acquire their skills from books. It’s a little frustrating for those trying to be great leaders when they realize that they can learn and practice most skills but will always have a deficit relative to those unique leadership qualities that require something special. That said, the body of knowledge today on leadership is enough to help most leaders acquire the essential skills. Any given leadership team will have some with learned skills and some with natural abilities. That’s the case on city leadership teams, too. Smart city work suffers without great leadership. After all, research from across all industries suggests that projects generally succeed or fail depending on the availability of consistent high -quality leadership support. Who are these city leadership teams, and what might their responsibilities be relative to smart city work? To answer these questions, city leadership has been divided into these four basic parts: Elected leaders: Assuming some form of democratic process, these leaders, which can include the popular role of mayor, are chosen by the city’s constituents via voting and serve for a predetermined period. This is by far the most common process. In some jurisdictions around the world, city leaders are appointed by other bodies. In either case, these leaders typically have the primary function of setting policy, approving budgets, and passing legislation. They may originate an issue to debate, or an issue may be brought to them by any number of stakeholders, from community members to city staff. For example, if city staff proposes the smart city effort, elected officials are responsible for suggesting modifications, requesting more information, and approving or declining the request. Elected leaders absolutely must sign off on the smart city effort — particularly the vision, goals, and, ultimately, budget. A healthy public debate by elected leaders on the merits of the smart city work is valuable, as is eliciting public comment. Appointed leaders: Running a city on a day-to-day basis requires a set of hired leaders. The city inevitably has some form of overall leader — the public agency equivalent of a chief executive officer (CEO), such as a city manager or city administrator. This leader has assistants, deputies, and an executive team that manages the various areas of the city. These areas may include transportation, public works, planning, energy, libraries, healthcare, technology, and many more. Big cities have a large number of managed areas. The city leader and the team have the primary responsibility to implement and maintain policies. They make daily decisions and ensure that the city is operational and responsive to community needs. These leaders also propose initiatives to elected officials. A smart city effort may originate this way. It’s also possible, for example, that a strong mayor will ask for staff to develop a smart city plan and propose it to the elected leaders for approval. Appointed leaders are accountable to elected leaders and, by extension, to the community. Leadership support and oversight: In this category, a small leadership team is tasked with originating a draft policy, recommendations, or other decision-making instruments on behalf of either the elected or appointed leaders. These teams, which have a guiding function, aren’t decision-making bodies. However, they are essential contributors toward city leadership. These teams can be permanent or temporary, depending on their function. For example, the elected leaders may opt to create a committee to oversee and make recommendations and provide reporting oversight on the efforts of a smart city initiative. The team may exist only as long as the smart city initiative continues. Alternatively, a city may have a permanent transportation committee whose role is to make recommendations on matters related to transportation. Because this area is often included in smart city work, it may be the body that’s approached for leadership input. These teams are typically made up of suitably qualified members of the community. Regulatory leadership: This category is a broad one, in order to capture a range of other leaders who may have input in a city’s decision-making process. The most obvious groups include those who make regulations at a regional or national level. For example, a national set of rules on how drones can be deployed in cities may be made by a leadership group outside of a particular city, but that city would be required to adhere to the rules. This can make sense so that all cities in a region or country follow the same set of rules. People often debate how much power a city should have over its operations relative to the power of those at the regional or national level. Cities clearly want as much autonomy as possible, but the benefits of standards at a national and even global level have important merit as well. An example of an area where a city can benefit from national decision-making in the smart city domain is telecommunications. A national commitment to supporting infrastructure standards, and also financial assistance, benefits everyone. An example of global leadership is managing the climate crisis. Even though cities and nations have to sign on, the leadership and guidance may come from a global entity. Creating a vision for your smart city Your city has decided to embark on a smart city journey. Great! Now it’s time to create a vision or vision statement. What is a vision, and how is it created? Here, you’ll see vision and vision statement used interchangeably. There’s little difference between them, other than the number of words. A vision generally takes a few paragraphs to describe. A vision statement is typically only a few words long. The intent is identical. A vision is a statement of what you desire the future to be. It’s not tactics or operations. It’s not projects or deliverables. It’s simply a statement that guides the development of a strategic plan — called the envisioning process — and the decisions made throughout the journey. To help you better understand the role of a vision in the strategic plan, let’s take a quick look at strategic planning: Strategic planning is the systematic process of envisioning a desired future and translating this vision into broadly defined goals or objectives and a sequence of steps to achieve them. Put another way, the strategic plan is the translation of a strategic vision into outcomes. A vision written correctly and agreed on by relevant stakeholders holds the initiative accountable and provides essential guidance in times of uncertainty. Though it’s easy to overlook or omit this step, its value can’t be overstated. Do it. You’ll be happy you did. A vision isn’t the same as a mission. An organization's mission is what it does and how it does it, and it includes its shorter-term objectives. Your vision is none of those things. It’s long-term and future-oriented, and it describes a big-picture future state. It has clarity and passion. Here are ten tips for creating an outstanding vision statement: Think long-term. Brainstorm what a big future outcome would look like. Choose the one that gains consensus. Use simple words. Don’t use jargon. Make the statement inspiring. Ensure that the entire vision statement is easy to understand. Eliminate ambiguity. Anyone should be able to have a common understanding of what's actually involved. Consider making the statement time-bound. For example, use language such as “By 2030 . . .” Allude to organizational values and culture. Make the statement sufficiently challenging that it conveys a sense of ambition and boldness Involve many stakeholders. Here are some brief vision statement examples: Ben & Jerry's: "Making the best ice cream in the nicest possible way." Habitat for Humanity: "A world where everyone has a decent place to live." Caterpillar: "Our vision is a world in which all people's basic needs — such as shelter, clean water, sanitation, food and reliable power — are fulfilled in an environmentally sustainable way, and a company that improves the quality of the environment and the communities where we live and work." Hilton Hotels & Resorts: "To fill the earth with the light and warmth of hospitality." Samsung: "Inspire the world, create the future." Smart Dubai: “To be the happiest city on earth.” Though vision statements are typically short, no rule prohibits a more elaborate vision. As an example, here are the goals of the San Jose, California, smart city vision: Safe city: Leverage technology to make San José the safest big city in America. Inclusive city: Ensure that all residents, businesses, and organizations can participate in and benefit from the prosperity and culture of innovation in Silicon Valley. User-friendly city: Create digital platforms to improve transparency, empower residents to actively engage in the governance of their city, and make the city more responsive to the complex and growing demands of the community. Sustainable city: Use technology to address energy, water, and climate challenges to enable sustainable growth. Demonstration city: Reimagine the city as a laboratory and platform for the most impactful, transformative technologies that will shape how people live and work in the future. Not convinced a smart city is needed? Check out the case for smart cities.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 03-01-2022

Urban plans help shape the future of a community by addressing everything from housing and transportation to natural resources, public utilities, and more. You don’t have to be a professional urban planner to get involved in planning your community’s future. Whether you participate in the planning process, serve as a local planning commissioner, or help carry out your community’s plan, you can play an important part.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 02-24-2022

From early Greek political philosophy to current international conflicts, political science is a study in how people come together, interact, become informed, and make decisions that affect everyone. Studying political science allows you to become educated on political issues, make decisions, and discover how politics is made at the local, national, and international level. Take a look at the list of important political scientists and their major works to guide you through the evolution of political science. Also, read through major political science concepts to give you a well-rounded view of political science as a vital discipline.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 03-14-2021

Human destiny is tied to cities. If we humans are going to have a happy and prosperous future, we need new ideas, skilled talent, and informed leaders to build the cities of tomorrow. Everyone deserves a good quality of life. Smart cities can help make that happen. Find out how.