Like the principles of good urbanism, the principles of good government and good data management transcend cities, countries, continents. I know these things to be true, but couldn’t help but question whether I was right to think that I could jump into a workshop in Delhi with four Indian cities working to advance their smart cities program implementations.
In February, I did just that, hoping that I’d offer at least a fraction of what I knew I’d gain in simply having the opportunity to spend four days in India with leading urbanists from Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex (IDS) and India’s National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA). The fact that I questioned my instincts was good. Context matters. In an age where I can pop into most cities and know I’ll find a Lyft or Uber at the ready, a CVS around the corner, and a feeling of retail homogeneity, diving beyond that sameness is what I love about cities. Popping into Delhi is not like landing in Denver or Detroit or Dallas. It’s more like that than it was a decade ago, but it doesn’t take more than a few minutes outside the airport to recognize what a completely different type of city Delhi is than those where I regularly hang out.
Both times I’ve been to India, I’ve chosen a solo adventure around Old Delhi as my first activity. Beyond the incredible rush I get from the chaos of the sights, sounds, and smells, the experience was quite jarring, and I was left wondering if those principles of urbanism and governance holds true in a place where one needs to relearn simple activities, such as how to cross a street. It turned out that as different as parts of the culture appear on the surface, sitting in a workshop with local government leaders was remarkably similar to those I’m used to in the States. Data management, procurement, and culture change issues do transcend borders, so I thought I’d share a few reflections on a humbling, educational, and inspiring experience, beginning with the street (but more from conversations with leaders from IDS, NIUA, and the municipalities of Cochi, Bhopal, Jabalpur, Delhi, and Ahmedabad).
1. Smart city technology can improve India’s shared streets
India’s shared streets are beautiful and messy and, if not managed well, can have disastrous consequences. While I might find some exhilaration in the rush associated with successfully making it across a street, it’s a dangerous public health and equity issue. Vision Zero may seem like a long way off, but you have to start somewhere, and we’ve seen the impact that this audacious goal setting has had on bringing visibility to the issue. There exists a huge opportunity to use smart city technology to better enforce rules and regulations, which when combined with the opportunity to impact air quality, makes this a no brainer to me.
2. We need to share more ideas with each other
Smart cities in India aren’t just importing ideas from the “Global North”, but should be exporting those as well. If those of us in places like the States don’t watch what they’re doing and develop an authentic exchange of ideas, we will be at a loss. India, through its Smart Cities Mission, has more of a national focus on smart cities than many northern countries can claim. Interestingly (and importantly), the Smart Cities Mission leads with an articulate human-centered, problem-focused message, which sets the tone for the development and implementation of solutions positioned to improve quality of life for hundreds of millions of people (unfortunately this tone doesn’t seem to translate through to the metrics and approaches used by most of the cities we worked with, but it’s a start).
3. Language and messaging is essential in shaping smart cities
I strongly dislike the term “Command and Control Centre” (or Triple Cs, as they’re referred to in India) at the heart of the smart city movement. They have the potential to have a massive impact on how cities are operated in India, but I think the notion of controlling a city is wholly undemocratic. The technical talent building and operating the CCCs in India are top notch people we’d be grateful to have in local government in most American cities. The human-centered, problem-solving message from the Smart Cities Mission, however, seemed to get lost in translation to the city leaders who are tasked with implementing these data and analytics centers. Given the increasingly complex landscape of players in making urban impact and contributing to solutions, it’s even less likely that these systems can be controlled. Rather, they should focus on using data to better demonstrate impact and ultimately meet critical quality of life indicators.
4. Procurement is a pain
Everywhere. Many interactions in India are laced with subtlety, so I was somewhat surprised by the direct — and clearly adversarial — language used to describe most city-vendor relationships. The focus on vendor punishment was kind of shocking, until I realized that it’s exactly how most PPP relationships and contracts have been set up in American cities. Indian cities have private entities performing far more services than most American cities and they struggle with many of the same issues. Procurement doesn’t have to be so difficult. There are examples of contracts that ensure that public and private interests are aligned in meeting the same outcome. We visited the command center for Delhi Transit, and so much of the conversation focused on being able to punish operators for deviating from a route, bunching or fare fixing. Sticks are necessary, but there are enough opportunities to develop much larger carrots that make it beneficial for both parties to find success. I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t an opportunity to reframe these conversations; perhaps rewarding operators for switching to electric buses or for not hitting or injuring anybody (it’s sad that I say this so flippantly, but the number of accidents is shocking). Cities need to stop looking at vendors and contractors as adversaries and find ways to engage them as true partners in solving our most pressing challenges.
5. Defining values and metrics isn’t easy
What’s missing — in most cities in the U.S., in India and probably across the globe — is the conversation about which metrics matter, which requires a clear articulation of values. Only then can we begin to reorient existing systems to better deliver on those metrics. India’s data programs and CCCs are incredibly robust, but it’s time for them to evolve to the next step by ensuring that they’re impacting important quality of life metrics in cities. If decision-making was oriented to prioritize public health issues like traffic safety and air quality, I’m guessing the experience of crossing a street in Delhi might be quite different than it is today. If the high level values of the Smart Cities Mission can be translated into contextually relevant metrics for India’s municipalities so as to unify departmental missions (and, accordingly, performance measures and incentives) towards common goals, it’s possible to unlock all sorts of partnerships and creative solutions. India is nailing the management and analysis of data, but it has a real opportunity to re-orient its data and CCC programs towards ensuring action on key outcome measures.
6. Culture change is king
Cities are made up of and exist for people. They are our greatest achievement. Building smarter cities is about changing culture — both inside and outside government. This is no different in Philadelphia or Brooklyn or an Indian city. That a human-centered message is being delivered from the Smart Cities Mission to the cities and public at-large is fantastic, but that’s the easy part. Changing the culture to deliver on these quality of life challenges is just as difficult in India as in the U.S. I’ll write more about my insights related to this in a future blog post, as I think it’s one of the most often overlooked elements in sustaining change, whether technological or not.
If there’s anything to be raised from this post and this experience, I hope it’s that there’s a reason to be talking to, sharing with, and learning from each other in more intentional ways than we are now. I firmly believe that the success and health of our planet depends on the success of our cities, and creating a connected global practice of smart cities could ensure we better share what works, what doesn’t, where, and why.
