From Smart Cities and Smart Citizens

to Smart Societies — the story so far…

Gavin Beckett
Oct 31, 2017
Over the past few years, in my role leading digital transformation and enterprise architecture for
Bristol City Council, I worked to bring the smart city innovations run by our Bristol Futures team, into
the mainstream of council operations. During this time I’ve been privileged to meet a lot of passionate
and talented people, working to make Bristol a better place, and have learned a lot about the
competing agendas and perspectives on what a smart city should be — indeed, whether we should even
use the term smart city is contested.

As I’ve read through a wide range of writing on the subject, I’ve seen two major contrasting positions
articulated in most of them. One is the technocratic, often technology vendor led, viewpoint on how
smart cities can be built and managed to be more efficient and cleaner, producing happier residents.
The other is the humanist, citizen centred and politically critical perspective of the urbanists who want
to see the purposes of citizens as the primary driver for any use of data and technology in cities. These
two perspectives are set up as oppositional and incompatible, and in most of the best recent articles the
citizen centric viewpoint is the clearly preferred and morally approved approach.

I think there is a third, hidden, perspective — that of the often unheard public servant, trying to do a
better job for the people they serve, navigating between the lure of technological silver bullets and the
critique that they are no better than big brother. Through this series of blog posts I’ll attempt to
articulate this perspective, based on my experiences within Bristol City Council as we delivered
our Smart Operations Centre project, and connected it to our City Innovation team’s projects.

The Smart City technology vendor perspective

As they are major global suppliers, smart city solutions from IBM, Cisco, NEC, Microsoft and others
are marketed to city governments — the only economic actors with the scale and remit to invest in
whole city projects. As a result the language used frames the problems to be solved in a particular way.
Although the citizen and service user appears in the narrative, it’s usually as the recipient of a
service, which smart city technologies can make more efficient, leading to more effective use of
limited budgets, and better insight on whether outcomes are achieved by using data differently. Whilst
the technologies are indeed light years ahead of the traditional city government infrastructure, most
suppliers have been marketing and selling to people who are still operating inside the “local
government as service provider” business model. As I will argue in a later post, this mould has to be
broken — we need to move to the “local government as a platform” model, enabling a
“Participatory City” approach that transforms the relationship between citizen and state.

Progress comes through confronting issues and through dialogue — a number of suppliers and local
authorities are talking and listening to the challenges coming from the urbanist, smart citizen
perspective and changing their relationship.
Smart Connected Cities: People Centric Design

The urbanist, smart citizen perspective

There are many voices in the chorus of critique against this supplier driven approach to smart cities.
I’ve found two in particular to be clear and compelling articulations of the issues. Adam
Greenfield provides a powerful critique in his articles for the Guardian, highlighting the political
nature of technocratic interventions, the contested nature of what communities want, and the flaws in
much smart city thinking. He points out that
“The true enablers of participation turn out to be nothing more exciting than cheap commodity
devices, reliable access to sufficiently high- bandwidth connectivity, and generic cloud services.”
(The smartest cities rely on citizen cunning and unglamourous technology)

In a similar vein, Mara Balestrini (and colleagues in Ideas for Change and Making Sense.EU) paints a
rich picture of people as active agents, not passive victims/consumers, who will appropriate technology
and ideas for themselves, whether we like it or not. Her work has strong resonance with the GDS
mantra “what is the user need?” — focusing on bottom-up projects that start by drawing out what
issues communities care about and then support them to find ways of using data and sensing
technology to address those issues.

This approach, focused on smart citizens rather than smart cities, shares a lot with Asset Based
Community Development, and other strengths based approaches. Rather than applying a “deficit
model” (what is wrong or missing), it focuses on what the community has in abundance. Investment in
the group work, facilitation, and community building needed to sustain projects, is more important
than the technology itself. In Bristol this approach is exemplified by Knowle West Media Centre, and
I’m going to highlight their work and several other examples of citizen led approaches across a number
of European cities in a later blog post in this series.

The public servant’s perspective

When I worked for Bristol, with colleagues planning smart city projects, we were very aware that we
stood on contested ground. We knew that there were very legitimate concerns arising from our access
to massive new sources of data generated by surveillance and control systems, which led to ethical
questions about ensuring privacy. We also knew that to be successful our projects had to meet the real
needs of people living in Bristol’s communities. We also had a responsibility to use the data from
internet connected sensors and the software systems that can aggregate data sources, enabling us to
respond to events and issues in a more efficient and effective way — ultimately helping us to save
money.

At the stark end of the spectrum, people monitoring CCTV in Operations Centres have to watch road
accidents as they happen, track people all the way down as they jump from buildings, and assist blue
light services when potentially terrorist related incidents occur. They use the sensors and software
systems which support a more sophisticated response to events in the city in an attempt to improve
public safety and wellbeing. Of course it is true that this is often merely treating the symptoms of deep
seated societal and individual problems, and I’m sure most people would recognise that investing in
supporting the strengths of communities, tackling isolation, mental health and social cohesion are all
better than waiting until it’s too late. But while that work is going on, and these problems keep
occurring, councils and their partners need more effective ways to handle them, nonetheless.

Equally, traffic management and effective responses to congestion, which relates to air quality along
major roads and junctions, are increasingly integrated into internet connected systems. The data
emerging from these systems in near real-time can be published to open data platforms and through
transport APIs for a wide range of people and businesses to use in understanding and addressing
opportunities to improve travel in cities. At the same time, of course council transport departments are
looking at all of the other ways they can change the nature of travel — including improving public
transport by incentivising people to use park and rides, switching to zero-emission vehicles,
encouraging “active travel” — walking and cycling — and encouraging changes in the nature of where
people work, for instance through investment in fibre broadband rollouts and supporting more remote
working.

People working in councils are by and large motivated by the sense of doing the best for their
community, and aren’t interested in smart city technologies for their own sake. If vendors can’t
articulate how their products solve real problems, they shouldn’t get bought. And public servants are
generally very sensitive to the ethical dilemmas of increasing surveillance and potential to control — so
they respond positively to the challenges and opportunities flagged by the urbanist critique. As a result,
there are a growing number of Smart City initiatives that are applying different approaches now,
beginning to set a new human-centred standard, that others would do well to follow.

I’m going to review some examples of these “Smart Citizen” approaches in my next blog post in this
series. And alongside that, I’m going to draw some parallels to the bigger picture of the “re-
negotiation” of the relationship between state and citizens, councils and residents, that has been driven
by the necessity of austerity economics, the shifts in political ideology that values a removal of
paternalism, and the continued agitation and expectation of engaged active citizens. Smart Citizens
inhabiting a Smart Society need local government to evolve away from being a service provider
towards “local government as a platform”.
What is a Smart Society?
Toward the transcendent model society of 2030

Michael Haupt Dec 19, 2017

The notion of a smart city is a well developed narrative. The smart city agenda has been described as
“the use of technology to shape a better world.” The smart city process involves the capture of big data
to make our urban systems more efficient. The promise is that by measuring more things, and by
measuring them more accurately, it is possible to optimise the performance of a city.

But what about a smart society?

Could the capturing of data at a societal level optimise the performance and wellbeing of the society?
As trust shifts from institutions to technology, could government be replaced by governance the same
way currency is being replaced by crypto? These are the questions that many in the blockchain space
are asking. Some are even building solutions to help us get there. A number of studies and papers exist
to define what a smart society could look like.

Charles Levy and David Wong in their 2014 Big Innovation paper describe smart society as:
“A smart society successfully harnesses the potential of digital
technology and connected devices and the use of digital networks to
improve people’s lives.”

However, that definition overlooks the human element of engaging and collaborating in
a society — beyond simply ‘improving people’s lives.’
“A smart society is an empowered society. Most research inevitably
focuses on technology. For some reasons, the human being is
excluded. I’m very keen not on the smart ‘thing’, but the ‘smart
me’.” — Professor Irene Ng, University of Warwick

So thinking about a smart society involves a discussion which goes far beyond technology.
“What is required is a paradigm shift, not just sensors and
technology.” — Will Hutton, Chair of the Big Innovation Centre
Data as Feedback
Feedback loops are an essential force in the buildup and sustainability of natural ecosystems:

Should a smart society not incorporate data as feedback loops within their system of governance to
help improve society?
“A smart society is one that generates and uses knowledge to be
more successful.” — Charles Leadbeater, author and opinion leader

The City of Eindhoven, Netherlands, has developed a Smart Society Charter, in which they say:
“The most important thing in a Smart Society is that people
experience the benefits of what the intensive co-evolution of digital
and analogue, virtual and physical, online and offline will
bring them.”

A 2017 paper by Bhaskar Chakravorti and Ravi Shankar Chaturvedi of The Fletcher School at Tufts
University defines a smart society as:
“A society where digital technology, thoughtfully deployed by
governments, can improve on three broad outcomes: the well-being
of citizens, the strength of the economy, and the effectiveness of
institutions.”

The EU’s Smart Society Project has developed A Social Charter for Smart Platforms, in which the
societal implications of each component of a Smart Platform is examined in
detail. Their three videos envision a society in which all of our daily chores and decisions are managed
by smart platforms that share data, without compromising privacy.

Taking all of the studies and papers on smart societies into account, it looks to me that being
smart requires large scale data exchange that is purposeful, that solves known problems and that
potentially joins up different aspects of life in a society (for example data generated by machines in the
Internet of Things and data generated by humans as their Quantified Self). Perhaps it’s accurate to say
that for a society to become smart, the players involved must have greater vision and that their vision
must extend beyond the capabilities of technology. A smart society should not only embrace
technology but should also decisively eradicate every single societal ill.

Perhaps we need a new definition of what it takes to be a smart society.

Smart Society (Newly) Defined

“A smart society is a set of systems that express a consensually
established set of values. Everything flows from those values. It is
one in which leaders and citizens make data-based decisions which
enable constantly improving outcomes in economic prosperity,
social well-being, environmental sustainability and good
governance. A smart society includes a reward or incentive system
that engenders socially desirable and environmentally regenerative
behaviours without compulsion or punishment.”

Values of a Smart Society

[These values are lightly edited excerpts from Jonathan Kolber’s book A Celebration Society.]

 Ethics Bind the Society. Every Smart Society — large or small — is guided by its own Charter. This is
the highest law of the land, never subject to override by any other law. The Charter is an
expression of ethics intended to bind Citizens into a cohesive society by virtue of being commonly
cherished.

 Charter is Supreme. All laws, cultural norms, regulations and other societal practices emanate
from the Charter. It can be changed by supermajority Citizen Initiative.

 Charter’s Supremacy is Enforced. Any law passed by the legislature or any action by the
Administration which contradicts the Charter is promptly declared null and void by the Supreme
Court. This is its highest duty.

 Freedom to Leave. Those who cannot or will not abide by the Charter and have not committed
serious violations are free to leave, taking their property without punitive measures. New societies
may be formed accordingly.

 Sustainable Population. In order to avoid overtaxing the infrastructure of a society, population —

 including both permanent residents and visitors — is limited to a sustainable number. Beyond that
number, people will be assisted in forming another society, which may or may not have the same
Charter.

 In addition to common constitutional principles and provisions (such as those relating to human
dignity, justice, peace, sustainability, freedoms, and universal rights), the Charter makes explicit a
 set of values all Citizens are expected to share. Chief amongst these are: 1) a commitment to
service as a way of life and 2) an agreement to share anonymised data.

 Citizenship as an Office. The society does not own the people; the people own the society.
Preferentially — and there may be other ways to achieve this — the Citizens ARE the government.
Citizen becomes an office rather than a birthright. Non-Citizens are then Residents, with certain
inalienable rights. Any Resident may choose to become a Citizen by passing an objective testing
process similar to that immigrants are expected to pass. Such testing would establish knowledge of
the Charter, the operations of government, major societal institutions, and good character.
Citizens would have responsibilities to participate in government, which Residents would not
have.

 No Parties, Bribery or Gridlock. If Citizen is an optional office, with only Citizens having
responsibility for running the society, then important improvements become possible. Citizens
may be selected by lottery for staggered terms in the legislature, thereby drastically reducing
moneyed influence upon politics and ending political parties and gridlock. Likewise, the judiciary
can be selected — at least at the basic level — from Citizens by lottery. Using a parliamentary
approach, the administration can then be selected by the legislature based on competence.
Officials will be held to higher standards of behavior than others — not lower. They will be expected
to recuse themselves from business activities for the term of service, and well-compensated
accordingly. The lost Venetian Republic and modern Singapore both offer guidance.

 The size of government is maintained at significantly lower levels than is the norm today and
operations are as transparent as possible. Citizens vote not for elected officials, but on outcomes of
proposed legislation. Outcomes are simulated using AI and ML and include short-term (< 5 years),
medium term (5–100 years) and long-term (> 100 years) outcomes.

 Streamlined, Intelligent Legal System. The legal system is implemented through use
of blockchain-based smart contracts, and is based on the minimum number of laws required to
peacefully prevent or resolve disputes, protect the society (most especially those without
competent adult capacity), enforce honest contracts, and provide for the general welfare in a non-
coercive manner. All laws are unambiguous, easily accessed, and with the number of words not
exceeding a predetermined threshold.

 Preventative/Restorative Justice. Justice is impartial, swift, rational and primarily preventative

and restorative rather than punitive in intent.

 Sovereignty. No consensual act between adults or solely involving one’s own body by a competent
adult is criminal, with the caveat that prior to any irrevocable act or commitment those who care
may call for a competency hearing.

 Non-coercion. Acts coercive of others, including fraud, are prohibited. Voluntary, honest contracts
between competent adults are enforced by the legal system.

 Necessities for All. The production of necessities is based upon creating abundant, sustainable and
largely automated sources and systems of the three Pillars of Abundance: matter, energy and
organising intelligence. This is a societal responsibility.

 Encouragement Over Coercion. Regulations are replaced, whenever practicable, by systematised

incentives including complementary currencies, nudges,and related reward systems.

 Happiness, not Perfection. A culture is fostered in which it is recognised that happiness does not
depend on chasing “the best” of something but rather in finding what is “good enough” to meet
one’s needs and desires. Excellence is pursued as a matter of personal choice.
 Transparent Security. The society provides for the common defense in a manner open and
transparent to the Citizens.

 Bimodal Surveillance. Given that universal surveillance will soon be the defacto reality, a bimodal
approach is proposed. Physical and virtual areas are designated either public or private by explicit
designation. There is no expectation of privacy in public areas, and any Citizen may examine
recordings made in any public area at any time. This greatly improves safety for vulnerable
persons traveling alone, and minimizes misbehavior by officials such as police. In private areas,
surveillance is prohibited except by express consent of those present, or by Court order under a
particular warrant.

 VR for Unrestricted Activities. Everyone has access to advanced AI-generated “virtual worlds”
(VR). Some of this blends with their reality, creating augmented environments. Beyond that, all
manner of experiences that are considered too dangerous, immoral, impractical or even
impossible in the real world will be available to people in VR.

All that remains now is to see whether our civilisation can achieve
smart societies — before we no longer have a civilisation.

Project 2030
If you’re interested in helping us birth transcendent societies with our
ambitious Project 2030, please check out the overview or see our call for
a Foundation for Systemic Reconstitution, and invite others to do the same.
Smart Cities 2.0 explores some of the world’s most iconic Smart
Cities for inaugural Channel NewsAsia series

Eco-architect Jason Pomeroy goes beyond technology, to uncover how cities leverage culture and tradition to make
them smarter and more liveable.

SINGAPORE – Eco-architect Jason Pomeroy, will be hosting an exciting new TV series for Channel
NewsAsia, called Smart Cities 2.0. The weekly 8-part TV series will explore some of the world's most renown
smart cities, and how they combine technology, culture, history and tradition to make them smarter and more
efficient. Smart Cities 2.0 extends over eight episodes, and includes Songdo, South Korea; Bandung, Indonesia;
Shenzhen, China; Ahmedabad, India; Barcelona, Spain; Higashimatsushima, Japan; Amsterdam, The
Netherlands and Singapore. It will air on Channel NewsAsia from March 4, 2017.

'For many people, the term 'Smart City' conjures up images of driverless cars whizzing through the streets, Big
Data acting as Big Brother, the Internet of Things or talking fridges' says host Jason Pomeroy, adding 'it is a
utopian (or dystopian) future largely driven and influenced by technology. But what we uncover in Smart Cities
2.0 is that a truly smart city will not just utilise technology and the Internet of Things (IoT), but will foster
community and promote culture as well – thus enhancing the quality of people lives. By 2050, we will have
added a further 3 billion people living on this planet, many of whom will live in urban areas. So we will need
smarter ways to build and plan our cities so that they become centres of growth and innovation, without
destroying the natural environment'.

The diversity of the cities covered in Smart Cities 2.0 is deliberate, and allows Pomeroy to both reinforce and
debunk many of the current perceptions that surround Smart Cities. Barcelona, for example, does not strike
many as a typical Smart City, but the ancient metropolis is filled with sensors and technology that makes city
life smoother, while retaining its cultural heritage. Bandung in Indonesia leverages people-power and social
media to get smarter; Amsterdam relies on the power of data analytics to become more efficient, while
Higashimatsushima's Smart City quest, born in tragedy, will allow it to become truly self-sufficient.

Given the role cities have in contributing to, and combating, Climate Change, the need for cities to better serve
their citizens efficiently and sustainably has never been higher. Yet the definitions of 'Smart City' are as
different as the cities themselves, and it is too often associated solely with technology. Smart Cities 2.0 aims to
highlight the diversity of the world's Smart Cities, uncovering how each city has its own reasons for becoming
smarter, and what constitutes 'smart' in one metropolis, may not be the same as another.
As well as delving into the cities themselves, Pomeroy interviews personalities who have had a role in shaping
their respective cities, including architects, city planners and academics. The cities covered include:

 Episode 1 | Songdo, South Korea – Songdo is a city that has never known what it is like NOT to be a
Smart City. From its inception, the city was designed to allow technology to enhance every aspect of
daily life. Sensors measure everything from the weather to traffic, while two-way video screens built
into every home allow citizens to access a yoga lesson or visit their doctor from their living rooms
 Episode 2 | Bandung, Indonesia – Bandung suffers from many of the urban issues of overcrowding,
pollution and traffic congestion that beset developing cities. To tackle this, the city leverages on the
power of social media to connect citizens together to help solve such pressing urban issues and enhance
their lives
 Episode 3 | Shenzhen, China – Shenzhen has been coined the factory floor of the World, and is also
known as the Silicon Valley of hardware. The city is the global playground for those looking to test out
the latest in Smart City technology, and much of that technology is applied to the city in some shape or
form
 Episode 4 | Ahmedabad, India – given its incredible rate of growth, and urbanisation India, more than
any other country, needs its cities to get smarter if it is to reach developed nation status. We look at
Ahmedabad efforts to tackle congestion and improve connectivity through technology and planning
 Episode 5 | Barcelona, Spain – With its nineteenth century Gaudi architecture, Barcelona would not
strike many people as the epitome of a modern Smart City, but the Spanish city has had to embrace the
digital age while staying true to the culture and heritage that makes the city so memorable
 Episode 6 | Higashimatsushima, Japan – this Smart City was forged from tragedy. The 2011
earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan brought unprecedented damage, cutting off
Higashimatsushima's power supply for weeks. From then on, the city's governors vowed to never be as
reliant on the national grid again, resulting in a leaner, more efficient, zero-carbon Smart City
 Episode 7 | Amsterdam, The Netherlands – The Dutch city of Amsterdam has found ways to leverage
data analytics, and 'translating' this data into actionable information, to manage the incredible
complexity that being a leading global city and trade hub brings
 Episode 8 | Singapore – this small City State is already well ahead of its peers when it comes to
developing itself as a Smart City, with driverless car trials and a highly-connected population. Yet
Singapore's ambitions extend beyond a city to embrace a 'Smart Nation' which the country aims to
export to other cities

Jason Pomeroy hosted and consulted for Smart Cities 2.0. He is the Founding Principal of the Singapore-based
sustainable design firm, Pomeroy Studio, and is widely regarded as being at the forefront of the sustainable
built environment agenda. He has worked on pioneering projects throughout Asia and has designed the region's
first carbon-zero landed property, Digital Hub at BSD City in Jakarta – coined the silicon valley of Indonesia,
and an upcoming iconic technology hub in Mediapolis, Singapore. In all his projects, he balances the use of
green technologies with elements of local culture and tradition as a means of improving the sustainability and
liveability of the cities, buildings and landscapes he creates.

Outsmart, Outlast
“Hey Loser! How do you like your new school uniform? I think it looks “great” on you.”

Those were the words of my high school bully – Greg Upperfield. Now, if you’re all wondering
whether the underwear that Greg used was clean? I had the same questions.

Mr. contest chair, fellow toastmasters and anyone including those watching worldwide. If you
are looking at Calvin Klein here, stop staring! My eyes are up here.
At age 14, when I go to school, my high school bully Greg would stop me in my track during
recess and would tell me, “I gonna so get you outside, I gonna knock you in my teeth and
punch you in the guts and laugh at your sorry behind. He didn’t quite use the word- behind. I
just cleaned up the words because this is a toastmaster program.

And, have you ever wondered why bully needs to tell you the exact sequence that they gonna
bully you? My friends, whenever I heard those words, my hands would tremble. Have you
ever felt so fearful, that you cannot eat or sleep?

At age 16, Greg was 6 feet tall and weighed 240 pounds that I could only presume that was
biological excilliation. I tried everything I could. I try buying a cake for Greg hoping he would
stop. Only to have the cake on my face. I tried telling the teacher about it. Only to have Greg
tormented me even more. I even tried taken up Taekwondo and karate. Only to break my
wrists while trying to hit a thin point. My friends, just at I was about to give up. My aunt gave
me words of wisdom. She said, “The way to deal with bully is not to hide or run, the way to
deal with bully is to OUTSMART and OUTLAST.” It was like a light bulb in my mind and
“Bing”. I CAN DO THAT. And with whatever 14-year-old smart brain I had, I managed to
outsmart and outlast. Greg, I changed to a new school.

Several years later, after my encounter with Greg, I met a bigger bully, a better bully, a
stronger bully. And this bully, no matter what I do, I could not get rid of it. This bully put equal
negative words to me telling i am a loser, telling me that I would never ever succeed. My self-
esteem was so damaged that someday I would just want to lie in bed or one day to get up.
Have you felt that way before? This bully knows my schedule so well and stalked me 24-7
and I could not run away from this bully because this bully resides here. The bully is inside
me. My friends, as much as we tried to deny it, we are our toughest and strongest bully. We
beat ourselves up and put ourselves down. Have you ever felt that you are not good enough?
I thought that way.

At times we are our worst enemies and at this point if you are wondering how long is Darren
going to have this underwear outside his pants. This is the world championship of public
speaking grand finals. Isn’t five minutes too long? If you felt that five minutes was long, how
long have you been wearing your invisible underwear outside your pants? How long have
been permitted your inner bully to take charge of your life? Five minute isn’t long. Now, I
remembered the inspiration outsmart and outlast but this time I could not change to a new
neighborhood. I could not change a new brain. I could not run away.

Something else must change. This was where a turning point in my life. I met another
toastmaster This toastmaster uplifted me and changed my life forever. His name is Greg
UpperField. I met Greg and was shocked to meet in a toastmaster meeting. Since when is
toastmaster global turns from where leaders are made to where bullies are made. Greg by the
way is a counselor teaching teenager to combat bullies. Who knew! And this was what Greg
told me, he said, ” The best way to deal with inner bully is not to run or hide. You cannot run
away from the bully here. The best way to deal with it is to stand firm. Face it and
acknowledge its presence. When you do so, you are no longer identifying with it. You are
stepping out and observing it. It’s like instead of being out there in the storm. You are in the
house watching the storm. Your inner bully were weakened and fade.” I was thinking, wow it’s
profound. How come you didn’t tell me when I was 14.
My friends, I’m standing on stage now in front of two thousands of you and more are watching
worldwide but I am not afraid anymore. I am in control because I am acknowledging it, I am
stepping out of it, observing it and watching it weaken and fade. My friends, let’s all not run
away from our inner bullies anymore. Let us all face our inner bullies and acknowledge its
presence and fight. Let us all be together as a family supporting one another because we can
all outsmart and (outlast). Mr toastmaster