Technology Innovation Management Review November 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 11)

The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation

Model: Lessons from Montreal
Mohamed Reda Khomsi

“ Montreal is a marvelous city. A large beautiful ”

city. We need to say it. We need to show it.

Dennis Martinez
Professional baseball player
Montreal Expos (1986–1993)

Innovations are not confined to new technologies designed to improve the manufactur-
ing processes of a product or the provision of a service. In a context of postmodernity, the
new innovation paradigm calls on organizations to choose the best innovation strategies
for their broader purposes. Today, such strategies usually involve adopting organizational
structures that enable better collaboration with the stakeholders of an ecosystem. This
article focuses on the smart city of Montreal – selected as the 2016 Intelligent Community
of the Year by the Intelligent Community Forum – as a model of innovation. The aim is to
understand the distinction between "the smart city" and "the smart destination", despite
the omnipresence of tourism projects in smart city development plans. Among the key
lessons are the importance of engaging tourism stakeholders and the role of a dedicated
organization to develop and implement the city's unique vision.

Introduction the common interest as much as possible. This chal-

lenge also calls on the stakeholders of a smart city to
Since the early 2000s, many cities around the world have think of new ways of collaborating.
undertaken initiatives to position themselves as "smart
cities". Indeed, in the era of globalization and post- In Canada, Montreal's smart city ecosystem is an ex-
modernism, the smart city concept is well recognized as ample of innovation in collaboration and cooperation.
a means to increase the attractiveness of cities and the In 2014, the city launched its Smart and Digital City
quality of life of citizens (Boes et al., 2015). In their ef- Office (Bureau de la ville intelligente et numérique;
forts to engage in this initiative, cities generally seek to villeintelligente.montreal.ca/en), whose mandate is to over-
promote a dynamic of innovation that drives the devel- see Montreal’s 2015–2017 Smart and Digital City Action
opment of products and the delivery of services through Plan, which was developed following consultations
technology. However – and this comprises the main idea with various stakeholders (among them public organiz-
of this article – what is also needed are efforts to change ations), the private sector, and citizens. However, at the
organizational structures so as to create a culture of in- midpoint in the implementation of this plan, despite
novation among the various stakeholders. Indeed, some the omnipresence of tourism projects in Montreal’s
researchers consider the emergence of innovation to be smart city project, few tourism stakeholders are en-
highly dependent on the type of organizational dynam- gaged in the initiative. Thus, there is not necessarily an
ics at play (Enz & Siguaw, 2003; Jones, 1996). overlap or alignment between the "smart city" and the
"smart destination". A smart city is "a well-defined geo-
It appears, then, that the main challenge for smart cities graphical area, in which high technologies such as ICT,
today is to develop and implement models of collabora- logistic, energy production, and so on, cooperate to cre-
tion between the different stakeholders. This challenge ate benefits for citizens in terms of well-being, inclu-
involves mediating between many actors, including sion and participation, environmental quality,
those who are in competition against each other, in or- intelligent development" (Dameri, 2013). In contrast,
der to arrive at an organizational culture that represents the smart destination is one that uses technology to

www.timreview.ca 26
Technology Innovation Management Review November 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 11)

The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal

Mohamed Reda Khomsi

guarantee sustainable development of the tourist area ines the effectiveness and efficiency of innovation pro-
and to improve the experience quality of visitor (Lopez cesses (Lapointe et al., 2015). According to Nadja-
de Avila, 2015). With the smart destination approach, Janoskza and Kopera (2013), this lack of collaboration
stakeholders work together, through a integrated plat- can be attributed to several factors including: the weak
form for example, to create and facilitate a real-time culture of innovation among tourism stakeholders, the
tourism experience (Buhalis & Amaranggana, 2014). high turnover of staff, poor change management, poor
However, in Montreal, tourism is considered as an eco- knowledge of information technology, and, last but not
nomic activity like any other, due to which it is not con- least, the small size of most tourism businesses.
sidered to warrant its own sub-ecosystem. Thus, there
is cause for reflection about how Montreal’s current The importance of the institutional dimension also res-
smart cities ecosystem may be improved. ults from the fact that tourism innovation requires the
involvement of all stakeholders in the development pro-
To this end, this article pursues two objectives. First, it cess, particularly between the traditional players and
seeks to explain how a collaborative structure between new players, as emphasized by Aldebert, Dang, and
the various stakeholders in Montreal’s smart city pro- Longhi (2010). According to these authors, the diffusion
ject can, itself, become a source of innovation, given of innovation in tourism is complex given the hetero-
the services it might offer or its way of utilizing re- geneity of stakeholders, who must find ways of collabor-
sources and tools. Second, the article seeks to show that ating that take into account their differences. This
the smart city concept is not necessarily interchange- requirement becomes even more critical when the
able with the smart destinations concept, insofar as the stakeholders are concurrently engaged in an interna-
intrinsic characteristics of their respective target popu- tional innovation project in which collaborative ar-
lations, being the citizens and the tourists, are different. rangements must reflect variables such as the cultural
dimension or the public policies of each participating
The article is structured as follows. We begin by portray- country (Williams & Show, 2011). In this context, sever-
ing the smart city ecosystem as an innovation model ap- al modes of collaboration between stakeholders have
plied to the tourism context. Using an exploratory been proposed by researchers, among them Lapointe,
methodology, this perspective forms the basis for an Guimont, and Sévigny (2015), who point to a living lab
analysis of the profiles of the stakeholders involved in as an effective way to bring together stakeholders
the smart city project and their roles and missions. We around a common project with a view to achieving a
then discuss the types of governance model and collab- common goal.
oration that could be envisaged between these stake-
holders. Finally, we offer concluding thoughts and In the same vein, the smart cities ecosystem is also a
highlight the key lessons learned from the case. good example of a mode of innovation through collab-
oration and adaptation of organizational structures at
Innovation in Tourism: The Smart City the city scale. Indeed, the institutional dimension is
Ecosystem as an Innovation Model even a cornerstone in definitions proposed for the
smart city concept. Nam and Prado (2011), for example,
Although the tourism sector has been a pioneer in the consider the smart city to revolve around three dimen-
integration of new technologies, which were later adop- sions – technological, human, and institutional – and
ted by other service spheres, the topic of innovation in posit that innovation is crucial in particular for the insti-
tourism has received little research attention (Halkier et tutional dimension. According to Komninos (2002), the
al., 2013). A literature review on tourism and innovation smart city requires the implementation of good prac-
conducted by Hjalager (2010) demonstrated that re- tices in a given territory with the aim of stimulating in-
search on the subject is still in its infancy. Nadja- novation, learning, and knowledge transfer between
Janoszka and Kopera (2013) likewise highlight, through stakeholders. In the same vein, Glaeser and Berry
the study of barriers to innovation in tourism, that (2006) and Nam and Prado (2011) believe that the dy-
knowledge on the subject is still fragmentary and that namics of smart city projects can stimulate creativity,
many issues are investigated in an exploratory manner innovation, and knowledge development. For other
only, including the topic of the role of institutions in in- scholars, such as Dameri (2013) and Lamfus and Alzua-
novation. However, it is this dimension – concerning Sorzabal (2013), a model of partnership between the
the structures of collaboration among the different stakeholders is, itself, one form of innovation in the
stakeholders (Hjalager, 2010) – that ultimately determ- smart city context. These authors argue that the new

www.timreview.ca 27
Technology Innovation Management Review November 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 11)

The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal

Mohamed Reda Khomsi

economy requires the stakeholders of a smart city to re- centered on research, conferences, consulting services,
view their practices and partnership models. In tour- educational services, and an annual competition, it
ism, such a model is even more important considering identifies best practices in the development of smart cit-
the number of players in this sector. In order to add ies (Mathys, 2016).
value for users, citizens, and visitors, all tourism stake-
holders should therefore be part of the ecosystem (Lam- The international recognition of Montreal as a smart
fus et al., 2013). To achieve its objectives, the smart city city model is also attributed to its unique and innovat-
needs to implement an organizational structure for op- ive ecosystem in which citizens are given the opportun-
timizing the use of data and to support the creation of a ity to participate. Indeed, whether through social
favourable context for tourism stakeholders. networks, digital platforms or citizen forums, such as Je
vois Montréal – a platform of dynamic tools to help cit-
The Montreal Smart City Ecosystem izens mobilize and collaborate to make Montreal an in-
spiring city – citizens do contribute very actively to the
Before embarking on its own smart city project, process. As described below, the Montreal ecosystem is
Montreal conducted a comparative analysis of seven built around the three dimensions: governance, dis-
other smart cities around the world (Arlington, Bar- tricts, and entrepreneurship.
celona, Columbus, Eindhoven, Lyon, New York, and
Toronto) in order to identify best practices in smart cit- 1. Governance: The Smart and Digital City Office, dedic-
ies (BVIN, 2015). After this exercise, the committee in ated to Montreal’s smart city, promotes a coherent
charge of this analysis identified six key areas that were development strategy and consistency of actions
to form the strategic framework for the Montreal smart taken by the various stakeholders. At the administrat-
city project: urban mobility, direct services to citizens, ive level, this separate administrative structure within
living environment, democracy, sustainable develop- the municipal bureaucracy is also one where de-
ment, and economic development. The strategic frame- cisions can be made relatively fast and with a certain
work was first presented at several public consultations degree of fluidity. Since its inception, the Office has
attended by 203 people in total. At the end of this pro- been dedicated to making Montreal a world leader in
cess, 70 projects were selected from five focus areas for the field by 2017 – the year when Montreal celebrates
the Montreal Smart and Digital City Action Plan de- its 375th anniversary (BVIN, 2015).
veloped for the years 2015–2017 (BVIN, 2015).
2. Districts: Montreal is known for its theme-based city
Although no one industry sector was prioritized, the districts that position themselves as incubators of in-
projects thus far implemented as part of the 2015–2017 novation. Among these are the Quartier de l’innova-
Action Plan have had a direct effect on the city’s visitors tion (innovation district) (quartierinnovationmontreal.com)
and therefore on the city’s tourism sector. One example and the Quartier des spectacles (entertainment dis-
is the project of deploying Wi-Fi terminals in the tour- trict). The innovation district is a living laboratory cre-
ism district of Old Montreal. The project goal is to en- ated in 2013 by three Montreal universities (McGill
hance the experience of citizens and visitors in order to University, École de technologie supérieure, and Con-
boost tourism activity and accelerate the economic de- cordia University) and is a showcase of innovation, re-
velopment of Montreal. The project will, in turn, allow search, training, and entrepreneurship. A few months
the city to realize a larger app-based project called Mon- after its launch, the three universities that initiated
tréal en histoire, which offers a trip back in time the project created an organization that manages the
through 60 points of interest in augmented reality. The initiatives generated within the district. The board of
project will feature images of prominent figures who directors of this organization is composed of business
have contributed to the history of Montreal to be pro- people who add real value to the district, either
jected on the walls, ground, and vegetation in Old through project financing or property management
Montreal and to be accompanied with an audible in partnership with other public or private partners.
soundtrack through the app. This app was also an im- For managers of the district, the mission of the pro-
portant selling point for Montreal’s selection as the ject boils down to three goals (QI, 2015): to attract
2016 Intelligent Community of the Year by the Intelli- more technological, social, and cultural companies;
gent Community Forum (ICF, 2016). The ICF is a non- to foster the development of innovative initiatives;
profit organization based in New York that studies the and to promote innovation with the targeted imple-
development of cities in the 21st century. Mainly mentation of activities. From 2014 to 2015 alone, the

www.timreview.ca 28
Technology Innovation Management Review November 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 11)

The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal

Mohamed Reda Khomsi

innovation district saw the establishment of offices destination management organizations in North Amer-
by several technology companies, including Google, ica to invest 100% of its promotional budget into its on-
with the district's companies also receiving invest- line presence (Ciotola, 2010), it was not directly
ments of more than $46 million during that same involved in consultations aimed at developing an ac-
time period (QI, 2015). tion plan for the smart city. Moreover, aware of the
smart destination trend, Tourisme Montréal did take
The Quartier des spectacles (entertainment district) the initiative to redesign its digital infrastructure with
(quartierdesspectacles.com) is a hub of cultural creation the aim to, through the use of big data, find out more
and entertainment that has more than 30 theatres; about the area's visitors. However, despite this project,
three squares dedicated to festivals and cultural commenced a long time before the founding of the
events; and a number of larger buildings such as the Smart and Digital City Office, Montreal’s tourism bur-
Montreal Symphony House, the Théâtre du Nouveau eau has only a minor role in defining the new vision of
Monde, and several luxury hotels – all within one the city. Thus, the tourism governance structure in
square kilometre. In all, the entertainment district Montreal is not in step with the shift undertaken by the
presents a diverse offering of over 100 shows every city.
month, thereby contributing to the economic devel-
opment of the metropolis and its international pro- That said, this situation is not unique to Montreal. Ac-
file. At the organizational level, a non-profit cording to Giffinger and Gudrun (2010), Cohen (2011),
organization called the Quartier des Spectacles Part- Cocchia (2014), and Galoul (2015), the relationship
nership was created in 2003 to coordinate the ac- between the concept of a smart city and that of a smart
tions of the various players operating in this district. destination is blurred. In general, the scientific literat-
Eventually, and after the initial development work ure makes no distinction between the two, such that a
and obtaining site recognition from the public act- smart destination is by default integrated in the smart
ors, this organization has seen its mission expand to city concept. However, as pointed out by Buhalis and
include the coordination and management of the Amaranggana (2014) and Boes, Buhalis, and Inversini
three squares, which are now considered tourism (2015), technologies used in a smart destination are fun-
destinations. damentally different from those used in a smart city.
For example, the authors state that tourists use techno-
3. Entrepreneurship: The dynamism of Montreal with logy before, during, and after a trip, whereas the techno-
regard to creativity, innovation, and an environment logy implemented in a smart city revolves around its
conducive to entrepreneurship allowed the city to at- use within the city.
tract several technology companies that make up the
backbone of its smart city concept. Here, InnoCité In addition to the technological dimension, we believe
(innocitemtl.ca), which is the first accelerator program that the difference between the smart city and smart
in Canada focused on the smart city concept, has destination manifests on at least two levels. First, in the
been instrumental in sponsoring projects that prom- case of tourists visiting a destination for a limited time,
ise to bring an added value to the city. InnoCité temporal and informational needs play an important
mentors investment funds and employers with a role. They want to enjoy themselves during their stay
view to providing comprehensive support to project and need an application that can help them optimize
leaders. In addition to InnoCité, the city can count the little time they have. The second difference is re-
on the contribution of the four universities on its ter- lated to space. Indeed, the tourist visiting a destination
ritory, each of which has a mentoring program for a for the first time does not have the same spatial refer-
living lab and a structured business start-up support ences as a resident with regard to the use of the territ-
service. ory. In an urban setting, the tourist is often confined to
a limited area. In Montreal for instance, as in many
Discussion and Conclusion large cities, the main tourist attractions are concen-
trated in the downtown area (Pilette & Kadri 2005),
Despite the ubiquitousness of the tourism dimension where traffic is very dense. In this context, tourists’ in-
in Montreal’s smart city project, the city’s tourism formational needs are high because they need to learn
stakeholders are hardly engaged in the effort of turning about places to visit, travel options, costs, and access
the city into a true smart destination. For example, al- times. By contrast, the needs and expectations of resid-
though Montreal’s tourism bureau (Tourisme Mon- ents living in the city on a longer-term basis are much
tréal; tourisme-montreal.org) was, in 2009, among the first lower in this regard.

www.timreview.ca 29
Technology Innovation Management Review November 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 11)

The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal

Mohamed Reda Khomsi

In the case of Montreal, tourism stakeholders would do

well to become more involved in the ecosystem of the About the Author
smart city, or even to create their own system that
would reflect the needs of visitors, as these often differ Mohamed Reda Khomsi is a Professor of Tourism
from those of residents. However, overall, and in com- Governance and E-Tourism at the Department of
parison with other Canadian cities, Montreal’s ecosys- Urban Studies and Tourism in the School of Man-
tem can be described as innovative. For example, the agement at the Université du Québec à Montréal,
creation of an organizational structure dedicated solely Canada. His research focuses on smart destinations,
to the smart city helped to spawn initiatives within the online distribution, governance models, and the as-
innovation and entertainment districts and promoted sessment of the hallmark tourist event. Mohamed is
entrepreneurship by linking up startups with funding the author of over a dozen articles and book
bodies. Moreover, Montreal’s Smart and Digital City Of- chapters on these topics. He is currently investigat-
fice also gives it an advantage over other cities in Que- ing various examples of smart cities and smart des-
bec such as Quebec City and Sherbrooke. In the case of tinations in Canada with the aim to highlight the
Sherbrooke, the municipal administration launched particular features of the Canadian model.
the smart city initiative in 2012 with the goal to create a
dynamic partnership and to mobilize local stakeholders
around a common vision (CEFRIO, 2012). These efforts
have resulted in the establishment of a round table for References
Sherbrooke’s smart and innovative city. However, the
absence of a specific organization dedicated for devel- Aldebert, B., Dang, R., & Longhi, C. 2011. Innovation in the Tourism
oping the smart city project has resulted in postpone- Industry: The Case of Tourisme@. Tourism Management, 32(5):
1204–1213.
ment of the implementation of the smart city policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.08.010
until 2017.
Boes, K., Buhalis, D., & Inversini, A. 2015. Conceptualising Smart
Tourism Destination Dimensions. In L. Tussyadiah & A. Inversini
Finally, the case study of Montreal teaches us at least (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
two key lessons. First, the existence of an entity dedic- and Communication Technologies in Tourism: 391–404.
ated to developing the vision of the smart city is a Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
powerful accelerator for projects that may be proposed http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14343-9_29
by the various stakeholders of the ecosystem. The ded- Buhalis, D., & Amaranggana, A. 2014. Smart Tourism Destinations. In
icated structure helps coordinate the activities of differ- Z. Xiang & L. Tussyadiah (Eds.), Proceedings of the International
Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in
ent players and ensures that these projects fit in with Tourism: 553–564. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
the vision of the smart city. Second, despite the innovat- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_40
ive nature of the Montreal smart city ecosystem, the
BVIN. 2015. Montreal Smart and Digital City Action Plan 2015-2017.
connection with the vision for Montreal as a smart des- Montreal: Bureau de la ville intelligente et numérique (BVIN); City
tination is not automatic. For others wishing to im- of Montreal.
prove tourism experiences, this case reinforced the http://villeintelligente.montreal.ca/en/action-plan-2015-2017
importance of engaging tourism stakeholders given CEFRIO. 2012. Sherbooke innovante et intelligente – Phase 1. Centre
that the needed tools, developed as part of the smart facilitant la recherche et l’innovation dans les organisations
city, are promoted outside traditional tourism distribu- (CEFRIO). Accessed November 1, 2016:
http://www.cefrio.qc.ca/projets-recherches-enquetes/numerique-
tion channels. territoires/prijet-sherbrooke-innovante-et-intelligente-phase-1/
Ciotola, C. 2010. Online Brand for Destination E-Branding
Monitoring. Paper presented at the ENTER eTourism Conference,
February 10–12, 2010, Lugano, Switzerland.
Cocchia, A. 2014. Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature
Review. In R. P. Dameri & C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (Eds.), Smart City:
How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in
Urban Space: 13–43. Berlin: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_2
Cohen, H. 2011. Social Media Definitions. Heidi Cohen: Actionable
Marketing Guide, May 9, 2011. Accessed November 1, 2016:
http://heidicohen.com/social-media-definition/

www.timreview.ca 30
Technology Innovation Management Review November 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 11)

The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal

Mohamed Reda Khomsi

Dameri, R. P. 2013. Searching for Smart City Definition: A Komninos, N. 2002. Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems
Comprehensive Proposal. International Journal of Computers & and Digital Spaces. London: Spon Press.
Technology, 11(5): 2544–2551.
Lamsfus, C., & Alzua-Sorzabal, A. 2013. Theoretical Framework for a
Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. 2003. Innovations in Hotel Practice. Cornell Tourism Internet of Things: Smart Destinations. tourGUNE:
Hotels and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(4/5): 115–123. Journal of Tourism and Human Mobility, 0: 15–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088040304400516
Lapointe, D., Guimont, D., & Sévigny, A. 2015. The Living Lab
Galoul, A. 2015. Les villes intelligentes: l’open data contribue-t-il à leur Approach to Raise Innovation Capability Among Tourism
développement? Louvain, Belgium: Louvain School of Practitioners. Tourism Dimension, 2(2): 18–27.
Management, Université catholique de Louvain.
Lopez de Avila, A. 2015. Smart Destinations: XXI Century Tourism.
Glaeser, E. L. & Berry, C. 2006. Why Are Smart Places Getting Smarter? Presented at the ENTER2015 Conference on Information and
Policy Brief 2-2006. Boston, MA: Rappaport Institute/Taubman Communication Technologies in Tourism, February 4–6, 2015,
Center. Lugano, Switzerland.
Giffinger, R., & Gudrun, H. 2010. Smart Cities Ranking: An Effective Najda-Janoszka, M., & Kopera, S. 2013. Exploring Barriers to
Instrument for the Positioning of Cities? ACE: Architecture, City Innovation in Tourism Industry – The Case of Southern of Poland.
and Environment, 4(12): 7–25. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110: 190–201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.862
Hjalager, A.-M. 2010. A Review of Innovation Research in Tourism.
Tourism Management, 31(1): 1–12. Nam, T., & Prado, T. 2011. Conceptualizing Smart City with
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012 Dimensions of the Technology, People, and Institutions. In
Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital
Halkier, H., Kozak, M., & Svensson, B. 2014. Innovation and Tourism Government Research: 282–291.
Destination Development. European Planning Studies, 22(8): https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037602
1547–1550.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.784571 Pilette, D., & Kadri, B. 2005. Le tourisme métropolitain. Le cas de
Montréal. Montréal: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
ICF. 2016. Intelligent Community of the Year 2016: Montreal, Quebec,
Canada. Intelligent Community Forum (ICF). Accessed November QI. 2015. Annuel report 2014–2015. Montreal: Quartier de
1, 2016: l’innovation (QI).
http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/ic_of_year
Williams, A. M., & Shaw, G. 2011. Internationalization and Innovation
Jones, P. 1996. Managing Hospitality Innovation. Cornell Hotel and in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1): 27–51.
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(5): 86–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.09.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088049603700528

Citation: Khomsi, M. R. 2016. The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 6(11): 26–31. http://timreview.ca/article/1032

Keywords: innovation, ecosystem, smart cities, smart destination, Montreal, stakeholders

www.timreview.ca 31