The vision of a smart city still tends to conjure up sci-fi renderings of streams of data, utopian views of tree-lined streets serviced by robots, cyclists free-wheeling between self-driving cars. And of course, zero traffic jams. The dream of the city enabled by data technology tends to be one of clean lines, faceless shapes, and cold, open spaces.

In reality of course, cities are nothing like that. Historic buildings and infrastructure stand stubbornly alongside the latest innovations in architecture and technology. Urban spaces are tight, colourful, busy and filled with people of different backgrounds, ages, genders. So why are the real people who live in cities so often missing from our visions of the future city – and not just in the visuals? We believe it’s because of an absence of communities in shaping that vision in the first place. 

Smart city technologies can be anything from a digital bus shelter to energy-saving connected lighting. One thing that is common though is the use of IoT, or the ‘internet of things.’ This technology uses sensors, which are connected and collect and make use of data in different ways. In theory, it is this wealth of data which can help a city generate efficiencies and deliver better services. 

In practice, however, human behaviour isn’t as neat. People and their actions are complex, often unpredictable. And the ‘data’ that comes from daily lives of citizens isn't necessarily always quantifiable and measurable with a yard-stick. It's messy and qualitative. This information is hugely valuable, yes, but it is much harder to interpret – and harder still for the sensor or a machine learning algorithm that sits behind it to understand.

Another challenge is understanding the foundations on which a smart project or intervention might be built. A common quick fix might be to take an idea from another city or local authority and replicate it. But there are a variety of reasons why this strategy won’t work, and will not necessarily lead to public value. People and communities, economies, infrastructure all differ significantly, as do local policies, existing systems and the levels of skill and knowledge in those tasked with implementation. Context is everything – what works in one city is not guaranteed to work in another. 

An effective, technology-based intervention requires unpacking and understanding the unique context in which people go about their everyday lives. Getting to know the challenges and barriers to change, as well as identifying opportunities and finding spaces for innovation requires deep knowledge and expertise. There are methodologies that can help cities to do that, but ultimately the expertise sits within the authority and its most important stakeholders – citizens. 

In a complex system like a city authority, it’s not easy to knit together policy and management with innovation. Decision-makers in cities and local authorities have to bring together a multitude of different stakeholders, manage competing priorities and limited resources to create positive outcomes for communities. That’s where leadership in collaboration with communities comes in. 

If leaders understand the context for smart technology applications, it’s easier to plan for future adoption. 

A useful example of a people-first approach to innovation is Project Endeavour, a government-funded initiative to put people in the driving seat of self-driving car technology, so to speak. DG Cities was part of the consortium leading the UK’s first live multi-city trial of autonomous vehicles. We invited members of the public in Greenwich to come and experience driverless technology for themselves. We developed a virtual reality experience to help them get to know the technology, then they had the opportunity to experience a journey in a driverless car on roads around a local neighbourhood. As well as interviewing participants, we ran online workshops across the UK and a survey to understand people’s perception of autonomous vehicles. How might it work for them? Earlier this year, we published the findings - 26.8% of participants would feel confident using an autonomous vehicle tomorrow if it were possible to do so, but over half would not (55.1%), with the remainder undecided (18.1%). The project showed the value of engagement: before the live trial, 68.3% agreed that AVs would be safer than human driven vehicles, while after the trial, 83.6% agreed – an improvement of 15 points.

Of course, for citizens to benefit from the value of technology-enabled cities, they must have the skills and confidence to use technology and they have to trust it. This is not always the case for many vulnerable people. Our work with the Royal Borough of Greenwich to improve levels of digital inclusion aims to help those hardest to reach benefit from getting online. Working with the council, we trialled a device loan scheme and training programme for the most digitally excluded people in the borough. The interventions we developed came through listening to and learning from community needs. We conducted interviews and ran workshops with local leaders, volunteers, elders and members of the disabled community. To date, almost 100 people have taken part in training, and 15 centres across the borough have been loaning devices to those at most need in the community. These are the kind of initiatives often missing from the technology picture.

A smart city doesn’t have to be a cliché, all hoverboards and data streams. We believe it is possible to use technology to create vibrant, safe, connected and sustainable communities which build on – and even enhance – everything we love about cities today. We know that for cities to thrive and meet the sustainability and public health challenges of the future, they have to make good use of data. There’s no doubt that data and ‘smart’ innovations have the potential to radically improve people’s lives, so let’s put their needs and lives at the heart of any technological vision of the future.