BY DR. ADAM MOWLAM
MARCH 2022

Putting in place the right smart city governance structure

Across many parts of Australia, Local Government is leading the smart city agenda for the local community. With some of this work dating back four-five years and longer, it is an opportune time to reflect on what makes a successful governance structure based on lessons learned.

Before diving further it is worth noting that all councils are different: the historical, cultural, political, economic, social, and demographic context for each city is different. As is the legacy of organisational processes and technology implementation from which it starts; as are the priorities, brand values, and unique selling points with which each city seeks to position itself.

For those embarking on a smart city journey, establishing the right governance structure is only superseded by building technological and organisational change awareness and community engagement as key first steps. A smart city relies on strong leadership. Whilst there are benefits in both top-down and bottom-up approaches for implementing smart city plans, one thing that is consistently required is the support of elected officials and executive teams. .

Before outlining a suggested governance structure, it is worth noting that the governance model is generally, at least in the Australian context, starting from a centralised position and needing to move towards a decentralised governance model as smart city maturity grows from early-stage to leading sector practice.

Why is a governance model required?

One reason is to avoid technology for technology sake. The governance model identifies clear accountability, aligns vision statements with shared goals, and ensures a collaborative approach with the City Plan.

It is worth noting that a sound smart city framework will outline key principles to drive the governance structure. Some examples of influential principles on the governance structure is people first, inclusive or co-design. For a city, town or region without such a framework, the core values cannot be applied.

Proposed Model

The makeup of the governance structure can be tweaked based on each organisation. The proposed model is best suited to a large municipality (>500 staff), however the roles and responsibilities are fairly applicable across all sizes of organisation.

Council / Elected Officials including the Portfolio Holder

Leadership, direction setting, overall budget allocation, partnership broker, program oversight, smart city promotion, and profile development.

Having a key champion (or Portfolio Holder) is critical.

Executive Leadership Team

Strategic decision making, resource allocation, change management, program oversight and direction setting, removal of barriers and constraints, investment and project prioritisation, and partnership advisory.

This is undoubtedly the make-or-break group. Even well-structured and expertly delivered smart technology projects will fail if changes are not operationalised correctly and the Executive team are not supportive. More than half of the councils in Victoria include innovation as a corporate value - so there are no excuses!

Portfolio Committee / External Working Group

High-level advice, general oversight, community partnerships.

The composition of this group is important in gaining an external perspective - it can be external government peers, industry partners or members of the community with strong interest or experience. This may be across the full smart city program or is equally effective for large projects (e.g. smart parking).

Smart City Office

Strategy direction/coordination, smart city leadership, project delivery, grant identification/preparation, policy refinement, communications, reporting of overall progress, benchmark reviews, partnership establishment, program risk management, project governance, smart city promotion, and investment attraction.

The workhorse of any smart city governance structure is the internal team. This cross-functional (and often virtual) team requires skills in secure and scalable technology design and data curation, economic development, strategic planning, transport, innovation and change management.

Project Funding / Major Project Committees

Operational coordination, business case development/approval, risk management, oversight of organisational smart city literacy, program governance, project implementation, project reporting, evaluation, project communications, management of innovative finance models, and project risk management.

Many smart city projects are complex to deliver, and often equally as challenging to fund, approve and plan. Each council will differ, but corporate decision-making processes that integrate smart city systems thinking are highly successful. What sort of opportunities exist across the capital works program and are development proposals considering future thinking (e.g. lighting, micro-mobility).

Final Thoughts

Smart City programs face significant challenges. These include:

a) the scope of the program, which touches on all aspects of city life and ability to execute;

b) the scale of ambition for the program (transformational, not incremental);

c) future-proofing investments in line with industry standards;

d) the wide range of stakeholders and delivery partners;

e) vulnerability to external change/uncertainties that can impact on program delivery; and

f) managing bottom-up approaches with local ownership and organisational buy-in.

Success requires setting out a clear and agreed vision and then underpinning it with a roadmap and key metrics for progress and benefits realisation. This roadmap should not over-plan but rather provide a framework for an organic, iterative, inclusive process of change to deliver a vision over time.

The governance model proposed above supports more collaborative and effective work between tiers of government, departments/agencies at the local level, and between the private and public sector over a sustained period of time.