 Ond ydy, mae wnaeth eu gwahaniaeth yn gweithio gwahaniaeth. Ychydig yw hwn yn y ddysguethaf y dyfodol y gallwn, y bydd y cyfnod y hwn yn ei adroddau y mynd i'w gwahaniaeth? Yn eich cyfnod y mynd i'w gwahaniaeth? Mae'r cyfnod yn gweithio y 19th a 20th century a'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod yng nghymru? Mae'r cyfnod yn y cyfnod argynno. Mae'r ddechrau i fynd i'w bwysig arweithio o bwysig, i wneud yn gwahanol, a chael y cynhyrchu sy'n cael ei ddweud y cyflodau i gael y ddau. Wel, gallwn ni'n mynd i'r ffordd o'r rhaid y ddechrau fyddwn i mor ffordd o'r cyfwyr y myneddau a fynd i'n gael i'n gael i chi'n mynd i gael i'r ffordd. Fyddech chi gael i bryd, ymddangos lawer, sy'n lleolau a'r cychwynedd, a'u gwirio ei wneud hefyd i'r ffordd o'r cyfwyr yma i gaeliaethau, ond byddwn ni'n gael i fynd i drwy'n ei gael i'r gweld Already, I think we've been leading the industry has stray as a network of companies as a network of technology companies. I think we're defining smart cities from the wrong angle and I'd like to talk a little bit about how we can reposition and redefine that. Then finally I'd like to come back to, so what do we need to do better? If we're not in the right place in relation to smart cities now, what do we need to do to put ourselves in the right place? Mae'r gweithio yn ystod o'r hollu'r oed, a yn eich gweithio yn ynchyn nhw'n gobeithio i ddafodol yna ddweud o hollu'r hollu. Ond oherwydd, fel gyda'n gweithio yn ei wneud o'r hanffordd. Mae hwn yn dda wedi bod yn dda i'n ddysgu fynd i'n hyffordd ac mae'n gweithio'n gweithio i ddod o'r hollu'r hollu'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Mae'n gweithio i gweithio'n gweithio oherwydd i gael i gael i gael iawn. Those are three topics. I'll try and cover them in 20 or 30 minutes and then leave plenty of time for questions and answers. One benefit of speaking on smart cities is that it covers just about every angle that you can imagine. There shouldn't be any risk of not having questions. That first question about what is the role of the city. It was very clear in the 19th and 20th centuries what cities were for. ac mae ddweudwys hwnnw, mae c nhw'r cyd-dweithio gwyfwyr a'r holl gwaith a'r holl gwaith ar gyfer lleol ac mae ddweudwys ac mae sgw bathing yn fwynd maen nhw a mi'n adegonwch am ymwyfyr yng Nghymru. Fy llwyddoedd gwych, sgwfyn, ac ymwil o'r tro Newydd. Mae'r ystod yw amgylched rwy'r stod yn ei ddarparu, was about enabling the market economy. Now much of that legacy still exists and many of the institutions that were created still dominate what we call the cities as they are now. But in the information economy, life is slightly more complex because it's a virtual economy. And I think there's a fundamental question which is what is that role for the city or is there a role for the city in enabling an information economy? Or is it just a global network that will happen regardless of the city and above the city? It's my premise that actually there is a role and what the city can do is act as a convener and a custodian of the information marketplace. And in the same way that cities were responsible for helping to structure marketplaces for agricultural and industrial products, I think there's a role for the city in creating the information economy within the city, both stimulating and managing the governance of it and creating the frameworks and the platforms for delivery and the infrastructure for delivery. But also in acting as the regulator and custodian of consumer interests in that process. And we'll come on to that a bit more in the question of governance. So how do we do that? Well, for me, the way that we've defined smart cities to date is wrong. We've defined smart cities by the inputs. So if you've implemented a smart technology pilot, let's say smart meters, or you could talk about smart transportation, or you could talk about smart water, then cities define themselves as smart by having implemented a technology. And the reason for that is that the discourse on smart cities has been created and dominated by technology vendors and integrators, people like ourselves, IBM, Cisco, GE, Siemens. And we've got very large marketing budgets and as a consequence, we've dominated the discourse, both in terms of the conference circuit but also the press and the media. And we've rapidly moved up the hype curve to a point where the utopian ideals of the smart cities are prevalent out there. We're in the Blade Runner world of information cities and yet the reality of what can and is being delivered falls a fair way below that utopian standard. And as a consequence, that creates a level of distrust within the community that actually the emperor has no clothes. And I think that's wrong. I think the emperor clearly does have clothes in this context but I just think we haven't quite got to the right value proposition yet and we haven't articulated it. So what do I think we need to do? I think we need to listen more. We need to go out into communities and understand what are the issues and challenges that we need to address. We need to engage in a much more anthropological study and embrace the urbanists into the discussion in a way that we haven't done in the past. Predominally, this has been a technology-driven debate and the urbanists have been a way of doing their things, talking about urban planning and urban sociology. And there hasn't really been that reconciliation between the technology agenda and the social sciences. And I think there is a need to more closely integrate urbanism and technology and that really needs to start in the process of listening and understanding what the challenges are that we're trying to address. This isn't just about delivering more efficient networks. That's part of it, but it's not all of it. So we need to go out there and say, how do we deconstruct urban life and look at the various different stakeholders because life in the city for my grandmother looks very different to life in the city for my son and it looks very different to life in the city for me. We all have different hierarchies of needs and when it comes to smart solutions, all of those stakeholders are important stakeholders in the delivery and yet we aren't really systematically going through each of those profiles and saying, what does a day in your life look like now and what will a day in your life look like in the future and how does smart solutions enable that transition? It's not until you articulate the delta between life now and life in the future that you can really articulate what the value proposition is in terms that people actually care about because traditionally what we've done is started from the premise of there are economic efficiencies to be driven through these technologies and we create business cases for delivery and whilst business cases are important, they're not the same as value cases and if you talk to cities and the public sector, there's a distinct change in vocabulary between the private sector that talks about business cases and the public sector that talks about outcomes for citizens and for businesses and we need to bridge that gap and that is about articulating value in much broader terms and the kind of solutions that we can provide in the smart city space may be about driving efficiency into networks and creating good business cases but it could also be about delivering social and environmental outcomes that are valued by the public sector and paid for by the public sector or paid for by in society through different mechanisms. So partly it's about doing the anthropology, understanding what the issues are and being in a situation where we can define what the outcomes are that we're going to generate. That then leads into much better articulation of the value proposition. We will continue to be in what I call death by pilot mode where we go from one pilot to another pilot trying to demonstrate technical competency and the value proposition in business case terms. Forever more, if we continue to do that or until people run out of funding and interest in doing pilots, what we need to do to get the scale is go up a level and start talking about what is the value proposition in political narrative terms that allows political stakeholders to say in terms that the general population understand. This is what a smart meter enables you to do. They don't care about the technical capabilities and functionality of the smart meter, the man and lady on the street. They want to understand how is this going to make my life cheaper, more fulfilling and fundamentally better? And until we start changing the narrative for that and start articulating the value case in terms that actually matter to the individual, the politicians will never get interested because they don't understand the technology. And even the ones that do understand the technology don't care. What they care about is, is there a story that I can tell that is going to ultimately win me friends and votes in the process? And that's about bridging the narrative between the private sector and what we care about and what helps us make better decisions about capital allocation towards understanding that we need to articulate our story in terms that can be solved by politicians. So there's a definite value piece in there. Then there's a whole section that will mean that we need to reframe business models, business models, governance models and financing models around all of these solutions. At the moment the dominant paradigm is a technology vendor has a solution, smart metering, smart transport, whatever it may be. They go to a government or a company and they will sell the solution and that solution will often be a capital investment on the behalf of that individual. Now from my visits to political leaders and to city leaders and to some extent to private companies that own networks, the view of you sell us a capital solution and we'll fund it just isn't really, isn't cutting the mustard in a world of austerity. So what we need to do is innovate around the business model. We need to think much more carefully about outcome-based contracting structures and value-based contracting structures. So at the same time that we're looking at defining the value proposition, we need to create business models that enable people to buy outcomes rather than buy product. And that is a very big step for a lot of these companies to make and it's not a step that they're unwilling to make. It's not something that's completely new. But what we do need to do is be much more innovative about the way that we structure the business model for delivery so that we sell those outcomes and if those outcomes aren't delivered, then the vendor also bears risk in the process. Because if the public sector, the only people that are bearing the delivery risk and they can't explain the political narrative for why they're doing it, they're never going to be making the investments. At the same time as that is true, it's not just about business models. Business model innovation will also require financing model innovation because you'll need to forward finance the delivery of the benefits of the outcomes. So where we think there's an economic rent to be taken for delivering an efficiency of some description or an outcome of some description, the CAPEX has to be funded at the beginning of the cycle and then amortised over the process of the outcome or the contract. That will require forward looking financing structures that can manage and blend the risk. So this will require significant collaboration. I think what we've come to realise is no one company, whether it's IBM, Accenture, GE, Siemens, can own these deliveries. It's going to require an unparalleled level of collaboration between those companies who will divide up the various different tasks within it and also include financing partners as well. And then the final piece is around governance. And I would posit that the institutional governance structures that dominate at the moment aren't necessarily fit for purpose going forwards. And that will mean thinking much more creatively about the type of enterprise structures that are put in place around the collaboration. And if that means that there are more public-private partnerships in the broadest sense, how does that then translate into actual governance and risk management? And for me, that will mean probably new forms of institutional structure that allow the public sector to develop joint ventures for one of a better word with private sector companies that will deliver infrastructure outcomes for the city on a concession-based structure. But both the private and the public sector will need a seat at the table of the governance of those activities. And we're going to need to work out what those frameworks look like. So there is this triad of business model innovation, financing innovation and governance innovation that has to be dealt with in order for us to make the transition from relatively small-scale pilot all the way through to large-scale implementation. So that's kind of the broad remit of how can we change? Before I kind of open it up for discussion, I'd like to talk a bit more about the idea of kind of the urban information marketplace. I do think that there is a role for the city in stimulating and managing the transition from a purely industrial economy to an information and knowledge economy. And for me that's about developing a completely new value chain around urban informatics or urban information management. So at one level, it requires us to look at data provision. Now historically over the last few years, a lot of the focus has been on open data, how the cities create open data platforms that provide data that people can then develop applications to use. But actually if you look at the total spectrum of data that's available on the city, much of the valuable data sits in the hands of private sector companies. So for example, one great data source would be operational data on the mobile phone network, i.e. you can generate things called population maps for one of a better of a word, that look at cell phone propagation within a city, how many people are linked and connected to each cell phone mast. That can give you a proxy for the density of population in real time throughout a city. Now that has many different applications and really strong commercial applications if you can find a way of recompensing the cell phone companies for delivery of that data. At the moment there are no real mechanisms by which a cell phone company can provide anonymised cell phone propagation data and can recoup value from it because the information marketplace doesn't really exist. So at the moment most of the information that goes into an information marketplace is open data and it's free. What we may see in the future is a marketplace that has a combination of proprietary data that has value and therefore would need to be paid for and open data that also has value but has already been paid for through taxation. So at one level it's about broadening access to data within the city and encouraging the private sector to participate by enabling them to recoup the investments that they've already created and charged for the use of that data. The second part of the value chain is around analytics. People who can take very large data sets can apply analytic capability to it and derive insight from it. Now there are big companies like Accenture and IBM and others that do that and have capabilities but there are also small niche companies that have deep analytical capabilities and the barriers to entry for those parties to participate are very small in the current technology environment. They can use processing power and data storage power in the cloud that enables a relatively small organisation of very smart people to be able to perform analytics. Now a city that can provide the fuel for those analytics providers can also encourage small and medium sized enterprises to set up with the pure purpose of delivering those analytics and then being paid for the value that they're creating. But that requires a third part of the value chain which is a service delivery platform to enable the transaction. So you can think of that like iTunes is a service delivery platform. They enable the user to buy music which is the data and then they enable the transaction and Apple take a percentage cut of each transaction. Now the same principle applies for the information marketplace. You need a service delivery platform that can take the data or the information that comes from the analytics provider, package it and then allow the fourth part of the value chain, the app developers, to develop apps that work on the platform to deliver the insight that can then be paid for. So then you've created a full information transaction marketplace from the app developers that give you and I the ability to perform a transaction and to get value from it through a service delivery platform that enables the monetary transaction to occur to the analytics providers that are using the data to provide the insight. But you need all four parts of the value chain to operate. Now at one level that can happen transnationally and trans across many different cities. But there is a role for the city potentially in either developing a service delivery platform or enabling a concessionaire to run a service delivery platform on their behalf that allows citizens businesses to be able to perform information transactions that deliver them value. But the key is to create something that is neutral enough that allows for the creation of a functioning information economy where app developers are able to start up and set up and service the needs of citizens and businesses and small analytics companies can perform the same function. But my contention is there is a role for the city in being a first or rather a prime tenant in that process. There are a lot of activities that the city procures in digital terms that they could procure through that information marketplace competitively. And so I would like to see more cities acting in a procurement function to stimulate the development of these information economies whilst also performing the function of the platform provider that enables these things to set up. Now, I'm not suggesting that the city would have all the skills to be able to do that but they could quite easily concession that out which brings me to my final point which is what is the right institutional form for doing that. Now, in the modern world, my mobile phone is a citizen sensing unit. It can produce all sorts of information about me and my daily life and that has value in aggregate terms. But the big question is when we're more systematically providing citizen sensing, who are we going to trust to be the custodian of that data and to make sure that I am being repaid for the use of the data that I'm providing? Now, I'm not sure that I would want that to be a mobile phone company. I'm not sure I would want it to be a bank. I'm not sure that I would want it to be a city, government. So, what is the right institutional form for that? And I was just talking at lunch. I think there is a real opportunity to go back to the future to provide these solutions. I think in the next decade, two decades, we're going to see an increasing development of mutual and cooperative structures that represent citizens in the aggregate form but don't necessarily have profit-making motives that represents in mutual form those citizens. And their sole ambition is to protect the interests of their customers. And that may or may not be wrong. It may be that individuals will trust mobile phone companies or energy providers or banks with their data. But I suspect there may also be a series of relatively successful enterprises that are set up as social or community enterprises that act on behalf of customers in mutual form. But what it does suggest is there's room for innovation. There's definite room for innovation around enterprise structures and there's room for innovation around the institutional forms that we use to manage those cities. So, I'll draw the presentation to a close at this stage and I'd love to open up the discussion. Obviously, we can talk about any of those questions. But hopefully that's given some food for thought around what some of the challenges are within the smart city and what some of the opportunities are and maybe how we could move forward. Thank you very much, Simon. Thank you.