 Mertho'i dda ni i gydion i'r cymdeithas, a sberyddio'r gweithio, ac mae'n iawn i ddim yn ymweld yr oedall, a'i adnig â chynllun, ddu o gael, a gydiddio ar ddweudiaeth penodol, sy'n gyfnod mewn gweithio'r cyffredinol. Mae'n eu portwch yn gynhyrch a'r croses o'r ODI ac a'r adnig i'n ceisio'r amlwg Catherines. Mae'r orsyn iddyn nhw'n gallu chael newidau i chi'n cael eu cyfnodol o fynd i gael swydd intentionig ar y cyfnodol for an in depth and enlightening discussion. I let you encourage you to all feel relaxed here to feel able to participate in open and stimulating debate. So make yourselves at home. Feel free to challenge me, to challenge Catherine, challenge the other speakers, all in the name of moving the dialogue forward around open data and smart cities. So the theme today is about scaling smart cities and we want to make an explicit distinction here between or an explicit contrast between scaling open data or scaling smart cities from a technical perspective, but more importantly today from a human and social and cultural perspective. By that we mean how do we take the smart city vision, the various smart city visions that exist and the various smart city initiatives that exist and scale them to ensure that they meet the, that they're defined by individual objectives and that they're measured by the impact on individual's lives in terms of person centred outcomes, what can make people's lives better, primarily from a human perspective through the medium of technology. So what does that look like in practice? Well we believe at the ODI that fundamentally a smart city has to be an open city. We don't think that we can scale smart cities in terms of person centred impact, in terms of sustainability, in terms of all the other objectives that people have for smart cities without openness. And as you can imagine when we talk about openness at the ODI then we think that open data is a strong part of that. But there's a range of other aspects, some of which I've highlighted here. And you'll see that the first three are really relate to technical aspects. So open data, open standards and open infrastructure. And we think that from a technical point of view these are crucially enabling everyone to participate and that openness extends to building an open culture within the city, something that is pervasive. And I don't mean pervasive necessarily in the way that we'd like senses to be pervasive but in terms of something that is embodied in individuals, in terms of how they experience their city, how they feel they can contribute to their city and help to shape their community and the environment around them. And so crucially this openness has to be for something that everyone can participate in and feel the benefit from. So when I look at this list of five opens then it reminds me of another great infrastructure that we're all familiar with which is the web. So this was, the web emerged from a period of intense research on hypertext environments and until the web came around none of those had really demonstrated an ability to scale. It had scaled from a technical perspective geographically, culturally, socially down to the level of the individual. But with the advent of the web we saw open data and open content underpinned by open standards and the infrastructure to enable that content and that data to propagate. And we feel the effects of that as a result. You know, we have this hashtag here at ODI Features. We wouldn't be, we participate in that. The web has engendered a culture of openness and participation which we hope will be for everyone. You know, there's still billions of people who might not feel the benefits of that or the benefits or the effects positive or negative. But we hope that over time that can be addressed as well. So, when we translate this into practice, as I've said before, we think we need to focus the discourse of smart cities around people-centered outcomes, not technology solutions. A lot of the discourse has been driven by people that have solutions they're excited about, they're keen to see deployed, they're keen to see have some concrete effect in environments. But often we've found that those technology solutions will come first. And I think we need to try and, as a community, try and reframe the debate around what is the impact for the individual, what is the outcome that's going to help improve their quality of life or other factors that are important to them. So, we did a little exercise in the ODI recently to try and flesh out our understanding or ground our understanding of the ODI position on smart cities in person-centered initiatives or outcomes. And so, we asked a group of us within the institute, what does a smart city mean to you? And crucially, we didn't want to get bogged down into, oh, I think it's about these sectors, I think it's about transport and waste management and air quality. We wanted to keep it at that high level. We wanted to ground it in individual experiences and individual priorities. What makes a difference to your individual life? I'm seeing Adrian in the front row and I'm tempted to pick on him, but that would be unfair because I haven't primed him about this. But I think, you know, I'll take a minute to think what one outcome would you choose? If you could choose anything about your experience in the city or town or rural environment where you live, what one outcome would you choose? I don't have to answer now, but I'll take a moment to think about that. So, we chose a bunch of things when I looked at the notes we'd taken from the meeting. And there were a few high-level themes that came out from this. Firstly, greater agency over our own surroundings. If this can be an outcome of the smart city vision where people feel empowered to act upon their environment for the good of themselves and their communities, then that's a great outcome. And I think that comes in the context of environments where people might not feel empowered, they might feel acted upon by their urban environment. Another theme that came out was all actors taking their share of responsibility. So, this is about individuals saying, OK, well, if it's a problem I perceive in my neighbourhood, then perhaps it's down to me to take some action to report the broken street lamp, fix the pothole, clean up the litter, whatever. But on the other end of the spectrum, this is about large organisations, particularly businesses, being held accountable for taking and being required to take responsibility for the contributions that they make to the performance or the experience of the urban environment. Another theme that came out was what I called optimum connectivity. This isn't about everyone getting better broadband. This is especially not the point of this. It's about ensuring a level of connectivity on the physical and the human level such that cities and towns and other environments can function in the best possible way. So, to give a bit more colour to this, what I mean is that if you assume that everyone in a city is going to be strongly connected in a social network sense or a professional network sense to everyone else, then that's not sustainable. Or that places constraints on the size of that community. You probably can't grow that beyond a few hundred individuals. Similarly, if you assume that everyone in a particular neighbourhood is strongly connected but has no connections beyond to neighbouring neighbourhoods, then you end up effectively with a ghetto. Or you get a sequence of ghettos replicated into some kind of urban sprawl. I don't think that's optimal either. So, we need to balance there the strong connectivity at a neighbourhood level. I live in a city and I feel that in my neighbourhood it's like living in a village because I can go down the shops and run into people that I know. I also need to be able to experience connectivity and meaning and positive experience in other parts of the city, otherwise it's just I may as well live in a village. So, drilling down into more specific examples, then one of the people in the group flagged up about the relationship between humans and HGVs. So, lots of construction work in London, lots of construction work in other cities and you walk around the city or cycle around the city and you see massive trucks bringing building materials or taking waste away. What kind of effect does this have on the neighbourhood or the experience of being a cyclist, being a pedestrian, being someone that wants to sit outside a pavement cafe and how do those two priorities, how they reconciled? We'd like to have community spaces that benefit everyone that are run and operated and created with everyone's objectives and priorities in mind if we can balance that. Crucially, people would like the ability to raise their kids in the area that they've lived in for 15 years or 30 years or 5 years and be able to afford to do that. So, what I took out of this when I analysed these was that there's a lot of these outcomes, they're completely consistent with the kind of dominant technocratic view of smart cities but that view alone won't get us there. So, we need to ask the question, what will get us to that place of personal outcomes, improved quality of life and be able to address the kinds of issues that individuals care about on a day-to-day basis. So, you're brief for today and this isn't just a brief to the speakers, this is a brief to everyone here who's participating and by being present you are participating. So please use your talks, the questions you raise, the discussions you have in the coffee break to help us move towards that answer and shape what that answer is. Thank you very much.