Launching a Smart City project: What are the challenges and how can you overcome them?

In May, the Smart City Institute team organized 2 online workshops bringing together no fewer than 40 representatives (municipalities, ADL, GAL, etc.) of winning projects from the call for projects "Territoire Intelligent" 2023 . The aim: to draw up an initial assessment in the form of a discussion. How far have the projects progressed? What are the main challenges encountered a few months after their launch? But also: what are the possible solutions identified on the basis of the participants' experience? As a result of these exchanges, we have identified 4 recurring challenges that can arise when setting up Smart Territory projects, and which can hinder their smooth progress.

A special context: the 2024 elections

On a day-to-day basis, local authorities are faced with an unavoidable administrative burden (obligations linked to the definition of public procurements or specifications, deadlines for validation of certain stages of the project by the local council/college, etc.), as well as a legislative burden.

In addition, this year's legislative elections in 2024 have thrown their internal organization into turmoil. As a result, priorities have shifted: campaigns, projects to be put forward, responses to citizens that need to be swift... A context that induces a game of influence, both positive and negative, for the project to be set up and with which project leaders have to contend.

1. A problem of resources and skills (technical and otherwise)

In parallel with this context, which has a greater or lesser influence depending on the municipality concerned, one of the major problems raised by the prizewinners during the discussions was the slowness in setting up the project due to a lack of resource people, but also of adequate skills.

Indeed, setting up innovative Smart City projects (e.g. smart meters, digital projects with the implementation of an app or web platform) often requires very specific technical skills, and project leaders report that they are not always equipped to deal with this (e.g. how do you analyze/share service provider bids when you don't master the technical subtleties/language involved?). Some also pointed out that unfortunately Smart City projects are not a priority for their local authorities.

Finally, when it comes to staffing, several representatives of small local authorities drew the following conclusion: " We simply don't have the experts in-house ". And in the other communes: " We have them, but they're already overstretched most of the time". So how do we overcome this lack of personnel and skills?

Here are some possible solutions:

• Internally, encourage cross-functional collaboration: everyone contributes according to their skills and limitations. This implies a certain notion of trust and transparency, as well as a sense of responsibility on the part of the departments involved in the project
• Externally^*, identify local resource people and organizations who can contribute to the project's progress:
  • Supra-municipal players (including Smart Région operational referents)
  • Consultants
  • Other local authorities (see next point)
• Offer training courses to agents involved in the project, after analyzing their needs
• Don't pretend to master the subtleties and technical/expert language if you don't have the required knowledge and/or skills. It's better to simplify the discourse and the requests as much as possible, while being precise ("vulgarize") by describing what you want and the objective to be reached. These objectives must be very simple and clear, not especially technical. It's up to the service provider, in his capacity as expert, to provide the answers.

2. Fruitful collaborations, but not always easy to orchestrate

One solution to the lack of resources and/or skills mentioned above is to seek them elsewhere. In fact, some of the prizewinners have chosen to set up joint projects in order to capitalize on each other's strengths and pool resources. However, when several municipalities cooperate, certain problems can arise:

• Compatibility of the political priorities of each local autorities
• Confrontation between different expectations and compromises to be found
• Sometimes different stages of progress and development (different timeframes)
• Difficulty dedicating time to coordination (organizing meetings, managing a common agenda, etc.)

So how can them best collaborate and coordinate?

Possible solutions discussed during the two working sessions:

• Use collective intelligence workshops with ambassadors representing the municipalities/departments concerned. This helps to clarify the needs and expectations of each entity, so that common solutions can emerge that are accepted by all
• Facilitate exchanges by defining reference persons in each entity (municipalities, service providers, etc.)
• Involve an outsider with a more global viewpoint and a degree of objectivity to help reconcile points of view, a fortiori when many players are involved. This could, for example, be a consultant or an operational Smart Région referent, depending on possibilities and availability.

3. Difficulties in formalizing partnerships and collaborations with service providers

When the time comes to identify and select the service provider(s) with whom to work to implement the project (a stage underway for many prizewinners at the time of the workshops), drawing up specifications is a time-consuming process that involves a number of constraints.

In the case of innovative projects, participants mentioned the difficulty of clearly defining their needs and finding the right arguments. Moreover, canvassing companies capable of working on innovative projects takes time, and it's not always easy to find the right technical terms, as mentioned above.

In addition, in the case of replication projects^* or those carried out in collaboration with players who have already developed a solution similar to the one envisaged, the rather legitimate question also arises: " can we work with a single service provider (i.e. identical to the one selected for the replicated project), and what constraints might this pose compared with a "classic" open specification?"

In view of the difficulties mentioned by the prizewinners, a number of possible solutions to facilitate the formalization of these partnerships were discussed during the workshop, such as :

• Setting up working groups with the project's various stakeholders to determine needs and objectives in advance, so as to prepare the ground properly
• In the same vein, enlist the support of experts/specialists to help identify risks, better understand how innovative solutions work and better determine needs
• Identify similar/replicable projects and draw inspiration from them, so as not to start from a blank page
• Exchange and share experience with other local players via exchange platforms (3P platform, conferences of elected representatives, platforms at the service of municipalities set up by certain inter-municipal organizations, etc.), particularly when it comes to replication projects. This help to identify possible solutions to overcome certain bottlenecks.
• The specifications should include sufficiently precise and detailed clauses to enable service providers to respond appropriately, and to enable the municipality to justify its choice of service provider

4. Ensuring enrolment and ownership of the project

In addition to implementation, for a project to be relevant and successful, it is essential to ensure that it is well received by its target audience(s), both externally (citizens, local businesses, etc.) and internally (for example, the municipal departments for whom the solution developed is intended). One of the fears felt by prizewinners in this respect is that they may not be able to overcome the reluctance of certain stakeholders towards the project, which could lead them to reject the proposed solution (fear, lack of information or skills, etc.). This raises a series of questions:

• Are all target audiences sufficiently trained/competent to use the solution developed ?
• Are users really going to contribute to it, otherwise its usefulness/relevance could be called into question?
• And finally, will the solution implemented really add value for the end-user?

To meet these challenges, the workshop participants made a number of recommendations:

• Demonstrating the project's real usefulness to its target audience is a natural way of generating acceptance. In addition, ensuring that the project is integrated into the commune's overall vision, as in the PST (Transversal Strategic Plan), guarantees a degree of coherence that further legitimizes the project.
• Establish an internal and external communication plan, to inform and reach out to target audiences.
• Offer presentation meetings and workshops to demystify the solutions implemented and overcome apriorisms (default brakes that some people put on themselves, automatically thinking that a solution will be too complicated to use, for example).
• Solicit local influencers or groups of testers who can then become ambassadors for the project.
• Make sure you have the support of the local councillors/mayors to instill enthusiasm for the project.
• Offer training courses to users after identifying their potential shortcomings, and ensure regular follow-up to answer any needs or questions they may have.
• Be aware of the limits of stakeholder participation/adhesion
  • Don't try to convince at all costs. Users have the right to disagree or refuse to use a service that does not meet their expectations
  • Be aware of the potential bias induced by over-involved/enthusiastic people when you involve your various audiences. It's therefore important to ensure that the trends identified are completely representative.
• In the specific case of digital solutions (applications, platforms, etc.), the following points have been raised:
  • Be careful not to provoke or encourage a certain digital lassitude/fatigue among the target audience, a trend increasingly noted by several of the prizewinners
  • Be attentive to the challenges of the digital divide by proposing alternatives to the all-digital approach
  • Ensure that there is real added value behind the proposed digital solution, to avoid "gimmickry"

Supporting project leaders throughout the transition process

Whether it's a lack of resources or skills, a need for better collaboration and coordination, or a problem of adhesion, there are many obstacles that project owners can encounter when undertaking sustainable and smart transition initiatives. Because of their innovative nature, they very often require creative thinking. With this in mind, the Smart City Institute offers a range of tools to support local players in their efforts, such as :