Apps & the City: The Changing Face of Urban Travel

Whilst on a recent business trip, it occurred to me that I would be lost without my smartphone. This is by no means the first time I have thought appreciatively of my phone but this experience stood out in my mind. I was typically late and rushing to make a flight. First I used my smartphone to check my route to the airport using a tube map of my native London, then whilst on the train I double-checked the airport website to confirm the correct terminal for my flight before boarding said flight using a mobile boarding pass. Upon touching down in my destination, I traveled across the city to a train connection, found a place to eat lunch to answered some urgent emails. I was able to do all of the above on my smartphone while listening to a podcast and passing my train journey with a mobile game.

Of course all of the above services would have been possible in the days before my smartphone through finding public information points but this is a time-consuming process, particularly in a foreign city. The smartphone offers me a window onto the world which allows me to behave pretty much as a native of any foreign city. This, for me at least, is a pretty big thrill as I seamlessly navigate the transport system, enjoy some delicious food and make purchases just like a long-term resident.

Hot on the heels of my love affair with my smartphone though I was struck with a second thought every bit as powerful as the first: None of my fancy applications would matter without the information to make them run. For example if my train from the airport to the city centre had a timetable which I could only find using a station board, I could not have used my app to book my ticket and arrive perfectly on time for the train. Similarly without the city making its information about tourist sights available somewhere the designers of my ‘see the sights’ app would have nothing to go on and I would have missed some very beautiful buildings along my route.

The information cities hold is commonly referred to as Data. Data is generated by governments and public services as they go about their everyday duties. For example, a train company operating its regular schedule generates vast amounts of data about train times, delays, routes and even passenger numbers and peak times. In our technology-driven world, it has become easier than ever to capture and store this data is vast quantities. This is true for almost every service you can think of in a city, from the lighting of streets to the running of public parks.

The main question for our times is what governments do with the huge mountains of Data they have stored in their archives? In the past, the answer was one of two things, either 1) they did nothing with it but study it or 2) they let large companies pay for the privilege of using that Data to build new services or products. The problem with this model is clear to see: Only a company willing to pay a large amount of money could afford to use the data governments collected. However, this is only the start of the problem. Governments generate mountains of Data while running public services. Public services are paid for by citizen’s taxes either at the City, Regional or National level. Therefore, the Data which public services generate belongs to the people who made it possible in the first place: the Citizens. The above describes a movement which has been gathering pace in Europe for the last 20 years: Open Data. Open Data suggests that governments should open their data up for people to use free of charge (because they own it!). This would mean that anyone, from the largest company to the smallest individual could put data to work in thousands of different ways, limited only by their own creativity and innovation. Naturally some of these creative people might be the designers of the mobile apps which allow me to navigate a foreign city like a professional. All the time I save and the extra experiences I get from these apps begin and end with Open Data.

This is where Citadel on the Move comes into the picture. Citadel is a European Commission-Funded project which begins with a simple equation: Open Data + Mobile = Innovation. The two ingredients needed to cause a revolution in the provision of public services are the free availability of useful Open Data and the creation of Mobile Applications to allow Citizens to use these services on the move.

At this point, let’s go back to me traveling through my new city. I travel a lot for business and have to navigate my way through a lot of different cities. One of my abiding frustrations is that each new city I visit, I have to download a brand new set of apps for the transport systems, tourist attractions, food guides ect… My phone is now getting seriously crowded with these things. This is, when you think about it, completely unnecessary. It is the equivalent of me buying a new computer for America and another for Europe because they have different types of plug outlet. Of course what I do is travel with an adapter which allows me to plug my computer in no matter where in the world I am. The same exact principle applies to apps which offer city services such as transport or tourism. When you think about it, what changes from city to city is not what the app does (show you timetables, plan journeys, highlight points of interest) but simply the specific Data which it uses.

So why, I hear you cry, do the app developers not make apps which can plug into the Data of different cities? The answer can be complex but the short version is because many cities release their Open Data in different formats, like different plug types. This is exactly the challenge which Citadel on the Move is working to answer. Citadel is making it easier for cities to release their Open Data in easy-to-use formats. These common formats, like popular types of plug, make it easy for citizens to use this data effectively. Not content with making Open Data more accessible, Citadel also brings you template mobile applications. These templates are already designed to run on the Open Data from cities, making it easier for people to design mobile apps which deliver services like transport timetables or tourist information. Finally, and most importantly, Citadel Open Data formats and Citadel template applications function like a plug socket and a plug adapter, making it possible for me to use the same app in different cities.

The vision is simple. I should be able to start my week with a meeting in Manchester, fly to a conference in Ghent and end the week on a beach in Athens all using just one set of applications to navigate these very different cities.

To find out more about the Citadel on the Move project and get involved yourself, check out our website here.

JURI
Piracy - Copyright infringement becoming a growing risk to innovation and investment: how can Member States regulate open source media without stifling competition?

Nathalie Thiel (SE)


Artists on a sinking ship

We are all aware of the situation of today where it has become more common to download media files, both legally and illegally, and listen or watch to free music streaming sites such as Spotify, than it is to purchase these products in real stores. We have all heard the downhill statistics concerning CD and film sales. Stores shut down; hard working artists give up; businesses close. This affects a whole industry and the business community is worried about today’s trend. It is not only a worry to the European Union, but also for industries all over the globe. Perhaps, without realising it, most citizens that are involved in piracy are in one way or another indirectly supporting and dealing with organised crime. Nevertheless, the question is whether the European individual does and should care about this matter?

Piracy is an ongoing and growing issue. This is something that has changed rapidly over the last decades. The ongoing directives by the European Commission are now considered rather outdated and therefore not made for the present generation. Neelie Kroes, the EU’s Digital Agenda Commissioner, agrees to the previous statement and declares that the measures have been ineffective, “We need to keep on fighting against piracy, but legal enforceability is becoming increasingly difficult. The millions of dollars invested trying to enforce copyright have not stemmed piracy”.  

Moreover, Kroes is concerned over people’s perception of copyright, regulating piracy and the current system in general. People seem to tend to focus on the negative perspectives which often claim that they would hinder innovation and punish citizens. That is not necessarily the case. The need for a stricter copyright enforcement would not be implemented to punish or harm people, but to reward and give recognition to the creators. Still, one argument is that regulations of open media sources would violate one of the most essential Human Rights, the freedom of speech, meaning that websites should be free - a place to share all sort of knowledge and information.

Also, a study on Piracy from the European Commission was released this year, which has caused outrage from the music industry. It claims that piracy is, to an extent, not as bad for the music industry as assumed. In fact, Internet users do not view illegal downloading as a substitute to legal digital music, according to their results. In addition, piracy has a positive effect on music sales and without it, sales would have been even lower. So, the conclusion of this study is that piracy within the music industry should not be seen as a growing concern for copyright holders in a modern time. Instead, however, it highlights the upcoming importance of online streaming sites and their positive future outlook. 

Even though the report from the European Commission showed optimism while putting its belief in a new future market where the spotlights are on streaming sites, it might be too naive to simply rely on those sources. Piracy and illegal downloads are not to be encouraged by any means. A life as an artist is not easy with today’s open source media where information and files can easily be shared globally. The economic crisis has not aided the situation. Surely, some new musicians use the open media to their advantage to give their art attention, but mostly it affects artists to their disadvantage. Therefore, there is a need to improve the protection of the citizens and their rights in order to encourage innovation, creativeness and development, not to restrain it.

Furthermore, organised crime is increasingly involved in piracy in the film industry. Thus, if one purchase piracy films there is a possibility that some of the money will go to funding of crimes such as: drugs, human trafficking and terrorism. Moreover, illegal acts like film piracy and counterfeiting are sometimes more profitable than drug trafficking.

So, yes, regarding to the size of the industry, the number of people involved, and the crimes this can lead to; I do believe that it is something both individuals and society at large should care about, if they are not already. 

Nathanlie Thiel is a 21c Guest Blogger

ICT-Driven Public Sector Innovation in H2020:  Initial Thoughts

Dr. Julia Glidden, Managing Director, 21c Consultancy

Benjamin Cave, European Projects Manager, 21c Consultancy

1.       Views on the challenges, opportunities and vision presented

a.       Challenge of Culture Change: 

                                                               i.      The importance of ‘empowering and training civil servants’ cannot be underestimated.

                                                             ii.      The entrenchment of a ‘risk adverse culture’ and ‘business as usual procedures’ remains strong within government at all levels, creating an inherent obstacle to the introduction of new processes, products, services and methods that ICT alone cannot solve.

                                                            iii.      Leadership from the top of government organisations, including the Commission, is critical to ensure that government services evolve at the right speed.

                                                           iv.      Rather than attempt to keep pace with change (which is impossible given the current pace of ICT innovation), government leaders should promote the principles of ‘Open Innovation’ amongst civil servants, ensuring a cultural mindset that is flexible, adaptable and responsive to user feedback

b.      Challenge of Co-Creation:

                                                               i.       Participatory, bottom-up co-creation of services can create more effective, personalised experiences but the process increases the burden on citizens to participate.

                                                             ii.      Making more efficient, cost-effective public services must mean more than having the citizen pay for and create their own services.

                                                            iii.      To be maximally effective, government must provide structured parameters within with to co-create services.

                                                           iv.      ‘Guided’ service co-creation will reduce the burden on citizens of participating in service co-creation whilst maximising the return for public administrations and citizens alike.

c.       Challenge of Cross Border:

                                                               i.      In addition to interoperability challenges, cross border service design and delivery also faces the challenge of providing localised services in a pan-European context.

                                                             ii.      To meet this challenge, the delivery of cross-border services should focus on the creation of templates and standards that promote applications and services that can be easily adapted to local conditions rather than a ‘one-size fits all’ cloud-based vision

                                                            iii.      For a project that is based upon this premise, see: http://www.citadelonthemove.eu/

2.       Opinion of the Objectives Outlined

a.       Open Government is a strong objective but it is important to identify the areas in which ‘government as an open platform’ is most likely to reap dividends. Feedback from non-specialist stakeholders in highly specialised areas such as national defence or financial regulation, for example, may not help government to achieve better policies because a) data is highly confidential and b) detailed expertise is required to provide useful feedback.

b.      Transformation of Public Administration is a broad objective which seeks to accomplish a difficult goal. As highlighted above, one of the greatest barriers to transformation is the reluctance of public servants to change their working practices and embrace a more open approach to government. EU actions can help to promote  an ‘innovation-aware’ model by a) encouraging top down policy leadership in this area, b) recognising and rewarding public sector innovators and c) supporting education and training that develops the latent capacity to drive further change.

c.       Effective Public Services is increasingly intertwined with personalised service provision. As digital natives come into their own, ICT is reshaping the entire mindset that citizens have about their relationship with government.  It is important for public administrators to appreciate that ‘effective’ is as likely to mean personalised as efficient to citizens in the years ahead.

3.       Relevance, Importance and Missing Gaps in the possible areas of Research and Innovation Activities and Technologies

a.       Future-Proofing:    It is essential that the research framework is sufficiently flexible enough to take into account unforeseen changes in service requirements or technologies over the period to 2020.   Given the rapid pace of change, the framework should also be flexible enough to move quickly and nimbly on good ideas, and to abandon bad ones. 

b.      Upskilling: The local government community, outside ‘Smart Cities’, is often the slowest to adopt new innovation and among the hardest hit by economic austerity. At the same time, local government often has the greatest impact upon citizens in their day-to-day lives.  Innovation projects which bring together established local government actors with newer actors from smaller (often more rural) communities would help to drive innovation across Europe as a whole, rather than just the metropolitan hubs.

c.       Open Data vs. Big Data: Expert groups tend to take concepts like Open Data for granted.  Yet many Member States, not to mention regional and local actors, are still struggling to come to terms with the meaning and value of opening their data, let alone how best to do so. This problem will be dramatically compounded in the years ahead as we move from the Internet of Things to the Internet of People, or a world of over 50 million interconnected, data creating devices.  Research and innovation activities are needed to ensure that public sector innovation does not become overwhelmed (or indeed left behind altogether) by an impending ‘data tsunami.’

4.       Availability and maturity of technology to facilitate the proposed activities and how short, medium and long-term research may be able to support this

a.       The technologies to support smart service innovation have, in many cases, been ubiquitous for some time. Much is made of social media which, technologically speaking, is a mature and fairly basic set of tools. Even more complex technologies such as IoT sensors or platform technologies are mature in technological terms at this moment.  The key issue in terms of technology to facilitate innovation, then, is not maturity in technical terms but maturity in terms of application to government service innovation.  Or, in other words, the maturity of public administrations to use technology to improve service delivery in a genuinely open and innovative manner.

b.      The adoption horizon for govern services is of necessity longer than for private sector businesses due to the simple fact that government services cannot afford to ‘fail’ in the same way as in the private sector.  For this reason, the key issue in terms of timeframe is to ensure the research and innovation programme has the flexibility to respond to short-term changes in the technology landscape in the pursuit of medium to longer term research priorities.

5.       Other barriers and possible ways to overcome them through the help of H2020

a.       Bureaucracy:  Building a higher tolerance of lower risk failures than exists under current EU funding regimes would help to stimulate greater innovation, as would reducing the administrative burden for SME participation in funded research.

b.      Inclusion:  A key potential barrier to the effective development of innovative services is the dominance of an established ecosystem of players in the ‘Smart City’ domain. To ensure that public service innovation truly creates impact for citizens across Europe, H2020 must move beyond the focus on cities by including rural or suburban administrations where possible.

c.       Trickle Down:  Another potential barrier is the unwillingness of national policymakers to adopt cross-border services at an early stage, delaying trickle down to local government. To counteract this challenge, H2020 might have a track in which national governments conduct research and piloting into the adoption of these open services into their national policy framework.