As quoted in this article:

The world is graying at a break-neck pace, and that’s bad news for the global economy.

By 2020, 13 countries will be “super-aged” — with more than 20% of the population over 65 — according to a report by Moody’s Investor Service.

 That number will rise to 34 nations by 2030. Only three qualify now: Germany, Italy, and Japan.

“Demographic transition … is now upon us,” warn Elena Duggar and Madhavi Bokil, the authors of the Moody’s report.

“The unprecedented pace of aging will have a significant negative effect on economic growth over the next two decades across all regions.

There will be a series of upcoming articles focusing on this issue and how technology like IoT can help the aging population. For a start, take a look at these three videos below which will highlight how aging population will impact our future generations and our world.

We wanted our cities to be livable and prosperous that are built upon well-functioning urban infrastructure services like health, energy, buildings and transportation. Without proper planning, cities will see their social and economic growth stifled in congestion, air pollution, health issues and blackouts. We also believed cities can be smarter if cities can quickly respond to the needs of the people.

The Smart City’s End Game

The final aim of Smart City is to:

• Make a better use of the public resources
• Increase the quality of the services offered to the citizens
• Reduce the operational costs of the public administrations.
• Support better living, create more opportunities, support stronger and more cohesive communities
• Improve the quality of life overall for all residents

By 2050 more than 6 billion people are expected to live in cities. Cities are hubs for cultural and economic activities. They are the engines of economic growth. But the development was not always “smart,” sacrificing health conditions, for instance, for greater productivity.

The Challenges

Cities are complex systems that are difficult to understand without the right information. We need to create cities that address people’s needs. That means learning city challenges by studying the people who use them. With Internet of Things (IoT), it will help us rethink how we monitor, measure and manage cities so we can make them healthier places for their inhabitants. Cities are complicated and have their own set of challenges, such as:

• Multiple authorities and commercial parties manage them.
• They constantly evolve, reacting to the needs of their inhabitants.

To make it happen, it requires a process of negotiation, integration, iteration. And there will be lots of different parties involved: political leaders, civil servants, service providers, technology companies, health services, police forces, property owners and most important of all, the citizens themselves.

Hey, City! Are You Alive?

Ultimately, there is the need to correctly understand our cities and the interactions that make them “alive,” so that we can make more informed decisions about the cities future. But first, answer this question – “Have you measured the Pulse of Your City? How healthy is your city?”

Presentation Slides “Listen to the Pulse of the City Using IoT” – DOWNLOAD

Think “Lean Methodology” – Build, Measure and Learn. I think that’s how we should build Smart Cities. We can no longer take the risks of building projects fast and become “white elephants” which Wikipedia defined as:

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness.

Most of the times, Smart Cities deployment failed even though we planned well but failed in execution. Failed in getting the citizens to use the facilities. Failed in maintaining and sustaining the business model.

The maturity of acceptance of city dwellers is also an essential element. I don’t think we can just replicate the success of one Smart City in one country to another country without proper understanding the priorities of the citizens due to the ethnicity and maturity of the city inhabitants.

No doubt, we need the masterplan for Smart Cities. A blueprint that lay the framework and the timeframe which is essential in measuring the success of any projects. But then, blueprints can be useless if there is no element of funding and the right business models in place. Most Smart Cities projects are delayed or canceled due to lack of financing from both parties (government and private entities).

To avoid such issues, let’s use the “lean methodology” in developing Smart Cities. The key element is the MVP (Minimum Viable Product), or in this case, we might call it “Minimum Viable City.” Here’re the steps:

1. Develop a hypothesis by getting citizens inputs. Provide the citizen with tools that allow them to engage with the government or city authorities.
2. Collect the data and analyze the citizen’s priorities
3. Build the “Minimum Viable City” Smart Applications
4. Measure the impact and usefulness.
5. Learn from the citizens whether their pain points are adequately addressed. Iterate the process again.
6. Scale up the deployment.

Think Big Start Small

“Think Big Start Small” – that’s how we should build our Smart Cities without putting so many resources. But to implement this – we need funding from the Government. In Malaysia, I would suggest MOSTI, MCMC, MDEC, MIGHT or Cyberview allocate some funds to create many Proof-of-Concept (PoC) projects in various cities. That’s one of the ways to spur the local innovation within the country.

What’re your thoughts?