Hickling Arthurs Low Technology Management Strategy and Economics

Hickling Arthurs Low Technology Management, Strategy, and Economics Mid-Term Evaluation of The Smart Communities Demonstration Program Background Notes for Smart Communities Workshop March 3, 2003

Background

Hickling Arthurs Low Definition of Smart Community “Smart Communities are towns and cities that use information and communications technologies in new and innovative ways to empower their residents, institutions and region as a whole. ” Report of the Panel on Smart Communities (Industry Canada, 1998) 3

Hickling Arthurs Low 1998 Panel Report Context of Smart Communities n Part of the Connectedness Agenda (6 “pillars”) – – – Canada On-Line Canadian Content On-Line E-commerce Government On-Line Connecting Canada to the World Smart Communities 4

Hickling Arthurs Low Smart Communities Program Goal n Establish world-class Smart Communities across the country so that Canadians can fully realize benefits that information and communication technologies have to offer 5

Hickling Arthurs Low Smart Communities Program Objectives n n n Assist communities in developing and implementing sustainable Smart Communities strategies Create opportunities for learning through the sharing among communities of Smart activities, experiences and lessons learned Provide new business opportunities, domestically and internationally, for Canadian companies developing and delivering information and communication technology applications and services 6

Hickling Arthurs Low Selection Criteria n Community Engagement – Strategic Partnerships with community stakeholders n Smart Services – Offer informative, interactive, innovative services; international links n Smart Infrastructure – On-line access available to majority of community n Organization – Credible organizational structure or sponsoring organization n Smart Results – Improvement in economic and social well-being 7

Preliminary Mid-term Evaluation Findings

Hickling Arthurs Low Study Methodologies n n n Document review – Program documents, original proposals, contribution agreements, website reviews, etc. Interviews with – Leads and partners in all 12 demonstration projects – Members of the 1998 Panel that recommended the program – Selection Committee members Case studies – Representative of different types of communities ie rural, urban, remote, Aboriginal, and francophone – Kuh-ke-nah Network, Smart. Capital, La Péninsule acadienne Surveys online – Applicants that did not receive funding – Website users Workshop 9

Hickling Arthurs Low Evaluation Issues n n n Relevance Program Design Program Delivery Objectives Achievement Lessons Learned Future Directions 10

Hickling Arthurs Low Relevance (1) n Program Goal and Objectives – Virtual unanimous support for program goal and objectives : ““The program goal and objectives are very visionary and appropriate” (SC Representative). – Approach of delegating delivery to communities very well received, enables strategies suited to local opportunities/ capacity n Raised awareness of potential of Smart Communities – Highlighted capabilities of ICTs to deliver services, provide linkages etc. – In remote communities, led to increase in number of computers in homes and in use of the Internet 11

Hickling Arthurs Low Relevance (2) n Strong incrementality – Many ICT services and applications n n n Would have taken much longer without the program or Would not have happened at all Provided equality of access to services, information – Especially important in rural and remote communities n Generated interest on an international scale – Majority of communities reported international interest – Connect Calgary named Intelligent Community of the Year 2002 12

Hickling Arthurs Low Design and Delivery (1) n Selection Criteria – Virtually all consulted felt appropriate – Enabled comparison of very different proposals – Concern expressed over infrastructure requirements, many smaller communities may not have considered applying – Suggestion that portfolio criteria (ex. achieving a balance between urban, rural, remote etc. communities) could have been better communicated – Suggestion also that compensation for weak infrastructure by strong community engagement could have been explicitly stated 13

Hickling Arthurs Low Design and Delivery (2) n Two-stage application process – First round: Letter of Intent n 129 submissions – Second round: Full proposals n n 46 submissions National Selection Committee established to make recommendations 14

Hickling Arthurs Low Design and Delivery (3) n 12 demonstration projects selected – – – n 10 provinces + aboriginal and northern $4. 5 million over three years (to March 2004) Matching from partners Contribution agreements with each project – Vendor agreement model with specific deliverables n Lead projects act as umbrellas for sub-projects – Different strategies followed n n n Sub-projects delivered through partnerships Sub-projects delivered through the lead Combination of both 15

Hickling Arthurs Low Design and Delivery (4) n Circumstances challenged the delivery of the program – Delays in release of funding n Keeping interest of partners while waiting – Meltdown of high tech sector n n Loss of key private sector partners Supportive synergies with other programs – Federal: Fed. Nor, WD, ACOA; CAP – Provincial 16

Hickling Arthurs Low Design and Delivery (5) n Smart Communities Directorate – Provides ongoing guidance and advice - organizes annual meetings of 12 Smart Communities – Showed flexibility in allowing adjustments to contribution agreements as conditions changed (e. g. , loss of private sector partners) – Established Smart Communities website - Resource Exchange (clearing house of best practices), Tool Kit and Skills Development (online and in-person training) - evidence that website not yet achieving significant usage among funded and un-funded communities 17

Hickling Arthurs Low Achievement of Objectives (1) n n n High usage of many services that are operational, despite many sub-projects not yet fully up-andrunning Implementation of community-wide ICT projects promoted linkages amongst diverse players; silos bridged among players that normally communicate Momentum created within communities (even some of those that did not receive funding) 18

Hickling Arthurs Low Examples of Sub-projects n Kuk-ke-nah Network (Aboriginal) – Access to health information n n Potentially significant impact on treatment of diabetes Smart. Capital (Ottawa) – Integration of public, university and national library catalogues online n Calgary Connect – Services and information provided to “at risk” population 19

Hickling Arthurs Low Achievement of Objectives (2) n Community Engagement – – n Significant impact Engaged many partners and ordinary citizens Seen as “liberating, ” “empowering” Equality of access to services, information, training Capacity building – All communities developed new capacities n n Technical Organizational/Managerial 20

Hickling Arthurs Low Achievement of Objectives (3) n Achievements varied with type of community (Remote, Rural, Urban) – Different challenges n n n Infrastructure was lacking in remote communities Community engagement more difficult in urban communities Technical capabilities lacking in remote & rural communities – Incremental impacts n n Deep impact, small population in remote communities Wide impact, large population in urban communities – Interest in sharing solutions different n Much sharing among remote and francophone communities, and those with similar strategies 21

Hickling Arthurs Low Achievement of Objectives (4) n Leverage – Funding n n Levered funding from other programs to fill in gaps (e. g. infrastructure) such as Community Access Program providing local access centres Levered funding from regional development agencies (Fed. Nor, WD, ACOA) – Infrastructure n Levered fibre and other infrastructure builds by provinces (e. g. Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan) 22

Hickling Arthurs Low Achievement of Objectives (5) n Sustainability – Sub-projects are sustainable; many may be supported or maintained by other agencies (municipal, provincial, educational, health) – Project offices may not be sustainable; will impact on ability n n n To share know-how To provide international leadership Projects may have significant positive social and economic outcomes – Too early to tell at mid-term – Important to measure in individual project evaluations and in final program evaluation 23

Hickling Arthurs Low Lessons Learned (1) n n n Valuable know-how developed in project offices but means need to be found to capture and retain – in danger of being lost (with end of program) Opportunities for commercializing smart community products and services – steps required to avoid competition among Smart Communities to provide these services Dissemination cannot be passive (e. g. , Smart Communities website) - need concerted marketing efforts, best focused on “like” communities ie remote, rural, urban 24

Hickling Arthurs Low Lessons Learned (2) n n n The three types of communities (remote, rural, and urban), have differing capacities and needs in becoming Smart Communities eg demands on rural and remote to build technical and managerial skills Willingness of business partners to contribute leading edge approaches greatly affected by economic health of technology sector Three-year time frame may be too short for full demonstration; five years appears more realistic – – – Time for consultation among local groups Time to develop and work with partners Time to develop and implement applications 25

Hickling Arthurs Low Future Directions n Develop models/structures to: – Capture and make available know-how, knowledge – Market ideas pro-actively to entire country and internationally – Exert international leadership n n Provide incentives for others to become smart communities Continuing focus on applications and services enabled by provincial and municipal broadband network builds 26

Hickling Arthurs Low This Study Activities underway to complete the study: n Case Studies (3) n Online surveys (2) n Workshop (March 3) n Draft and final reports (by March 31) 27