Innovation and entrepreneurship as drivers of smart cities : what are the roles of local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks in smart city/system developments and activities in Dublin and Amsterdam?

(1)

James Barry

MSc Urban and Regional Planning

Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Drivers of Smart Cities

What Are the Roles of Local Innovation Systems and Entrepreneurship

Networks in Smart City/System Developments and Activities in Dublin and

(2)

0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to thank Professor Pieter Tordoir for acting as my supervisor for the duration of this thesis. It would not be a fraction of the thesis that is if it were not for his experience, insight, and most importantly, critiques. In this capacity, I would also like to thank Professor Maria Kaika for using her time as my second reader.

My parents and family, for their emotional (and financial) support as well as for smiling and nodding at the right times whenever I talked about urban and regional planning or smart cities.

My partner, Alicia, for injecting sanity and fun into my life and clarity and precision into my thesis through her outstanding proofreading.

Professor Rob Kitchin, Jamie Cudden, Frans-Anton Vermast, Alice Charles, Réka Pétercsák and Coen Bergman for being insightful and helpful interviewees who each guided the course of this thesis with their expertise.

My fellow students, Andreas, Miriam, and Kasper for acting as sounding boards for my various thesis proposals in our group sessions.

The UvA for accepting my application and giving me the chance to study in Amsterdam.

(4)

2

Abbreviations

ASC - Amsterdam Smart City DCC - Dublin City Council

EN - Entrepreneurship Networks IoT - Internet of Things

LIS - Local Innovation Systems

SBIR – Small Business Innovation Research SC/S - Smart Cities/Systems

(5)

3

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The phrase “smart city” has grown in popularity and presence consistently over the last decade, and for all of this attention, a solid definition of a “smart city” has only become more muddled. This can be, in part, attributed to the heterogeneity of cities and the bespoke nature of the “smart” solutions that are developed within them. Another cause of this uncertainty is the issue of understanding not just if a city is smart, but what makes a city smart. This uncertainty extends to understanding how innovation and entrepreneurship, essential ingredients in the creation of cutting edge technology, interact with the development of smart cities. Countless cities across the world are rebranding as smart cities, with almost every case exhibiting radically different approaches to becoming “smart”. The lack of understanding regarding exactly what constitutes a smart city results in confusion with regards to planning and development within the city; How can city planners work on “smart” initiatives if there is no clarity on what exactly makes those initiatives “smart” in the first place?

There has been extensive research on topics such as Marshallian districts, the impacts of automobiles in an urban context, and, more recently, the applications and potential of the circular economy; meanwhile there is a gap in literature and understanding regarding smart cities, their systems of innovation and entrepreneurship, and the question of what makes a smart city. How does “smart” develop within a city, and how are the smart solutions that are generated adopted? By examining the role that local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks have on smart city/systems development this research has helped to clarify these issues.

1.2 Problem Statement

The vast number of definitions of a smart city, the lack of clarity within cities and from planning practitioners as to what constitutes “smart”, and the absence of objective, critical analysis on how a city can become smart all run the risk of consigning “smart cities” to a buzzword. Cities across the world tout themselves as smart cities, often with very little to support this claim. Due to the uncertainty regarding what it means to be a smart city, it is difficult for cities and planners to work to ensure that cities are smart in more than just branding. By examining the building blocks of “smartness”, i.e. the development of smart solutions in an innovative, entrepreneurial environment, it is possible to resolve some of this uncertainty.

(6)

4 The intrinsic heterogeneity of smart cities has been previously noted, and it would be a pointless endeavour to try to pin the concept of a smart city to one immutable definition. A holistic and accommodating framework which can easily identify a city as smart, while also providing the leeway for unique examples of “smartness” is required. This thesis is not attempting to create that framework, rather, the findings will contribute to the body of work that will build it. The use of local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks as lenses through which the development of smart cities/systems was examined in Dublin and Amsterdam, assist in achieving this contribution.

1.3 Relevance

The conclusions and insights provided by this research could positively impact both smart city literature and discourse, and provide valuable insights for practice. By addressing the literature gap from the unique perspective of local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks, this research builds a discursive framework for future smart city/system literature. Recognition of the heterogeneity of smart city/system activities and the development of a conceptual framework to engage with them will contribute to the holistic and accommodating framework that will be used for identifying cities as “smart” in their own right.

The critical comparison of Dublin and Amsterdam, underpinned by the latest data and information available from several case studies within the two cities, provides practitioners with insight into the development and application of smart city technologies and solutions. Information gathered from a wide variety of sources (governments, businesses, and NGOs) provides empirically supported examples of smart city activities for practitioners to engage with. This type of research, an examination of how external effects influence regional development, was introduced a century ago by Alfred Marshall in his book ‘Principles of Economics’ (Belussi and Caldari, 2008), however it has yet to be applied to smart cities/systems. Within this thesis, Marshallian discourse is being refocused to include the joint impact of local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks on smart city developments.

1.4 Research Question and Research Outline

This thesis will examine Smart City/System developments in Dublin and Amsterdam using the theoretical lenses of Local Innovation Systems and Entrepreneurship Networks, while also focusing on

(7)

5 the effects of, inter alia, institutional influences and citizen engagement. Research was conducted via a combination of desk study and one-on-one interviews with experts in Dublin, Amsterdam, and Geneva. The research question at the heart of this thesis is;

“What are the roles of Local Innovation Systems and Entrepreneurship Networks in smart city/system

developments and activities in Dublin and Amsterdam?”

This question will be unpacked by breaking it down into several interrelated sub-questions, which highlight the relevance of local institutional thickness et cetera and will ultimately coalesce into a comprehensive answer combined with the findings of the central research question. The sub-questions are;

I. “Are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks present and how are they utilised in the case study areas of Dublin and Amsterdam?”

II. “Are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks significant factors in Smart City/Systems development and adoption? Why or why not?”

III. “What disparities exist between Dublin and Amsterdam in terms of are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks? What similarities exist?”

The cities of Dublin and Amsterdam will be given a quick overview here. Each of these cities were deemed suitable for comparison for several reasons:

• Both present themselves as being technology-oriented hubs of innovation on a global scale • Both are seeking to develop their international and domestic SC/S markets, and both fall

within the ‘XL’ category of the OECD (Dijkstra and Poelman, 2012) harmonised definition for European cities with populations between 500,000 and 1,000,000

• Both are capital cities

• Both Dublin and Amsterdam have produced either organisations or offices which promote and connect SC/S development and activities; Amsterdam Smart City and Smart Dublin

The desk study of Dublin and Amsterdam revealed that both cities have produced organisations to promote and develop Smart City/Systems activities; Amsterdam Smart City and Smart Dublin respectively. Amsterdam Smart City is a public/private partnership between Gemeente Amsterdam and fourteen other partners, primarily consisting of various institutions within the city, while Smart Dublin was created as an initiative by the four Local Authorities which govern Dublin: Dublin City Council, Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, South Dublin County Council, and Fingal County Council. Based on this information, the expectation when commencing this thesis was that Amsterdam

(8)

6 would present a bottom-up, “grassroots” methodology when promoting and developing Smart City/Systems activities, while Dublin would present a more top-down, techno-institutional methodology. The use of the Living Labs model in Amsterdam, which encourages innovative SC/S activities which engage with citizens in dozens of locations across the city initially supported this, while in Dublin, Smart Dublin uses competition-based innovation, called the Small Business Innovation Research Programme, within a “testbed” methodological framework.

This thesis will be broken down into five sections, each with further sub-sections. The first, Relevant Theory and Literature Review, as the name suggests, will delve into and unpack the theories and literature which underpin this thesis. These theories developed from the desk study, as well as from information gathered throughout the interview process. This section will culminate in the conceptual framework. Following Relevant Theory will be Data Collection and Analysis. This section will comprehensively break down the methodology of both collection and analysis, refresh the research questions outlined above, and further justify and clarify the core concepts and findings of this thesis. The Results section will distil the information gathered and analysed during the data collection and analysis section of the thesis. This information will then be applied to the central research question and sub-questions. The penultimate section of the thesis, the Conclusion, will refine and clarify the definitions and concepts used throughout the thesis, specify the key information and results gathered during the research process, and draw final conclusions on the thesis. Finally, the Discussion and Recommendations will be linked closely with the Results section and will provide greater insight and critical examination of the information gathered, discuss the veracity of the hypotheses and expectations set out within this thesis and the Relevant Theory and offer recommendations and observations regarding further research.

(9)

7

Chapter 2: Relevant Theory and Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This section will focus on unpacking and defining the theories, concepts, and paradigms that informed research decisions and information gathering during the research process, examples of these elements will be drawn from Amsterdam and Dublin. The interrelationship between the elements listed above can be traced using the conceptual framework at the end of this section. The idea of Marshallian districts underpins much of what is being discussed in this thesis, and understanding the concept is pertinent to understanding the conceptual framework. The essence of a Marshallian district is the “atmosphere” of the area, which lends itself to the continued innovation of industry in the area. This continued innovation builds on knowledge diffusion and externalities to business such as skilled localised labour markets, subsidiary businesses, and industrial leadership which can come in the form of an institution (Belussi and Caldari, 2008).

The literature review will discuss the linkages, relationships, and overlaps between the theories, concepts, and paradigms; these will be discussed holistically, with emphasis on how each relates to the other and consideration as to how they fit together within the wider discourse. This section consists of an examination of the concepts of SC/S, LIS, and EN as well as the supporting theories and activities such as prosumption and Institutional Thickness. The review takes a heuristic approach to reviewing the literature, and as such it accommodates clear discussion of the relationships and linkages between the concepts and theories that formed the basis of the review.

2.2 Smart City/Systems

Introduction

A number of theories and concepts are vital to key arguments and understandings formed in this thesis and as such they will be defined below before being developed throughout the rest of this paper. Unfortunately, many of these theories and concepts have become hyper-defined, resulting in amorphous, catch-all phrases or “buzzwords” in development projects. The most obvious of these is the concept of a “Smart City”, however, concepts such as prosumption, institutional thickness, local innovation systems, and entrepreneurship networks all require clarification and definition.

(10)

8

Defining “Smart”

There is a glut of material relating to the Smart City, not least regarding what is “Smart” is, how “Smartness” should be applied, the dangers of “Smartness”, and any number of other iterations of the same (Angelidou, 2015; Dameri, 2013; Nam and Pardo, 2011). As was mentioned in the introduction, a cause for this over-saturation of definitions is the fact that Smart solutions are heterogenous responses that are difficult to replicate. Accordingly, a definition has been developed for this thesis which draws from the work of Angelidou (2015), Dameri (2013), Nam and Pardo (2011), as well as from the experiences of this research:

A Smart City/System is defined as a sophisticated, networked, technological development, created in and for a specific urban context and application, applied via projects for an organised group of consumers.

The “organised group of consumers” refers to the concept of citizen engagement or the Prosumer, which will be discussed later in this section. As the lynchpin of this paper, the definition for SC/S given here will be revisited a number of times throughout this paper. An example of this definition is the Smart Citizen Kit promoted by the Amsterdam Smart City (ASC) group and which the Amsterdam Economic Board and the Waag Society initiated. Residents could pay for a Smart Citizen Kit to be fitted on their street, to collect measurements, such as noise, light, and temperature, which were then fed back to the appropriate municipal group, in this case the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown City Council, via the internet for analysis. In Dublin, the Smart “Big Belly” Bins initiative is another example of this definition in action. This initiative was developed improve the collection process using an internet link and increase the capacity of bins through compaction. In addition to this, the bins can host an array of sensors to build up the technological network in the city.

This definition is suited to the kind of research being conducted in this thesis: A comparative examination of the development of SC/S solutions, activities, and innovations in Dublin and Amsterdam, where two different SC/S methodologies are being used. The relevance of Local Innovation Systems and Entrepreneurship Networks to this definition of SC/S will be made evident in in the following paragraphs.

The place of the citizen in the “Smart” process has been broached from a variety of perspectives in literature. There is a general recognition that there is capacity for greater citizen involvement in all realms of SC/S developments (D’Asaro, Di Gangi, Perticone, and Tabacchi, 2016; Pouryazdan and Kantarci, 2016; Thomas, Wang, Mullagh, and Dunn, 2016; Lee and Lee, 2014; Capra, 2014). Despite

(11)

9 this there are marked disparities in the perspectives, they include engaging with explicit citizen users, discussing potential methods to ensure that the information gathered from unknowing implicit citizen users can be trusted, potential non-financial rewards for this good behaviour, and the necessity of nurturing citizen participation to strengthen e-democracy and the foundations of affable Smart cities (D’Asaro, Di Gangi, Perticone, and Tabacchi, 2016; Pouryazdan and Kantarci, 2016). The use of implicit and explicit citizen users refers back to the definition of the prosumer, which will be visited shortly.

As a core part of the conceptual framework, SC/S simply refers to any “Smart” activities and developments that occur within the Local Innovation System. The blanket term Smart City/System accommodates the diversity of smart solutions which are developed and produced in whichever city or system is being represented by the conceptual framework itself.

2.3 Local Innovation Systems and Institutional Thickness

Introduction

Local Innovation Systems (LIS) refer to a geographically bound cluster of businesses and institutions operating in the same or similar fields, resulting in a knowledge and skill agglomeration and the diffusion of the same (Doloreux and Parto, 2005; Bathelt et al, 2004; Asheim and Isaksen, 2002). Knowledge sharing and diffusion take place during semi-formal or casual interactions between actors and stakeholders within these systems. An example of a local innovation system is discussed by Asheim and Isaksen (2002) in relation to the Norwegian shipbuilding, engineering, and electronics industry where social interactions led to the development of localised innovation systems in each of these industries. Of these, the electronics industry at Horten, which specialised in highly specific innovative solutions that are developed through a combination of in-house and external knowledge diffusion (Asheim and Isaksen, 2002) is the most pertinent example. Institutional Thickness is an inalienable aspect of LIS; innovation systems cannot persist without interfacing with the institutions that are involved in them. In the case of this thesis, those institutions are ASC and Smart Dublin, with Dublin City Council and Gemeente Amsterdam also playing a role.

Elements of Local Innovation Systems and Institutional Thickness

The literature on LIS revolves around the somewhat controversial concept of geographical clusters of businesses or institutions operating within the same or shared fields, resulting in agglomerations of knowledge sharing and creating a social and place specific “buzz” or a sense of “something being in

(12)

10 the air” (Martin and Simmie, 2008; Doloreux and Parto, 2005; Bathelt et al, 2004; Asheim and Isaksen, 2002; Breschi and Lissoni, 2001; Mytelka and Farenelli, 2000; Breschi and Malerba; 1996). LIS are highly spatially dependent, being bound to a specific geographic area and relying on a regular interaction between innovative actors to remain viable. There are a number of other significant relevant factors in LIS development: a high level of Institutional Thickness, the presence of a number of innovative groups in a distinct area, an Entrepreneurship Network to assist in kickstarting the LIS, and the sense of information sharing being reciprocal and safe.

The pertinent example of LIS in the context of this thesis is the Grand Canal Dock, otherwise known as the Silicon Docks, in Dublin: a tight cluster of major technology corporations, academic, economic, and governmental institutes embedded in a distinctive area with an existing culture of innovation and knowledge sharing and diffusion. The influential work of Bathelt et al (2008) discusses the “buzz” of LIS activities, describing the importance of social and intangible aspects of innovation systems where knowledge is shared through various informal structures. From this, and as will be seen in the paragraph on Entrepreneurship Networks, it is clear to see that LIS develop with a strong emphasis on knowledge sharing and depend heavily upon an intangible “something in the air” which fuels innovation and encourages knowledge diffusion.

Institutional Thickness has seen ebbs and flows in popularity since its introduction as a theory between the work of North (1991) and Amin and Thrift’s (1994) seminal piece. From the time that McCleod (2001) discussed soft institutionalism and Henry and Pinch (2001) wrote their influential piece on Motor Sport Valley at the turn of the millennium, up until midway through the next decade, there was a noticeable decline in literature regarding Institutional Thickness.

Institutional Thickness is a foundational theory within this paper and connects with every other theory and concept in the theoretical framework. In the context of this paper, Institutional Thickness equates to the degree which a government or public institution, i.e. a city council or municipality, interacts with a geographically bound activity via policy, recognition, and support in the form of changes in zoning or taxation. An example of this would be the designation of the Docklands surrounding the Silicon Docks in Dublin as an SDZ, or Strategic Development Zone, which had the effect of streamlining the planning application process, removing many of the restrictions on constructions within the city (not least of which was allowing buildings to be twice as tall as in other parts of the city), and enabled development to be accelerated.

The relevance of Institutional Thickness to LIS, as well as SC/S developments, EN, and Prosumption, cannot be understated. Institutional Thickness can be found to have influenced activities through

(13)

11 some degree of governmental activity in the case of each of them. The most relevant example of this is the creation of Smart Dublin and the public/private partnership that is Amsterdam Smart City. It was the city council/municipality’s action that led to their creation, though there is a growing difference in the direct influence that the city has on these organisations. In the case of Smart Dublin, the increase in Institutional Thickness has led to the development of LIS and EN, and an increased awareness of the prosumer in the Silicon Docks, while in the case of ASC this has led to the development of the Living Labs approach to SC/S developments.

Another noticeable trend in the literature is the wide variety of geographical scales examined while researching Institutional Thickness, with studies focusing on both continents and municipalities (Beer and Lester, 2015; Coulson and Ferrario, 2007) or in the case of Jones and Clarke (2000) and Escobal and Ponce (2011) on very rural regions.

As of yet there has been no literature produced regarding the potential relationships between areas of SC/S development and Institutional Thickness. It cannot be taken for granted that the same factors that encouraged activities in Motor Sport Valley will influence such a digitalised industry. At the same time, it cannot be pre-emptively concluded that digitalisation would preclude the physical and geographical connections that are crucial for a high level of institutional thickness without further study. Kent (2014), along with a number of other researchers (Beer and Lester, 2015; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Silva-Ochoa, 2009; Wood and Valler, 2004) in recent years have criticised the existing literature on Institutional thickness, emphasising the importance of considering Institutional Effectiveness and breaking away from the idea of a mono-solutionist, isomorphic institutional thickness approach (Chien, 2008). That is to say, while the entrenchment of industries within the landscape and the endorsement of those industries through government activities such as policy can be seen to play a significant role in the development of those activities, other factors must be considered, such as LIS and EN.

Within the conceptual framework at the end of this section, LIS is shown as the oval and represents the geographically bound area in which the effects of institutional thickness can be felt, where actors are sharing knowledge in an informal setting, and where there is a “buzz” or sense of something being in the air. Institutional Thickness is understood to be a constant within the zone of an LIS, influencing all of the activities encompassed by the innovation system. The “Institutes” aspect of the conceptual framework refers to the governmental bodies, such as Gemeente Amsterdam and the DCC, as well as to Smart Dublin, ASC, the Waag Society, and any other groups with a greater stake in the development of SC/S technology than financial returns.

(14)

12

2.4 Entrepreneurship Networks

Introduction

The final definition which will be touched upon is Entrepreneurship Networks (EN). An Entrepreneurship Network is a core of innovation savvy entrepreneurs who create networks of knowledge on resources, industry knowledge, and skills that could be of use to the group as a whole. EN thrive on a self-generated buzz (Bathelt et al, 2008; Harald et al, 2004). The key differentiating factor between EN and LIS is the place specificity of an LIS versus the unbound EN, though it is important to note that EN and LIS are not mutually exclusive.

What Makes an Entrepreneurship Network?

Entrepreneurship Networks are closely linked to LIS, both concepts forming a symbiotic relationship in practice, nonetheless, it is important to consider the theory behind EN in order to distinguish it from the localised LIS. EN share characteristics with LIS, specifically that they encourage knowledge sharing entities that rely heavily on the “buzz” identified by Harald et al (2004). The most marked difference is a matter of scale; EN are not geographically rooted and accommodate innovation and knowledge diffusion for smaller, fledgling companies, such as start-up companies that are in their first 5 years. The locations of EN are determined by their resources, in the context if this paper those resources can be translated to the clusters of innovative businesses and institutions that form LIS, supportive policies, and subsidies from governmental institutions.

EN provide a support system for the small to medium enterprises (SMEs) that work in the same sphere as the larger corporations and institutes in the LIS, and in some instances work to create linkages that are mutually beneficial, see the previous statement on symbiotic relationships. The network system of Amsterdam Smart City (ASC) operates within the same principles as an EN, connecting a large number of individuals with each other, larger businesses, and partners to build up both the businesses and the sense of “hype” that comes as part of the EN package. Smart Dublin works very closely with SMEs to create SC/S solutions, tapping into the indigenous EN of the Silicon Docks and surrounding areas.

EN and LIS can and do exist independently of each other, however both benefit greatly from sharing a geographically bound area (Hayter, 2013; Martinez Sanchez and Urbina Perez, 1998). The networking and interactions integral in EN are, if not the engine then, the gears of LIS; allowing processes to make the most of local geographies and resources (Lopes and Farinha, 2017; Greve, 1995). EN stimulate and even generate innovation and once they become established are a fertile

(15)

13 seedbed for LIS (Lopes and Farinha, 2017). Their presence in any of the case studies in Dublin or Amsterdam is indicative of the significant role they play in knowledge sharing and diffusion (Hayter, 2013) in SC/S activities. Nuances in EN, as well as LIS, can be teased out using the approach of Elfring and Hulsink (2001) and Hervás-Oliver et al (2017): distinguishing between innovations that develop from radical Schumpeterian innovation and incremental Kirznerian innovation. The geographically-unbound nature of EN mean that innovative concepts and knowledge resources can cross international borders, particularly in the case of digital innovations.

EN, in the context of the conceptual framework, refers to the businesses and corporations of varying scale who are involved in the development of SC/S technologies and activities. This also includes relevant Living Labs and SMEs involved in the Small Business Innovation Research Programme in Amsterdam and Dublin respectively.

2.5 The Prosumer

Introduction

Alvin Toffler, in his 1980 work entitled “The Third Wave”, introduced the modern idea of the prosumer (Toffler, 1980); a decentralised, independent agent who produces goods and services that they themselves can use or monetise, within a time-frame of their own choosing. This idea was later picked up in relation to the Web 2.0 (Grinnel, 2009); a development which allowed internet users to contribute to the internet via forums, discussions, et cetera, which led to the mass creation and consumption of content on the internet. In the context of the Smart City and Smart Systems, however, the idea of the prosumer has fallen to the wayside, with the majority of academic papers and smart developments considering the citizen a passive user at worst (D’Asaro et al, 2016; Nam and Pardo, 2011; Comor, 2010) and as stakeholders in e-governance at best, something which simply digitises current governance models (Pouryazdan and Kantarci, 2016; Neirotti et all, 2014).

Prosumption was identified during this research as the most common form of citizen involvement in SC/S activities. The extent to which the citizen is aware of their own prosumption varies wildly, as do the attitudes of the groups who utilise this prosumption towards the prosumers themselves.

Prosumption

At its simplest, the concept of a prosumer describes an individual who both produces and consumes a good or service. For the sake of relevance to this thesis the focus will not be on “low-tech” prosumers

(16)

14 such bakers or carpenters, rather on high-tech “smart” prosumers, imagined by Toffler (1980) as working independently from their “electronic cottages”. This image conjured by e-cottages serves as allegory for independent, high-tech and skill driven labour building on the, possibly romanticised, idea of cottage industry. The definition of the prosumer posited in this thesis has two branches; the implicit and the explicit. This two-part definition was developed from a combination of the existing definition of Prosumption and from data gathered while researching, particularly from the “Urban Living Labs” (AMS, 2017) report, see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Levels of user involvement, i.e. implicit and explicit prosumption, as measured in the Living Labs, Amsterdam.

Source: AMS, 2017

Implicit prosumption is undertaken daily by millions of technology users, largely unbeknownst to them and is represented on the left of Figure 1. An excellent example of an implicit prosumer is a person who agrees to provide their data to a mapping application: this data is used in the map application, such as Google Maps, to create precise maps which can be accessed by anyone. The implicit prosumer is not directly creating content; however, they are contributing to a service which they, and millions of others, use on a regular basis. Implicit prosumers receive compensation for their efforts via the services they help to create. The literature review will delve into the issue of compensation for prosumptive activities.

Explicit prosumers are fully conscious of their work and are represented on the right of Figure 1. SC/S developments provide a number of means through which prosumption could be made explicit. A simple example of this is the City-Zen virtual power plant project that is being promoted by Amsterdam Smart City in conjunction with Greenspread and Alliander, which is endeavouring to create a virtual, dispersed micro-grid which can provide monetary returns for the prosumers involved

(17)

15 (Smart Amsterdam, 2017). The explicit involvement of users who share knowledge, in addition to resources, in the production and consumption of energy across dispersed micro-grids is markedly different to implicit involvement in data collection.

When the citizen is discussed, it is generally in terms of consultation and information on whichever Smart System is “trending” (Comor, 2010; Grinnel, 2009). In a blog post for the World Bank, Dan Hoornweg (2011) states: “At its core a smart city is a welcoming, inclusive city, an open city. By being forthright with citizens, with clear accountability, integrity, and fair and honest measures of progress, cities get smarter. A smart city listens – and tries to give voice to everyone”.

When viewed from the perspective of Arstein’s Ladder of Citizen Engagement these efforts are clearly tokenistic at best. This has contributed to the continuing disenfranchisement of the potential prosumer, reinforcing the passive, implicit role of the layman in SC/S activities (Thomas et al, 2016; Hee and Lee, 2014).

Prosumption is a growing factor in SC/S developments, and as such was considered a significant if not central concept within the framework. This is reflected in the peripheral location and smaller size of the citizen participation bubble within the framework.

(18)

16

2.6 Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework: Framework showing the interactions between the core concepts in the process of developing and deploying SC/S technologies. Source: Author

Institutions

Smart

City/System

Entrepreneur

-ship Networks

Prosumer

Support Interaction Development Engagement

(19)

17

Chapter 3: Data Collection and Analysis

3.1 Introduction

This thesis is a comparative study of the impact of LIS and EN on SC/S activities and developments in both Dublin and Amsterdam, specifically examining the activities in the Silicon Docks in Dublin and those of the ASC group in Amsterdam. The reasoning behind using a comparative case study approach draws from Eisenhardt’s (1989) seminal paper; the combination of pre-existing comparative case studies and the one proposed in this thesis will create a more complete “roadmap” for future studies, as well as positioning the theory developed in this study more accurately within the realm of the social sciences.

The methods of research collection and analysis were almost entirely qualitative. The primary source consisted of information collected from a series of interviews: six interviews with experts, among them the Project Manager for Smart Cities in Dublin, Jamie Cudden, The Smart City Ambassador of Amsterdam, Frans-Anton Vermast, and the Cities Lead of the World Economic Forum, Alice Charles. This research was then corroborated using a combination of analysis of existing papers and data, both on the specific comparative areas of Dublin and Amsterdam and of more general studies on LIS and EN. Additionally, a degree of textual coding was used in conjunction with analysis of existing data in order to more accurately place the results of this research within the context of this paper and the wider discourse.

By using the combination of interviews, a desk study, and coding it is felt that bias and inconsistency from any one of the sources can be mitigated by the other two. The following headings will go into more depth on why interviews, a desk study, and coding text were chosen as data collection methods and will delve into the methodologies of each.

3.2 Data Collection and Methodology

Interviews with Experts: Collection

Interviews were chosen as a data collection method due to the richness of data available, the “freshness” of said data in comparison to what could be found in literature, and due to the anticipated snowball effect, which would open more opportunities for interviews within the networks of the

(20)

18 interviewees. The interviews followed a semi-structured model in which the interviewees were given licence to digress and follow tangents which were felt to be relevant to the research.

The interviews were conducted with experts in, inter alia, smart cities/systems, institutional thickness, local innovation systems, and entrepreneurship networks. These experts came from a diverse background in government, academia, and business on local, regional, and international scale. In addition to the three mentioned in the introduction the remaining three experts were, Professor Rob Kitchin, Director of the National Institute for Regional and Spatial, Réka Pétercsák, PhD researcher at the Innovation Value Institute, and Coen Bergman project developer at Waag. Experts in the Irish case study of Dublin were identified primarily through the author’s own personal network and contacts in academia, as well as via references from other interviewees. Contact was made via email or by connecting directly with potential interviewees using LinkedIn. This proved quite effective, as a detailed account of the research being undertaken could be perused by interviewees on the author’s personal LinkedIn account. There was some use of the snowball technique in the Dublin case study, particularly among the academic interviewees. In the case of Amsterdam, all of the experts were identified through the Amsterdam Smart City network of members. Once identified, the interviewees were contacted either through the service provided on the Amsterdam Smart City website, or via LinkedIn as above.

The interviews all followed a semi-structured model and primarily took place in person, however a number were conducted via Skype. Interviews varied between 30 minutes and one hour depending on the availability of the interviewee. The questions posed in the interviews were based on the central research question and associated sub-questions, as well as any questions developed from the preceding interviews. This iterative process resulted in the evolution of the questions posed to interviewees, though all stemmed from the core questions asked in the first tranche of interviews. The expertise of the interviewee also dictated the depth and breadth of questioning. Each interview was recorded with the consent of the interviewee and transcriptions were made using these recordings.

Interviews with Experts: Analysis

The data gathered from the interviews with experts was analysed by way of coding key aspects of the transcripts and identifying trends or significant points raised by the interviewees. The data parsed from these interviews was analysed in conjunction with analysis of existing data and textual coding, which created a more reliable foundation for conclusions to be built upon.

(21)

19 In the days following each interview the recordings were transcribed and coded, with the key concepts, phrases, ideas, conflicting issues, and trends identified and compared. This comparison was undertaken between each interviewee, and also between Dublin and Amsterdam. The simple table, on page 22, provides an example of how the types of codes that were used to identify trends in literature were used to identify quotes. Coding the transcriptions followed a simple system of identifying key words, expressions, or phrases, such as ‘governance’, ‘silos’, ‘innovation’, ‘smart systems’ et cetera. These codes will be discussed in greater detail under the Coding Texts heading in this section. Once the transcripts were analysed, they were critically compared to other transcriptions as well as with the body of literature that was researched for during the Existing Data phase of data collection.

Following critical comparison, the information from each interview was summarised in the form of quotes. These quotes were sorted into categories based on the codes created and used in the coding text data collection and analysis methodology. This allowed for final comparisons and analysis, and for disparities to be considered. These quotes will be seen in full in the Results and Discussion section of this thesis, where they play a significant role in answering the questions posed in the Introduction and earlier within this section.

Existing Data: Collection

The existing data collected while researching this thesis forms the foundation on which the assertions made in the Results section are based. The data was drawn from a variety of sources, such as peer reviewed journals and reports, as well as purely numerical data from a number of different statistical sources including: The Central Statistics Office of Ireland, Eurostat, the Gemeente Amsterdam Dataset, and the Jones Lang LeSalle (JLL) City Momentum Index. This data is differentiated from the information that was gathered from the interviews and the textual coding insofar as it relates purely to hard figures.

In a number of instances there was a significant gap in the data available from the international sources, such as Eurostat, regarding Ireland. This is indicative of the literature gap that will be discussed within the conclusion and highlights the need for further research.

(22)

20

Existing Data: Analysis

As well as serving as the ‘hard data’ basis for the information gathered from the interviews with experts and coding text research methods, the data also allowed for corroborations between assertions made during the interviews and in the grey literature, namely corporate reports.

In several cases, new material was examined after interviews, based on the recommendations of the interviewees. This created a reflexive cycle which then developed into an iterative style of data analysis, re-examining and refreshing previous data. The reflexive cycle in turn applied to the other methods of collecting and analysing data, with several major re-examinations of material and data occurring throughout the course of the research.

Analysis of the data was ameliorated due to the fact that much of the data relevant to the research was already represented in graphs and figures. This allowed for quicker formatting and aided in reaching conclusions regarding the nature of the data.

Coding Text: Collection

Coding texts as a method of research served two purposes within this thesis; Firstly, it identified trends in a selection of the literature and sources used while researching existing data, and secondly, it enabled critical comparisons to be made between what was found in the literature and what was presented by the data and in the interviews with experts. In this way, textual coding assisted in uncovering patterns and trends within the data to insights regarding the research question: the effects of LIS and EN on the SC/S developments in Dublin and Amsterdam.

Text coding informed the examination of the transcripts of interviews and assisted in discerning key issues, themes, expressions, and phrases used by experts. It was also applied to a selection of the reports identified during the analysis of existing data for the same reason. The coded texts were drawn from the pool of both peer reviewed and grey literature, however due greater level of reliability found in sources that are peer reviewed in comparison to the grey literature there is a far greater emphasis on those works. This method ensured the veracity of the data gathered, while also allowing for unusual insight from non-conventional sources.

The coding of both the key literature and the interviews created variables and indicators that were used to measure the role of local innovation, institutional thickness systems, and entrepreneurial

(23)

21 networks in smart system developments and activities. A section of the codes which were used and the indicators they represent can be found in the table overleaf:

Codes

In-Text Examples

Dublin Amsterdam

Governance Style

“It partly depends on the place and

the kind of systems of governance that they have in

place.”

-Professor Rob Kitchin, April 17th_,

2018

“Try to approach it from ‘How can

tech solve these problems?’ and how you design these processes to involve citizen needs and create co-design and co-creation in a sense that actually involves the citizen and they have the feeling that their voices are being heard.

-Coen Bergman, July 2nd_{, 2018}

Silos “So, it’s a very complicated landscape with lots of silos and that’s the big issue with cities around the world.”

-Jamie Cudden, April 19th,₂₀₁₈

“Smart Cities is not about ICT or IOT,

it’s about culture, and that needs 2-3 years to change the culture within the organisation”

-Frans-Anton Vermast, July 9th_,

2018 EN We talked to 32 stakeholders there,

people who responsible for some of the bigger buildings, some of the bigger companies, community representatives and some of the business networkers.

-Réka Pétercsák, May 22nd_{, 2018}

“First we were only involving the

Amsterdam community but there is so much more out there in the international community and you have to create that community sense. People are getting involved because a lot of people are proud of the city that they live in.”

-Frans-Anton Vermast, July 9th_,

2018

Coding Text: Analysis

Coding text played a significant role in identifying relevant information in this predominantly qualitative thesis. Coding took place in both the analysis of data from interview and of data from the analysis of existing texts. The methodology for coding was very similar across the two data sources and so a general description of the process will suffice for both.

Data was gathered and key elements were identified, these being aspects that relate to the core themes of this thesis, i.e. SC/S, Institutional Thickness, LIS et cetera. Codes were developed to

(24)

22 represent and highlight when specific themes, words, concepts, or issues/conflicts arose in or between data sources. These codes were then analysed and compared iteratively between themselves to develop a better understanding of how these issues relate to the research question of this thesis.

(25)

23

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

This section of the thesis will break down the findings of the Data Collection and Analysis, the results of which will contribute to the Conclusion and Discussion below. The results of this research will be engaged through answering the key sub-questions mentioned previously, and several of these questions will refer back to the conceptual framework. The sub-questions will seek to reinforce and expand upon the central research question:

“What are the roles of local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks in smart

system developments and activities in Dublin and Amsterdam?”

The results of the data collection and analysis will be examined via the central research question and three sub-questions. Each sub-question will be considered through both case studies, Dublin and Amsterdam. These will converge with a single conclusion to each sub-question, highlighting the key points of each city in relation to the question, as well as notable divergences. The aforementioned findings will be discussed through the framework of the central question and sub-questions, below:

I. “Are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks present and how are they utilised in the case study areas of Dublin and Amsterdam?”

II. “What disparities exist between Dublin and Amsterdam in terms of are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks? What similarities exist?”

III. “Are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks significant factors in Smart Systems development and adoption?”

4.1 Are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks present and how are

they utilised in the case study areas of Dublin and Amsterdam?

This sub-question will focus on the joint issue of LIS and EN presence and utilisation in Dublin and Amsterdam. The existence of LIS and EN in Dublin is certain, all the more so due to the fact that they are inextricably linked, with LIS and EN factors merging into the same processes and structures throughout the Silicon Docks. The Small Business Innovation Research programme deployed in Dublin adds to this assertion, as will be seen. Amsterdam exhibits very different forms of LIS and EN; instead of a strong focus on a small, intense area of development, the systems and networks are spread across

(26)

24 the city via the Living Lab model. The sub-section below will discuss Livings Labs and the Small Business Innovation Research programme before segueing back into examining Dublin in the context of this sub-question.

4.2.1 Living Labs and Small Business Innovation Research Programme

The implementation of Living Labs in Amsterdam and the Small Business Innovation Research Programme approach to SC/S in Dublin, and the vast differences between them, highlights the unique LIS in Dublin and Amsterdam, a fact which underpins much of the content to follow in the remainder of the Results section.

Living Labs

The Living Lab approach to SC/S was adopted by ASC following a failed attempt to channel all SC/S developments into three hubs around the city. It had been concluded that too many SC/S developments were not suited to these hubs and that opportunities to innovate were being lost. The hubs were dissolved and the Living Lab approach, which now comprises of over 90 individual SC/S enterprises, was brought into force.

The “Urban Living Labs: A living lab way of working” report by the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS, 2017) outlines a set of representational characteristics of the Living Labs in Amsterdam:

• Living Labs are based in a real-world setting with multi-actor interactions involving all of the stakeholders

• Users of the Living Labs operating as co-innovators working to, as described by Westerlund et al (2012), ‘create, prototype, validate and test products, services, systems and technologies in a real-life setting’

• Multidisciplinary research teams actively engaged in the research setting facilitating the projects undertaken by the Living Labs to achieve the goals., e.g. analysis of the effects of the reward systems on recycling habits as used by the ‘Wasted’ Living Lab

• The collaboration between Living Labs and citizens in both the physical and virtual spaces of interaction

(27)

25 Figure 2, taken from the report, represents the interactions and connections between Living Labs and their stakeholders, while Figure 3, also taken from the report, shows the shift from a hierarchical approach in three zones to innovation system-based interactions spread across the city.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Programme

Dublin has developed a method for stimulating innovation in a way that aligns with the single LIS, the Silicon Docks, approach it has adopted. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Programme “is a mechanism which enables public sector bodies to connect with innovative ideas and technology businesses, to provide innovative solutions for specific public-sector challenges and needs” (Smart Dublin, 2016).

The SBIR Programme operates on a competition basis; SMEs can express interest and compete to be granted municipal funding to find innovative solutions to challenges. As the SMEs present viable prototypes and proposals, they gain greater access to funding in an iterative process until a

Source: (AMS, 2017) pp.46

Source: (AMS, 2017) pp.33

Figure 2: Representation of the interactions between Living Labs and their stakeholders

Figure 3: Shift from Hierarchy of Labs to Collaboration Network.

(28)

26 marketable solution has been developed. The incentive for SMEs is the opportunity to have their solution fully funded and the retention of the intellectual property generated from their project,

There are a growing number of successful SBIR solutions to challenges ranging from illegal dumping, wayfinding, and improving the experiences of cyclists in the city. Examples of these include: The Smart Bins project, discussed in the Relevant Theory and Literature Review, and the Dublin Dashboard digital platform which allows users to get detailed information about Dublin. The continued success of the SBIR programme has led to significant growth in interest from SMEs, with over 200 companies expressing interest in 16 places within the SBIR challenge. This growth in interest has been matched by support from Enterprise Ireland and the various city councils in the form of a 50% increase in funding from the previous year.

Dublin

Before delving into this question, it is pertinent to recall the definitions used in this thesis of LIS and EN: LIS are spatially defined areas in which a cluster of actors interact within an innovative knowledge sharing system support by a significant level of Institutional Thickness, while EN are networks of SME’s and individuals who share knowledge and resources and maintain a “buzz” within the field that they are working. In Dublin, the Silicon Docks, home to the Smart Docklands initiative, is a present and real example of LIS and EN. Home to 39,000 workers, with 23,000 of those working directly in ICT, in just a few square kilometres (Dublin Docklands, 2018) the Docklands have the basic ingredients in the recipe for informal interactions between workers in abundance. The highly localised scale of the Silicon Docks can be seen in Image 1 in Section 4.3. Graphs 1-4 provide data from the Central Statistics Office, on the outcome of a series of factors on “Highly Important Objectives of Technological Innovative Active Enterprises with Organisational Innovation by Persons Engaged”, i.e. the impact of LIS and EN activities on companies in Ireland and the Silicon Docks. In the Silicon Docks, LIS and EN have been rolled into one innovative networking system, as is noted in this quote:

“I know that events like the Harvard Symposium helps a lot, I know that the All Ireland Smart Cities

Forum helps a lot, and still many many people go there and they are just the same and enthusiastic as they have been in 2016. Obviously, I would have to interview some of these guys again to see what they see changing in two years, but probably I’d say that there is this feeling of generosity.”

(29)

27

Graph 1: Improve Ability to Develop New Products or Processes in Enterprises.

Source: https://data.gov.ie/dataset/l-innovative-active-enterprises-with-organisational-innovation-by-statistic-persons-engaged

Graph 2: Improve Quality of Goods and Services.

Graph 3: Reduce Cost Per Unit Output.

The extreme drop in communication between innovative enterprises seen in Graph 4 appears to be at odds with the hypothesis of inter-personal information sharing that is central to this thesis. Two factors mitigate this, firstly; informal interactions in which there are more than 50 actors at one time are rare and prone to being incoherent, and secondly; the issue of silos, which the research question will address, crops up once large numbers become involved.

% %

Number of Persons Engaged

%

Number of Persons Engaged

(30)

28 Graph 4: Improve Communication or Information sharing within Enterprise or with other Enterprises or Institutions.

The input of Dublin County Council through the role of Smart Dublin, as well as the existing and past initiatives encouraging ICT and community development in the area, have all led to a significant level of Institutional Thickness, something noted by one of the interviewees:

“The key bit that we’re looking at is the Docklands, in particular with its tech ecosystem, with its

community, workers, entertainment, you’ve got 3Arena, CHQ, EPIC, you’ve got the port, you’ve got universities, Trinity, NCI, you’ve got a great mix of use-cases, new-ish infrastructure, €3 billion of new build and we decided to kind of pick that as a district as an exemplar innovation Smart City district”

-Jamie Cudden, April 19th ₂₀₁₈

As can be seen from the above quote and in the conceptual framework, a number of institutions, both private and public, are investing time and resources in creating a node of smart city development in the city. The foundation of the Smart Docklands initiative, as well as the pre-existing local institutions, are all indicators of the extent of Institutional Thickness in the Dublin context. Moreover, these activities encourage prosumption in the form of constant interaction between user/creators of the SC/S developments being developed within the Silicon Docks.

From an LIS perspective it is obvious that there is a well-developed local innovation system in place in the Silicon Docks. This LIS is thriving off the sense of shared goals and the ”buzz” in the area, two factors identified in the literature review and study of existing data as being central to the development of both LIS and EN. The following quotes capture the extent to which this buzz infuses activities in the Dockland and in turn is used by the groups active there in the development of SC/S;

“I think there’s something quite unique about Dublin, in particular Docklands, just in terms of proximity

just in terms of the ecosystems, the cluster, everything from accelerators to incubation hubs to R&D labs, you’ve got Accenture’s one of the most connected building in the world an IoT Hub, Google have

%

(31)

29

a load of interesting engineering stuff going on with Google Maps and GEO, you’ve got Deloitte and their blockchain lab, you’ve got Dogpatch Labs with some cool stuff in Google for entrepreneurs”

-Jamie Cudden, April 19th,₂₀₁₈

“There was a Horizon 2020 bid where I think 40 companies were involved, or 40 organisations were

involved in creating quite a complicated application for EU funding and there you could see these informal activities probably emerging and that was organised by Dublin City Council. Then there is this quarterly event that the tech companies and universities go to. That’s again informal and formal in a way in that it’s unique in its setting and it’s voluntary. I would say there you see new activities and new practices emerging through which companies could be connecting to each other differently. In the Horizon 2020 bid you definitely saw the generosity coming through, but again I think sharing is not a problem if there is a framework that is making the sharing safe”

- Réka Pétercsák, May 22nd_{, 2018}

The above quotes also touch upon the extent to which the Silicon Docks LIS also reaches out to the smaller business and individual entrepreneurs through the use of incubators, accelerators, and links with major companies.

Graph 5 again draws from the data of the Central Statistics Office and highlights the significance of LIS and EN in the Irish context, i.e. Silicon Docks. The upwards trend of companies in Ireland forming co-operative partnerships with other Ireland-based companies is a general indication of the growth in LIS and particularly EN-style interactions in Ireland.

Graph 5: Location of Co-Operation Partner of Innovative Irish Enterprises.

Source: https://data.gov.ie/dataset/technological-innovative-enterprises-by-location-of-co-operation-partner-year-and-

persons-engaged/resource/32960c83-4eb7-40f1-af94-e644ae1d684f/view/b8a5010a-e3d9-418e-95b3-5bc56557ef65#&r=Location%20of%20Co-Operation%20Partner&c=Year %

(32)

30 The following quote provides another perspective on this point, as well as supporting the points made previously on LIS;

“There is a kind of a tie up between that kind of entrepreneurial urbanism and what Smart Dublin is doing but of course it’s just one place in the city, its jut one of the Local Authorities. So, there is a sense of just trying to leverage the companies in that area [The Silicon Docks], the companies are obviously getting something as well, which is basically they get a test site, they get a test bed where they can test their technology and they can collaborate with each other around the use of their products and new potential products.”

- Professor Rob Kitchin, April 17th_{, 2018}

The EN in the Silicon Docks area is developing more through ties with the pre-existing companies, many of them major entities such as Google, Facebook, and Deloitte, than through organic growth. This is, in a large part, due to the extent to which these companies have become integral to the area, and the extent of the Institutional Thickness. Recall the endemic nature of Institutional Thickness within the LIS in the Conceptual Framework, both of which work together to preclude the need for EN. Therefore, in the case of Dublin, the circumstances under which EN exist are almost identical to those of LIS.

Amsterdam

In Amsterdam, LIS and EN are more distinct and differentiated than in its Dublin counterpart. This is in a large part due to the wider geographic spread of SC/S activities within the city. This spread is made possible by several factors: Firstly, the unitary authority approach taken by Amsterdam in the form of the Gemeente, secondly, the partnership of the Gemeente and 14 other groups to form ASC, and finally, the Living Lab approach to SC/S developments, which encourages SC/S developments to embed themselves in the social and urban context to maximise citizen engagement, a pillar of the SC/S experience in Amsterdam, as can be seen from the quote below. The data on innovation reinforces this further, with Amsterdam ranking 3rd_{in the European Digital Cities Index (EDCI, 2016), 5}th_{in PWC’s}

“Cities of Opportunity 7” report (PWC, 2016), and 12th_{in the Innovation Cities Index 2016-17}

(2ThinkNow, 2018).

“This is one of the major lessons we learned. We started off by saying ‘there are 3 areas within

(33)

31

projects or initiatives that just were not suitable in that certain region. So, after 2 years we said ‘okay, guys we’re going to use the whole city as a living lab.”

- Frans-Anton Vermast, July 9th_{, 2018}

This partnership approach, as well as the digital-office approach of the Gemeente’s Smart Cities division, results in a municipality-wide LIS and a thriving EN which has a buzz that spans from the smallest of SMEs right to the institutional partners. A number of these partners, the Gemeente notwithstanding, such as the Waag Society actively engage with citizens on a range of SC/S topics in order to enhance the experiences of citizens and SC/S developments alike, setting the groundwork for the prosumptive activities of the Living Labs. Coen Bergmann of the Waag Society highlights this in the quote below:

“From this perspective we’ve been involved with the iCapital award, which was an award on which city

is the most innovative. I think we won this by using this approach, which we later called the Amsterdam Approach, where citizens and smaller organisations or corporations representing people from the city are involved in the development of Smart City solutions”

- Coen Bergmann, July 2nd_{, 2018}

As the whole of the city of Amsterdam functions as the LIS, as described in the Conceptual Framework, the other aspects of the Conceptual Framework correspondingly represent systems and processes at a greater scale than in the case of the Silicon Docks. ASC has created a comprehensive digital network through which the actors represented by these aspects, such as the SMEs, larger companies, and universities and similar institutions, can correspond and engage with each other and so maintain the knowledge diffusion within a specific geographical place of an LIS and the buzz of an EN.

In conclusion, both Dublin and Amsterdam have clearly discernible LIS and EN, and both cities make use of these systems and networks directly and indirectly. The concentrated case of Dublin results in an intensified area of development, which is anticipated to gradually spread across the city over time, though there is limited evidence to support this. The activities in Dublin result in a limited amount of prosumer activity, as much of the SC/S development is undertaken in the form of EN-intensive SBIR programmes. Amsterdam’s dispersed Living Lab model creates the potential for a far greater level of prosumption, Figure 1, page 15 and Figure 3, page 25. Through encouraging active engagement with citizens and involving them at all stages of SC/S development their prosumptive capacity is massively increased.

(34)

32

4.2. Are local innovation systems and entrepreneurial networks significant factors in

Smart City/Systems development and adoption? Why or why not?

It is important to examine not just the presence and utilisation of LIS and EN, but also whether they are necessary or significant in the development of SC/S in Dublin and Amsterdam. This sub-question will attempt to answer this question by examining answers given during the interviews with experts in conjunction with the data analysed from coding and the desk study.

Dublin

In Dublin, the development of Smart Systems is still at an early stage; The Smart Dublin group was launched only three years ago in 2015 and emphasis on the development of Smart Cities/Systems increased in the city only after that point. Strategic, regular success has led to the rapid development of Smart Dublin, and through networking and an appreciation of knowledge sharing the organisation is developing rapidly. The Startup Heatmap developed by the European Startup Initiative (2016) collected data from 700 start-up founders and ranks Dublin as the 6th_{best hub for innovative actions.}

Of the founders, 41% identified the access to talent, and 42% identified the ecosystem, as key factors in this ranking. Start-ups are supported within Dublin by the Digital Hub, a start-up incubator and accelerator within the Silicon Docks LIS.

The innovation systems in Dublin link business to business via shared projects, and businesses to academia via research projects with various institutions including Trinity College, University College Dublin, and the National College of Ireland. Additionally, local government is linked to entrepreneurs through the SRBI programme of problem solution through challenges. These systems stimulate innovation, build buzz, and propagate development of Smart Systems throughout the Silicon Docks, creating new paths in the development of the city. Graphs 2 and 5 highlight this, as does the “JLL City Momentum Index 2015” report (JLL, 2016) which specifically addresses the regeneration of the Docklands, particularly in the form of innovative ICT developments and “new” forms of urban infrastructure provision. As the quotes overleaf highlight, the needs of the city are not always fully considered by the groups developing these SC/S solutions in the LIS;

“What I find is that cities often ask is ‘Why are you coming to us with experiments?’. A city official

officer said [to me] ‘I have yet to meet a tech company that really wants to serve the citizen, show me a service where our air quality will be actually better, where I can show to the citizen that yeah we have shared data to the tech company but it is of actual benefit to them’.”

Innovation and entrepreneurship as drivers of smart cities : what are the roles of local innovation systems and entrepreneurship networks in smart city/system developments and activities in Dublin and Amsterdam?

James Barry

MSc Urban and Regional Planning