Transforming smart citizen in Indonesia: Visualizing best practices from five smart city cases

Abstraksi

Background In 2017, Indonesia aptly initiates the 100 smart cities project as promptly as India which initiates Smart City Mission as a brand of their 100 smart cities project (Praharaj, Han & Hawken, 2018). Smart city emerges as new trends due to its promises as solution for the next global problem, the urban population (Kummitha & Crutzen, 2018). Despite the promises as a solution for the future of urban living, many governments around the globe employ smart city initiative due to its appeals to attract more investment to the cities. Juxtapose to smart city objective to create sustainable model and provide better quality of life among the citizens, the rapid expansion of IoT within the concept of Industry 4.0 is also an emerging concession to guarantee a better investment return (Paraoutis, Bennet & Heracleous, 2014). Ideas of Internet of Service (IoS), Smart Logistic, and Internet of Energy (IoE) are elements that determine the industry 4.0 as inherent concept within Smart City initiative (Lom, Prybil & Svitek, 2016) . However, Indonesia government seems cannot coopt this concept within smart cities project. The challenge of industry 4.0 still a prominent key-challenge to foster their structural transformation although Indonesia has employed the smart city initiative. The study reveals there are critical canard within the concept employed by Indonesia cities. A misconception derives from an obsolete understanding of early smart model. Model that mostly shaped by engineering and urban architecture scholars with minor evaluation from social-humanities studies though citizen’s life is the main objective. In 2010, after critiques from scholars and practitioners to smart city projects that overly concentrated on technology deterministic view of urban development (Greenfield, 2013; Kramers, 2014; Wolfram, 2012), smart citizen become inherent element within smart city concept around the globe. Despite the changes made by city project in represent citizen engagement in smart city technology through crowdsourcing (Gabrys, 2014), participatory planning (de Lange & de Waal, 2013), or even broader scheme of smart city strategy (Cowley, Joss, & Dayot, 2017), there is always a small gap of inquiry on how citizens are constructed and nurtured by various smart city project and, to some extent, how it can be a prototype to foster other city initiatives like in Indonesia. The problem of misaligning the smart city concept illustrate the position on how Indonesia is not really adhere to update the competitiveness of their human capital as the basis of smart city and industry 4.0. Research Question This research try to comprehend the framework of smart citizen in the smart city through the conception generated from the development of smart city project. Apprehending contextual notion of smart city development, hence, this study has explored the central question: What is the scaffold in constructing smart citizen? And how smart city projects re-contextualized the concept to their citizen? To address a further implication of this research to Indonesia’s smart city project, specific discussion on how the scaffold is implemented in smart cities in Indonesia is presented in this study. Research Methodology This research employed qualitative material and therefore secondary sources to answer the proposed questions. To answers all relatable questions, this research embarked on multiple case studies of renowned smart city project around the globe to explore the possibility scenarios of reproduction of smart citizen spanning from 2015 to 2018 cases. The study has compared and contrasted case studies of Singapore, Melbourne, London, New York City, and Tokyo through comparative analysis. The selected case studies are known for top rank position among global smart city reports, such as Intelligent Community Forum (www.intelligentcommunity.org), Eden smart city report (www.smartcitygovt.com) and ABI global smart city assessment (www.abiresearch.com) awards. Result This study found distinct characteristics attached to five case studies in visualizing deliverables of smart citizen construction under each city’s scaffold as presented in figure below. London : 1. Co-producing public service. 2. Measure citizen’s benefits. 3. Citizen data empowerment. 4. City – citizen collaboration. 5. Peer-to-peer service delivery matrix. Singapoe: 1. Mobilize smart mentalities in networked urbanism 2. Optimize resource management system 3. Cultivate ‘audit’ mechanism for citizen 4. Inclusive monitoring system (e.g.: for elderly) 5. Hack social and political issues Melbourne: 1. Employ multidisciplinary research on disruptive tech. 2. Co-design activities with other stake-holder (e.g.: hackathon) 3. Encourage entrepreneurship through open innovation. 4. Citylab and demographic profiling New York City: 1. Designing road map for citizen engagement. 2. Incorporate open data and open APIs initiative 3. Occupy sustainable matrix for the city. 4. Remapping local growth within the city Tokyo: 1. Lifestyle innovation focusing on energy issues 2. Enhance E-participatory for citizen in all project level. 3. Remapping of smart communities and empower local governance. Discussion There is a general framework employed by many best practice smart city projects around the globe that is focus on citizen. Each cities contextualize this framework by remapping their citizen character to suit the objective of smart city project. Tokyo city, for example, try to re-branding their project as energy focus project to enhance sustainable living for the citizen. Hence, citizen of Tokyo, divided into mapped of communities, willing to engage with the whole process of smart city development. Indonesia cities, in contrary, do not comprehend the novel approach of smart city and stick to the obsolete version of overly techno-centric smart cities. Acknowledging more citizen-centric development can foster the structural transformation lead by local municipalities around Indonesia. In the study, more inclusive scaffold to make citizen be more inclusive and to enhance the human capital index and industry 4.0 readiness are comprehend under these elements: open procurement and contracting; intensive public education and consultation; civic data governance as government responsibility; smart cities as political issue, not a technological issue; and agile policy-making process. In concluding remark, the study emphasize the three identical characters found in selected five case studies that can be reproduced to other smart cities in Indonesia. The notion of citizen performance matrix within government system, contextual remapping of local government network and incorporated open data and open innovation for citizen engagement. Indonesia smart cities can contextualized these elements and reproduce the smart city project matrix under each context. Apprehend the citizen centric approach will also eventually empower Indonesia structural transformation to thicken human capital inclination to solve digital disruption in the next revolution of industry 4.0