Case Study Summary Findings & Discussion - Revision history

Pinfold at 07:27, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T07:27:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:27, March 17, 2022
Line 88:		Line 88:
	IT and OT. However, in the absence of strong inter-departmental relationships and trust among		IT and OT. However, in the absence of strong inter-departmental relationships and trust among
	teams, operational boundaries should be formally discussed as early in the project as possible.		teams, operational boundaries should be formally discussed as early in the project as possible.
	=Conclusion=		;Conclusion
	IoT technologies are still emerging and extremely new ground for local governments. For those		IoT technologies are still emerging and extremely new ground for local governments. For those
	who decide to forge ahead and build their own, our case studies outline two distinct paths: a) low		who decide to forge ahead and build their own, our case studies outline two distinct paths: a) low

Pinfold at 07:26, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T07:26:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:26, March 17, 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:
	case studies.		case studies.
	}}		}}
	=Project Structure=		;Project Structure
	The structure of these IoT projects falls into two primary buckets: a) Pilot Projects and b)		The structure of these IoT projects falls into two primary buckets: a) Pilot Projects and b)
	Production Projects. To illustrate, San Diego and San Leandro both implemented full-scale,		Production Projects. To illustrate, San Diego and San Leandro both implemented full-scale,
Line 20:		Line 20:
	County deployed test networks to evaluate pilot solutions across various use-cases. ''(We define “production deployment” as being fully implemented and used day-to-day government operations. This is contrasted with “pilot” or “test” networks, which have no actual government services		County deployed test networks to evaluate pilot solutions across various use-cases. ''(We define “production deployment” as being fully implemented and used day-to-day government operations. This is contrasted with “pilot” or “test” networks, which have no actual government services
	using them for operations.)''		using them for operations.)''
	=Pilot Networks=		;Pilot Networks
	The pilot networks were designed to cover large areas at low costs with no pre-defined solutions		The pilot networks were designed to cover large areas at low costs with no pre-defined solutions
	in mind. Both projects were developed by the respective Information Technology Departments.		in mind. Both projects were developed by the respective Information Technology Departments.
Line 43:		Line 43:
	for measuring various plant care metrics.		for measuring various plant care metrics.

	=Production Networks=		;Production Networks
	Cities in our research that built citywide production IoT networks found innovative ways to reduce		Cities in our research that built citywide production IoT networks found innovative ways to reduce
	the normally intense capital costs of constructing a production IoT network. San Diego, CA and		the normally intense capital costs of constructing a production IoT network. San Diego, CA and

Pinfold at 03:58, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T03:58:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, March 17, 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf		\| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf
	\| chapter = 9104		\| chapter = 9104
	\| image = ~~InnovationCities~~.jpg		\| image = ChapterInnovationCities.jpg
	\| summary = During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study		\| summary = During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study
	interviews of local government agencies in the United States and Canada known to have		interviews of local government agencies in the United States and Canada known to have

Pinfold at 03:57, March 17, 2022

2022-03-17T03:57:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, March 17, 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf		\| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf
	\| chapter = 9104		\| chapter = 9104
	\| image =		\| image = InnovationCities.jpg
	\| summary =		\| summary = During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study
	}}
	~~=Introduction & Methodology=~~
	During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study
	interviews of local government agencies in the United States and Canada known to have		interviews of local government agencies in the United States and Canada known to have
	deployed IoT networks. The team spoke with the cities of San Diego; San Leandro, CA; Calgary,		deployed IoT networks. The team spoke with the cities of San Diego; San Leandro, CA; Calgary,
	AB Canada; and the County of San Mateo, CA. Below is a summary of the key findings from these		AB Canada; and the County of San Mateo, CA. Below is a summary of the key findings from these
	case studies.		case studies.
			}}
	=Project Structure=		=Project Structure=
	The structure of these IoT projects falls into two primary buckets: a) Pilot Projects and b)		The structure of these IoT projects falls into two primary buckets: a) Pilot Projects and b)
Line 105:		Line 103:
	process.		process.
	'''''Editor’s Note: Full case study reports can be found in the Full Case Study Reports'''''		'''''Editor’s Note: Full case study reports can be found in the Full Case Study Reports'''''
	~~[[File:InnovationCities.png\|center\|800px\|Innovation Cities]]~~

Pinfold at 04:18, March 15, 2022

2022-03-15T04:18:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:18, March 15, 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf		\| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf
	\| chapter = 9104		\| chapter = 9104
			\| image =
			\| summary =
	}}		}}
	~~__NOTOC__~~
	=Introduction & Methodology=		=Introduction & Methodology=
	During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study		During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study

Pinfold at 07:36, January 8, 2022

2022-01-08T07:36:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:36, January 8, 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\| chapter = 9104		\| chapter = 9104
	}}		}}
	~~__TOC__~~		__NOTOC__
	=Introduction & Methodology=		=Introduction & Methodology=
	During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study		During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study

Pinfold: /* Conclusion */

2022-01-07T22:01:53Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, January 7, 2022
Line 103:		Line 103:
	important to engage the public and address their concerns as part of the deployment and policy		important to engage the public and address their concerns as part of the deployment and policy
	process.		process.
	'''''Editor’s Note: Full case study reports can be found in ~~Section 7.~~'''''		'''''Editor’s Note: Full case study reports can be found in the Full Case Study Reports'''''
	[[File:InnovationCities.png\|center\|800px\|Innovation Cities]]		[[File:InnovationCities.png\|center\|800px\|Innovation Cities]]

Pinfold: Created page with "{{Chapter | blueprint = Wireless | sectors = Wireless | authors = David Witkowski, Anton Batalla, Essam El-Beik, Benny Lee, Bill Pugh, Steve Wimsatt | poc = David Witkowski |..."

2022-01-07T21:59:49Z

Created page with "{{Chapter | blueprint = Wireless | sectors = Wireless | authors = David Witkowski, Anton Batalla, Essam El-Beik, Benny Lee, Bill Pugh, Steve Wimsatt | poc = David Witkowski |..."

New page

{{Chapter
| blueprint = Wireless
| sectors = Wireless
| authors = David Witkowski, Anton Batalla, Essam El-Beik, Benny Lee, Bill Pugh, Steve Wimsatt
| poc = David Witkowski
| email = davidw@jointventure.org
| document = 20170823-GCTC-PWSC-Public-WIFI-Blueprint-FINAL-v2.pdf
| chapter = 9104
}}
__TOC__
=Introduction & Methodology=
During the development of this Blueprint, the authorship team conducted a series of case study
interviews of local government agencies in the United States and Canada known to have
deployed IoT networks. The team spoke with the cities of San Diego; San Leandro, CA; Calgary,
AB Canada; and the County of San Mateo, CA. Below is a summary of the key findings from these
case studies.
=Project Structure=
The structure of these IoT projects falls into two primary buckets: a) Pilot Projects and b)
Production Projects. To illustrate, San Diego and San Leandro both implemented full-scale,
citywide production IoT networks initially built for a one use-case, while Calgary and San Mateo
County deployed test networks to evaluate pilot solutions across various use-cases. ''(We define “production deployment” as being fully implemented and used day-to-day government operations. This is contrasted with “pilot” or “test” networks, which have no actual government services
using them for operations.)''
=Pilot Networks=
The pilot networks were designed to cover large areas at low costs with no pre-defined solutions
in mind. Both projects were developed by the respective Information Technology Departments.
These open innovation projects, which involved external partners creating and testing new
software on these networks, shared similar goals of '''iterative learning, exploration, and experimentation.'''

San Mateo County staff developed a test environment it called “SMC Labs” and collaborated with
multiple private sector partners to test many IoT network technologies, including LoRaWAN, NB-
IoT, and cellular IoT. County agencies were included in an effort to co-create solutions with private
sector firms using IoT sensors and networks. For example, SMC Labs has developed and tested
solutions for parking, irrigation, air quality, and more.

Meanwhile, Calgary staff deployed a geographically large LoRaWAN system at a very low cost.
It’s IT Department began by working with city departments (“business units”) to identify needs and
then worked to develop small proof-of-concept projects around those areas. The IT team
minimized risk by starting small and iterating. This was deployed with an agile methodology,
setting clear milestones, realistic and working to achieve them. They benefited from an existing
partnership between the City of Calgary and the University of Calgary, called the “[https://ucalgary.ca/urbanalliance/ Urban Alliance],”
which brought researchers into the program. 15 This led to a successful “smart agriculture” project
at the Devonian Gardens, a City-run botanical garden in their downtown core. Through the
process of iteration, experimentation, and learning they eventually developed a low-cost sensor
for measuring various plant care metrics.

=Production Networks=
Cities in our research that built citywide production IoT networks found innovative ways to reduce
the normally intense capital costs of constructing a production IoT network. San Diego, CA and
San Leandro, CA both employed a similar strategy by leveraging an LED street light retrofit
project, expected to save their respective cities millions of dollars in energy costs, to “bundle” the
construction work with building an IoT network using the same streetlights as mounting locations
for the IoT sensors.

Both cities reported that this approach '''saved huge amounts of time and money in construction and related costs'''. San Diego’s project was led by its Sustainability Department,
while San Leandro’s project was led by its Public Works Department.

In terms of technologies used, San Leandro deployed “smart” street light technology built on a
6LoWPAN IPv6 network, developed by Paradox Engineering (installed by [https://smartcitysl.com/tag/climatec/ Climatec], a Bosch
subsidiary). San Diego installed [https://about.att.com/story/ge_current_intelligent_lighting.html IoT sensors developed by AT&T/GE] Current, which also use
6LoWPAN over IPv6.

There were some similar lessons learned throughout each project. For example, San Diego
identified that it can be worthwhile to have technical staff on-hand during the deployment to test
the sensors and tweak them, as needed, and ensure the sensors are working and have proper
electrical and communication connections, etc. This can eliminate needing to have crews revisit
IoT sensors to perform such tweaks after the installation (thus reducing extra time and cost). Staff
also found that using cellular service to connect IoT sensors can be convenient but is also
expensive in a large-scale network so, as a result, they are looking for alternative communications
methods that do not require monthly service costs. San Diego staff is also engaging with the
public over privacy concerns, but this has benefited in having a robust policy drafted that puts
these concerns at the fore.

Meanwhile, San Leandro staff discussed the importance of involving technical staff early on to
ensure the IoT network design is consistent with a given agency’s current IT infrastructure,
competencies, and resources. In their example, the 6LoWPAN network required installing IoT
nodes on the street lights, along with some 30+ IoT Wi-Fi gateways located throughout the city,
all connecting to the city’s fiber optic network, by way of traffic controller cabinets where the Wi-
Fi gateways connected to Ethernet switches. This connected approximately 4,800 streetlights to
a virtual server hosted at the city’s data center. As it turned out, this was a major technical
undertaking that required several networking components and decisions along the way; as such,
having IT involved turned out to be an important factor in the success of the project.

At the same time, the roles of Operational Technology (“OT” – which in San Leandro’s case
remained with Public Works) and Information Technology (“IT” – which for San Leandro stayed
with the IT Department) should also be discussed early on. For San Leandro, the IoT Wi-Fi
gateways became a natural demark where IT transitioned to OT; this provided a framework for
support and ongoing maintenance after the network went live. For San Leandro, cross-functional
collaboration and informal social networks among staff led to a good working relationship between
IT and OT. However, in the absence of strong inter-departmental relationships and trust among
teams, operational boundaries should be formally discussed as early in the project as possible.
=Conclusion=
IoT technologies are still emerging and extremely new ground for local governments. For those
who decide to forge ahead and build their own, our case studies outline two distinct paths: a) low
cost pilot networks that evaluate applications in partnership with private sector firms; and b)
production networks with a single focus such as street lights that can be bundled into larger
construction projects that have organizational and political momentum and backing.

For pilot networks, it is important to start small, build the right partnerships (both internally and
externally), set the right expectations among stakeholders and learn from each trial. Meanwhile,
for production networks, there are huge economies of scale in bundling IoT with other construction
projects. However, it is critical to have the right teams involved and develop a “big picture” strategy
for how the IoT network can be leveraged for use-cases in the future. Within each path, it is
important to engage the public and address their concerns as part of the deployment and policy
process.
'''''Editor’s Note: Full case study reports can be found in Section 7.'''''
[[File:InnovationCities.png|center|800px|Innovation Cities]]