Framework for Developing an Information Technology Maturity Model for Smart City Services in Emerging Economies: (FSCE2)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State of the Art
2.1. Definition of Smart Cities
2.2. Smart City Conceptual Model
2.3. IT Maturity Frameworks
3. Proposed Framework for Developing an IT Maturity Model for Smart City Services in Emerging Economics
3.1. Conceptual Model Smart City Services
3.1.1. Quality of Citizen Life
3.1.2. Sustainable Environment
3.1.3. Economics Opportunity
3.1.4. Infrastructure
3.1.5. Inclusive Government
3.2. IT Dimensions and Indicators
3.3. IT Maturity Model
3.3.1. Level 1 Integrated
3.3.2. Level 2 Analytically Managed
3.3.3. Level 3 Optimized Automated
3.4. Information Architecture
3.4.1. Integration Platform
3.4.2. Analytical Management Platform
3.4.3. Optimization and Automation Platform
3.5. Special Features of This Proposed Framework (Advantages and Challenges)
3.6. Comparing with Other Standards
4. Application Methodology
5. Results
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Góngora, G.P.M. Review of Literature on Smart Cities: A ICT-Focused Perspective. Ingeniare 2016, 19, 137–149. [Google Scholar]
- MinTIC. ICT Plan 2018–2022 The Digital Future Is Everyone’s; MinTIC: Bogotá, Colombia, 2018; pp. 1–105. Available online: https://micrositios.mintic.gov.co/plan_tic_2018_2022/ (accessed on 12 December 2020).
- Oliveira, F.; Costa, D.G.; Lima, L.; Silva, I. iBikeSafe: A Multi-Parameter System for Monitoring, Evaluation and Visualization of Cycling Paths in Smart Cities Targeted at Cycling Adverse Conditions. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parra-Domínguez, J.; Santos, J.H.; Márquez-Sánchez, S.; González-Briones, A.; De la Prieta, F. Technological Developments of Mobility in Smart Cities. An Economic Approach. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernafi, Y.; Ben Ahmed, M.; Bouhorma, M. An Approaches’ based on Intelligent Transportation Systems to Dissect Driver Behavior and Smart Mobility in Smart City. In Proceedings of the 2016 4th IEEE International Colloquium on Information Science and Technology (CiSt), Tangier-Assilah, Morocco, 24–26 October 2016; pp. 886–895. [Google Scholar]
- Enayet, A.; Razzaque, M.A.; Hassan, M.M.; Alamri, A.; Fortino, G. A Mobility-Aware Optimal Resource Allocation Architecture for Big Data Task Execution on Mobile Cloud in Smart Cities. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckhoff, D.; Wagner, I. Privacy in the Smart City – Applications, Technologies, Challenges and Solutions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 20, 489–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andrisano, O.; Bartolini, I.; Bellavista, P.; Boeri, A.; Bononi, L.; Borgheti, A. The Need of Multidisciplinary Approaches and Engineering Tools for the Development and Implementation of the Smart City Paradigm. Proc. IEEE 2018, 106, 738–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freitas, A.; Brito, L.; Baras, K.; Silva, J. Smart mobility: A survey. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Internet of Things for the Global Community (IoTGC), Funchal, Portugal, 10–13 July 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mishbah, M.; Census, D.I. Information System Implementation in Smart Cities Based on Types, Region, Sub-area. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), Bandung, Indonesia, 23–24 October 2017; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
- Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Pardo, T.A.; Nam, T. What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Inf. Polity 2015, 20, 61–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, B.N.; Khan, M.; Han, K. Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 697–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maestre, G.P.; Astudillo, H.; Nieto, W.; Concha, G. Empirical evidence of Colombian national e-government programs’ impact on local Smart City-Adoption. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Galway, Ireland, 4–6 April 2018; pp. 517–525. [Google Scholar]
- Proenca, D.; Borbinha, J. Enterprise architecture: A maturity model based on TOGAF ADM. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Thessaloniki, Greece, 24–27 July 2017; Volume 1, pp. 257–266. [Google Scholar]
- Firmanyah, H.S.; Supangkat, S.H.; Arman, A.A.; Ariani, Y. Identifying Component for Building Smart City Maturity Model Through Document Based Weighting and City Problem in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2017 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 18–20 October 2017; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, C. Sustainable security advantage in a changing environment: The cybersecurity capability maturity model (CM2). In Proceedings of the 2014 ITU Kaleidoscope Academic Conference: Living in a Converged World-Impossible without Standards? St. Petersburg, Russia, 3–5 June 2014; pp. 275–282. [Google Scholar]
- Jaquire, V.; Von Solms, S. Developing a cyber-counterintelligence maturity model for developing countries. In Proceedings of the 2017 IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa), Windhoek, Namibia, 30 May–2 June 2017; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Torrinha, P.; Machado, R.J. Assessment of maturity models for smart cities supported by maturity model design principles. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities (ICSGSC), Singapore, 23–26 July 2017; pp. 252–256. [Google Scholar]
- Tobergte, D.R.; Curtis, S. Mapping Smart Cities in the EU. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar]
- Ishaq, A.; Mukhtar, M.; Wahyudi, M.; Indriani, K. Information technology governance using cobit 4.0 domain delivery support and monitoring evaluation. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2017, 95, 5304–5315. [Google Scholar]
- The Scottish Government, Scottish Cities Alliance and Urban Tide. Smart Cities Maturity Model and Self-Assessment Tool: Guidance Note for Completion of Self-Assessment Tool; Scotland Yard, The Scottish Government, Scottish Cities Alliance, and Urban Tide: London, UK, 2014; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, P.K.; Park, J.H. Blockchain based hybrid network architecture for the smart city. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 86, 650–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubina, M.; Šulyová, D.; Vodák, J. Comparison of Smart City Standards, Implementation and Cluster Models of Cities in North America and Europe. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used. Math. Modeling 1987, 9, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Maturity Level | Description |
---|---|
Level 0 | Incomplete |
Level 1 | Performed |
Level 2 | Managed |
Level 3 | Defined |
Level 4 | Quantitatively Managed |
Level 5 | Optimized |
Level Maturity | Description |
---|---|
Level 1 | A smart city strategy or policy only |
Level 2 | In addition to Level 1, a project plan or project vision, but there is no pilot or implementation |
Level 3 | In addition to Level 2, smart city initiative pilots |
Level 4 | A smart city with at least one smart city initiative fully launched or implemented |
Level 1: Ad-Hoc | Level 2: Opportunistic | Level 3: Purposeful & Repeteable | Level 4: Operationalised | Level 5: Optimised | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
City Management Status | Siloed | System collaboration | System integration | Managed system | Sustainable and open “System of System” |
Smart City Status | Operation focused digital and date driven service improvement | Holistic system thinking and emergent sharing of data | Strategy led and outcome driven. Enabled by system-wide technology investment | Technology and data enabled dynamic sense and response systems | Continuously adaptive city-wide “smart” deployment |
Effect on Outcomes | Capturing evidence and building business case | Cross boundary partnerships emerging to focus on shared out comes | Shared accountability for outcomes and joint system-wide investment programme | Improved prediction, prevention and real-time response delivers improved outcomes | City-wide open “system of systems” approach drives innovation that enhances city competitiveness |
Concept | Outline |
---|---|
Strategic Intent | Successful smart cities have a strategic roadmap on how investment in data and digital technologies enable service reform and partner collaboration. An effective strategy focuses on delivering improved outcomes aligned to the city’s strategic priorities |
Data | Successful smart cities make effective use of their data assets to secure better outcomes. They invest in system-wide data capture, integration and analytics capabilities. Open data underpins their commitment to transparency and innovation |
Technology | Successful smart cities invest in open, flexible, integrated and scalable ICT architectures that enable accelerated service innovation, such as the provision of automated and real time dynamic response capabilities |
Governance and Service Delivery Models | Successful smart cities adapt the traditional organizational model of delivery to realize the opportunities of data and digital technologies. They invest in system-wide partnership models focused on shared outcomes |
Stakeholder Engagement | Successful smart cities make the best use of data and digital technologies to invest in enhanced openness and transparency. Stakeholder engagement and stakeholder ownership of service reform is central within a smart city. Smart cities are proactive in improving take up of digital services while supporting the digitally excluded |
IT Dimensions | Indicators |
---|---|
Government and IT Management It includes IT investments, their objectives, the scope of the strategy, value and competitive advantages for citizens, regulation and policies |
|
IT Services Services implementing the goals to be achieved |
|
Data Management Data capture, integration and analytical applications |
|
Technological Infrastructure Software, hardware and networking architecture to support intelligent services |
|
Steps to Apply the Framework | Description |
---|---|
| Identify smart city services in the city development plan. The service must have an IT component to be an evaluation candidate. In addition, the service must impact one of the service areas of the area of quality of citizen life: health, education, housing, security, culture and recreation |
| 2a. Determine the importance of each IT dimension (IT governance and management, IT Services, data management, technology infrastructure) 2b. Determine the importance of each indicator |
| Assign the level of maturity for each indicator, using the following scale of possible values according to maturity levels: Level 1: Integrated [0 1] if intelligent service information is integrated; Level 2: Analytically Managed [1 2] if smart service information has smart dashboards with analytics; Level 3: Optimized/Automated [2 3] if the information is optimized and automated for decision making. |
| Determine the index of maturity for each IT dimension SUMPRODUCT ((importance IT indicator) X (magnitude indicators IT dimension)) |
| Use maturity for each IT dimension to solve optimization problems by making investment decisions in smart services. |
Quality of Life | Description | Smart City Service Development Plan (2020–2023) |
---|---|---|
Health | Accessibility to health services with opportunity and integrality for Cordoba | Actions to inspect and monitor acute respiratory infections and COVID-19 by health care providers by 100% |
Increase access to COVID-19 transmission prevention services by 100% of the population through information and mass communication days | ||
Updating the system for registering information for persons with disabilities and crossing databases | ||
Education | Educational coverage with equity for the Welfare of the Cordobeses | Cordoning learning environments with new information technologies |
Implement a monitoring and monitoring program to the management of the education sector | ||
Implement literacy program for out-of-school youth and adults | ||
Security | Security, legality and itizen cohabitation | Install security cameras in the suburbs of Cereté municipality |
Provide the central police command and rural IADs with telecommunications equipment | ||
Increase community alarms triggered in neighborhoods and articulated with neighborhood quadrants and community leaders | ||
Housing | Produce preserving and preserving producing | Establish educational projects for the promotion, dissemination and training in disaster prevention and care |
Culture and Recreation | Creation and access to education | Recreational parks and improved sports venues |
IT Dimension Pair-Wise Comparison | Level of Importance Assigned | ||
---|---|---|---|
IT Services | vs. | Government and IT Management | 5—More Important |
IT Services | vs. | Data Management | 7—More Important |
IT Services | vs. | Infrastructure | 1—Equal Important |
Data Management | vs. | Government and IT Management | 3—More Important |
Data Management | vs. | IT Services | 1/7—Less Importance |
Data Management | vs. | Infrastructure | 1—Equal Importance |
Infrastructure | vs. | Government and IT Management | 1—Equal Importance |
Infrastructure | vs. | IT Services | 1—Equal Importance |
Infrastructure | vs. | Data Management | 1—Equal Importance |
Government and IT Management | vs. | IT Services | 1/5—Less Importance |
Government and IT Management | vs. | Data Management | 1/3—Less Importance |
Government and IT Management | vs. | Infrastructure | 1—Equal Importance |
AHP Comparison of IT Dimensions | Government and IT Management | IT Services | Data Management | Infrastructure | |
Government and IT Management | 1.00 | 0.20 | 0.33 | 1.00 | |
IT Services | 5.00 | 1.00 | 7.00 | 1.00 | |
Data Management | 3.00 | 0.14 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
Infrastructure | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
AHP Comparison of IT Dimensions | Government and IT Management | IT Services | Data Management | Infrastructure | % Importance |
Government and IT Management | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.12 |
IT Services | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.48 |
Data Management | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.18 |
Infrastructure | 0.10 | 0.43 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.22 |
Total | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
IT Dimension | % Importance | Indicator | % Importance |
---|---|---|---|
Government and IT Management | 0.12 | Planning | 0.40 |
Execution | 0.27 | ||
Innovation | 0.17 | ||
Auditing and Monitoring | 0.11 | ||
Citizen Satisfaction | 0.05 | ||
IT Services | 0.48 | Functionality | 0.53 |
Usability | 0.24 | ||
Scalability | 0.11 | ||
Portability | 0.07 | ||
Interoperability | 0.05 | ||
Data Management | 0.15 | Validity | 0.60 |
Descriptive Analytics Indicators | 0.14 | ||
Predictive Analytic Indicators | 0.10 | ||
Prescriptive Analytics Indicators | 0.11 | ||
Confidentiality | 0.05 | ||
Infrastructure | 0.25 | Availability | 0.41 |
Reliability | 0.27 | ||
Security | 0.20 | ||
Maintainability | 0.06 | ||
Coverage | 0.05 |
Dimension IT | Indicator | Health | Education | Housing | Segurity | Culture and Recreation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Government and IT Management | Planning | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
Execution | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Innovation | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Auditing and Monitoring | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Citizen Satisfaction | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | |
IT Services | Functionality | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Usability | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Scalability | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | |
Portability | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | |
Interoperability | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | |
Data Management | Validity | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
Descriptive Analytic Indicators. | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
Predictive Analytic Indicators. | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
Prescriptive Analytic Indicators. | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
Confidentiality | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | |
Infrastructure | Availability | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Reliability | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Security | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Maintainability | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Coverage | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
Importance | 0.12 | 0.48 | 0.18 | 0.22 | Index Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area of Services/Maturity Index | Maturity Index Government and IT Management | Maturity Index IT Service | Maturity Index Data Management | Maturity Index Infrastructure | Quantitative Value | Qualitative Value |
Health | 1.10 | 1.68 | 1.63 | 1.65 | 1.60 | Level 2—Analytics Managed Service |
Education | 1.56 | 1.86 | 1.82 | 1.71 | 1.79 | Level 2—Analytics Managed Service |
Housing | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.14 | Level 1—Integrated Service |
Security | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.53 | Level 1—Integrated Service |
Culture & Recreation | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.54 | Level 1—Integrated Service |
Area Service | Project | Cost | Xi = Decision Variable to Select Project Investment | Maturity Index Government IT Management | Maturity Index IT Service | Maturity Index Data Management | Maturity Index Infrastructure | Objective Function | Cost * Xi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Health | P1 | 1876 | 1 | 1.10 | 1.68 | 1.63 | 1.65 | 6.06 | 1876 |
P2 | 2580 | 0 | 1.10 | 1.68 | 1.63 | 1.65 | 2.66 | 1134 | |
P3 | 54 | 0 | 1.10 | 1.68 | 1.63 | 1.65 | 0.00 | 0 | |
Education | P4 | 500 | 1 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 12.00 | 500 |
P5 | 400 | 0 | 1.56 | 1.86 | 1.82 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 0 | |
P6 | 215 | 1 | 1.56 | 1.86 | 1.82 | 1.71 | 6.96 | 215 | |
Housing | P7 | 430 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0 |
Security | P8 | 220 | 0 | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 0 |
P9 | 200 | 1 | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 1.19 | 115 | |
P10 | 130 | 0 | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.88 | 55 | |
Culture & Recreation | P11 | 1161 | 1 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 2.06 | 1161 |
p12 | 497 | 0 | 0.42 | 0.56 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 0 | |
Original Cost | MAX | Optimized Cost | |||||||
32 | |||||||||
8263 | 5055 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nieto Bernal, W.; García Espitaleta, K.L. Framework for Developing an Information Technology Maturity Model for Smart City Services in Emerging Economies: (FSCE2). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10712. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210712
Nieto Bernal W, García Espitaleta KL. Framework for Developing an Information Technology Maturity Model for Smart City Services in Emerging Economies: (FSCE2). Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(22):10712. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210712
Chicago/Turabian StyleNieto Bernal, Wilson, and Keryn Lorena García Espitaleta. 2021. "Framework for Developing an Information Technology Maturity Model for Smart City Services in Emerging Economies: (FSCE2)" Applied Sciences 11, no. 22: 10712. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210712
APA StyleNieto Bernal, W., & García Espitaleta, K. L. (2021). Framework for Developing an Information Technology Maturity Model for Smart City Services in Emerging Economies: (FSCE2). Applied Sciences, 11(22), 10712. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112210712