Thursday, 17 November 2016
Students at the Joburg Smart City Day
Students Bonolo Motsepe, Letlotlo Khoathane and Kundai Mutseyekwa took advantage of the Joburg Smart City Day on the 20th August to collect data from various smart city stakeholders for their research projects.
Joburg Smart City Day formed part of the Fak'ugesi Festival and was focussed on innovative technology developments in Johannesburg. It was held at the newly-opened Tshimologong precinct in Braamfontein.
Monday, 22 August 2016
Prof Cohen responds to Prof Wall, Chair in Economic Development in the City of Johannesburg
On the 5th May this year, the School of Economic and Business Sciences (where this project is housed) welcomed Prof Ronald Wall to the (new) Chair in Economic Development in the City of Johannesburg. Prof Wall presented a lecture titled: Glocal Competitor: Boosting Johannesburg’s Power within the Global Economic System.
Prof Jason Cohen, principle researcher on the Information Systems for Smart Cities in Africa project, responded to Prof Wall's presentation as follows:
Honourable guests, ladies and gentleman.
Professor Wall, congratulations and thank you for an excellent lecture. And welcome again to Wits and to the Faculty.
Professor Wall’s work brings to the fore the simple but powerful idea that we need to understand cities not as separate territories but rather as nodes within a global network, and importantly that what happens within cities is then connected to what happens between cities. Professor Wall thus argues and demonstrates in his work that the characteristics of a city node influence its position (or what he calls its prestige) in the network.
Professor Wall’s work is a stellar example of the promise of big data, the value of cutting edge applications of data visualization, and of how interrogating large datasets with network and cluster analysis allows us to arrive at fresh insights.
And when you have the sorts of hard data that Professor Wall is providing, we see just how important policy choices by cities are to the outcomes that we observe.
And as with all good research, the quality of Professor Wall’s work is evident also in the additional questions and debates that can arise from it. I’d like to kick-start the discussion process by raising some brief points, I have about 5 minutes and 5 points.
Let me say that I offer my perspectives in the spirit of an inter-disciplinary engagement. I am not an economist, but my work into smart cities and ICT driven innovation within cities has many touch-points with Ronald’s work. So I believe we are dealing with a shared problem of how we can develop a better City that is not only more economically competitive but also addresses the problem of inequalities and in which where residents can enjoy higher quality of life.
My first question is about how we balance interests in the process of developing the attractiveness of the city to FDI. Ronald spoke of tensions between wealth and wellbeing.
We can infer from Ronald’s work that to attract a mass of investment, a city needs to match investor demand for city characteristics with the supply or provision of the relevant infrastructure, services and amenities (i.e. urban competitiveness). For me, this raises a question as to whether the properties of a City most likely to attract foreign investment are always and necessarily compatible with the properties of a City reflective of the needs of residents.
In our Information Systems for Smart Cities in Africa project work, we define city smartness in terms of the improvements city initiatives bring to the satisfaction and quality of life of city residents. And we have spent some time eliciting and mapping residents’ priorities, and determining which initiatives are most important to their satisfaction. How then might a more relativist and resident-centred view of important city characteristics clash with (rub up against) those characteristics of a city found most necessary for FDI attractiveness?
How do we balance and prioritize the needs of residents within the city against those of outside investors? Whose interests are advanced in the process? And what are the consequences of mismatches. Ronald’s work thus leads us to this recognition that our work on cities is not just about data, but is as much about values, and our study of cities must inevitably engage us in important social choice debates – about the investments we want to attract, into what sectors, and the consequent implications for city characteristics.
My second question is about preference and trade-off.
If we are to convince firms from across key targets sectors, and individuals, that they are better off in Johannesburg than in competitor cities then we need to know not only what characteristics of cities make them more attractive but also why those factors matter. And to know why they matter, do we not then need to probe certain fundamental questions of firm behaviours and individual preferences. If we argue that we are actually dealing with a bundle of city characteristics then we need to uncover the trade-offs that people and firms are prepared to make across infrastructure, services, amenities etc.
Prof Jason Cohen, principle researcher on the Information Systems for Smart Cities in Africa project, responded to Prof Wall's presentation as follows:
Honourable guests, ladies and gentleman.
Professor Wall, congratulations and thank you for an excellent lecture. And welcome again to Wits and to the Faculty.
Professor Wall’s work brings to the fore the simple but powerful idea that we need to understand cities not as separate territories but rather as nodes within a global network, and importantly that what happens within cities is then connected to what happens between cities. Professor Wall thus argues and demonstrates in his work that the characteristics of a city node influence its position (or what he calls its prestige) in the network.
Professor Wall’s work is a stellar example of the promise of big data, the value of cutting edge applications of data visualization, and of how interrogating large datasets with network and cluster analysis allows us to arrive at fresh insights.
And when you have the sorts of hard data that Professor Wall is providing, we see just how important policy choices by cities are to the outcomes that we observe.
And as with all good research, the quality of Professor Wall’s work is evident also in the additional questions and debates that can arise from it. I’d like to kick-start the discussion process by raising some brief points, I have about 5 minutes and 5 points.
Let me say that I offer my perspectives in the spirit of an inter-disciplinary engagement. I am not an economist, but my work into smart cities and ICT driven innovation within cities has many touch-points with Ronald’s work. So I believe we are dealing with a shared problem of how we can develop a better City that is not only more economically competitive but also addresses the problem of inequalities and in which where residents can enjoy higher quality of life.
My first question is about how we balance interests in the process of developing the attractiveness of the city to FDI. Ronald spoke of tensions between wealth and wellbeing.
We can infer from Ronald’s work that to attract a mass of investment, a city needs to match investor demand for city characteristics with the supply or provision of the relevant infrastructure, services and amenities (i.e. urban competitiveness). For me, this raises a question as to whether the properties of a City most likely to attract foreign investment are always and necessarily compatible with the properties of a City reflective of the needs of residents.
In our Information Systems for Smart Cities in Africa project work, we define city smartness in terms of the improvements city initiatives bring to the satisfaction and quality of life of city residents. And we have spent some time eliciting and mapping residents’ priorities, and determining which initiatives are most important to their satisfaction. How then might a more relativist and resident-centred view of important city characteristics clash with (rub up against) those characteristics of a city found most necessary for FDI attractiveness?
How do we balance and prioritize the needs of residents within the city against those of outside investors? Whose interests are advanced in the process? And what are the consequences of mismatches. Ronald’s work thus leads us to this recognition that our work on cities is not just about data, but is as much about values, and our study of cities must inevitably engage us in important social choice debates – about the investments we want to attract, into what sectors, and the consequent implications for city characteristics.
My second question is about preference and trade-off.
If we are to convince firms from across key targets sectors, and individuals, that they are better off in Johannesburg than in competitor cities then we need to know not only what characteristics of cities make them more attractive but also why those factors matter. And to know why they matter, do we not then need to probe certain fundamental questions of firm behaviours and individual preferences. If we argue that we are actually dealing with a bundle of city characteristics then we need to uncover the trade-offs that people and firms are prepared to make across infrastructure, services, amenities etc.
As an
example, in our work with COJ residents, we have found a sample of COJ
residents prepared to trade faster broadband and a more efficient public
transportation infrastructure for better individual safety and more affordable
housing. So there may be value in thinking about the attractiveness of cities from
these base principles of utility and trade-off with a focus on identifying
those bundles of city characteristics
that match the preferences of investors, firms and individuals. A similar
argument has been made by Michael Storper in his book on Keys to the City[i]
when discussing the growing attractiveness of the southern US sunbelt states
over the north-eastern US (which we saw as those huge spikes in Ronald’s
visual).
My third question is about kick-starting new patterns
of global investment.
We learned
from Ronald that COJ is 6th in total African FDI. Ronald’s analysis
shows us that city-level characteristics matter for FDI attraction. But which
is the chicken and which is the egg?
Investment especially in greenfield FDI can lead to the economic development and smartness of cities (including increases in employment, labour productivity, skills, technology transfer – under certain conditions). But we’ve also seen that FDI is more likely to be attracted into cities with certain characteristics that in themselves already reflect a particular level of development. For example COJ’s ‘betweenness’ strength may be a function of the strength of our institutions. So the determinants of FDI attraction may also be the outcomes of FDI attraction. If the relationship is indeed cyclical, how can it best be kick-started? How do we ensure that existing patterns of global investment do not simply reproduce?
My fourth question is about different approaches to gaining glocal knowledge of cities.
One approach is to pursue the major shared determinants of network centrality (FDI attractiveness). Here, the construction of parsimonious models that provide for the best possible explanations are favoured. Yet, another approach would focus on obtaining richer pictures where the lived experiences of people within the city can be teased out and appreciated, including how city characteristics have influenced and been influenced by investor actions. Here, the focus is on the unique attributes of a city, the focus is on differences rather than on those shared determinants. Proponents of such approaches might argue that the unique conditions and characters of our cities cannot simply be relegated to the noise and error terms of a parsimonious model. So how can we combine the contributions of both research groups into our conclusions and recommendations on the city? I ask this question in particular because Ronald has mentioned his interest in the potential of qualitative work.
My fifth and final question is a longer-term and perhaps classic question for those interested in the development of cities.
Are we inevitably going to see the end of cities? We are already seeing electronic commerce, telehealth, telework, online education, technology-enabled business process outsourcing, and other technology and ICT-enabled advances breaking down traditional assumptions of how and why cities need to organize. Will technology lead us to the point where density in metropolitan areas disappears? In other words, will technology make the flow of goods, people and information so easy and seamless that we no longer need to cluster in cities?
Professor Wall, thank you once again for your thought provoking and insightful analyses, and I look forward to the exciting work that will come from your Chair.
Investment especially in greenfield FDI can lead to the economic development and smartness of cities (including increases in employment, labour productivity, skills, technology transfer – under certain conditions). But we’ve also seen that FDI is more likely to be attracted into cities with certain characteristics that in themselves already reflect a particular level of development. For example COJ’s ‘betweenness’ strength may be a function of the strength of our institutions. So the determinants of FDI attraction may also be the outcomes of FDI attraction. If the relationship is indeed cyclical, how can it best be kick-started? How do we ensure that existing patterns of global investment do not simply reproduce?
My fourth question is about different approaches to gaining glocal knowledge of cities.
One approach is to pursue the major shared determinants of network centrality (FDI attractiveness). Here, the construction of parsimonious models that provide for the best possible explanations are favoured. Yet, another approach would focus on obtaining richer pictures where the lived experiences of people within the city can be teased out and appreciated, including how city characteristics have influenced and been influenced by investor actions. Here, the focus is on the unique attributes of a city, the focus is on differences rather than on those shared determinants. Proponents of such approaches might argue that the unique conditions and characters of our cities cannot simply be relegated to the noise and error terms of a parsimonious model. So how can we combine the contributions of both research groups into our conclusions and recommendations on the city? I ask this question in particular because Ronald has mentioned his interest in the potential of qualitative work.
My fifth and final question is a longer-term and perhaps classic question for those interested in the development of cities.
Are we inevitably going to see the end of cities? We are already seeing electronic commerce, telehealth, telework, online education, technology-enabled business process outsourcing, and other technology and ICT-enabled advances breaking down traditional assumptions of how and why cities need to organize. Will technology lead us to the point where density in metropolitan areas disappears? In other words, will technology make the flow of goods, people and information so easy and seamless that we no longer need to cluster in cities?
Professor Wall, thank you once again for your thought provoking and insightful analyses, and I look forward to the exciting work that will come from your Chair.
[i]
Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the City: How Economics, Institutions, Social
Interaction, and Politics Shape Development, Princeton University Press.
Thursday, 18 August 2016
Congratulations to Masters student Malefa Topo
Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Honours student projects for 2016
The honours students on the project have finalised their research proposals for 2016. Here they each describe their research...
Isa Osmany
Big Data Applications in Smart Cities: A Delphi Study of Components and
Challenges to Implementation
This research intends to carry out an exploratory study
aimed at identifying the main challenges and key components required to design,
develop, and implement smart city applications which utilize big data. A Delphi
study consisting of two rounds will take place. In the first round, experts in
big data and smart cities will be used to identify the key required components
and main challenges. In the second round, these components and challenges will
then be rated, according to their importance, and ranked in descending order.
Bonolo Motsepe
South African municipal websites: examining website maturity
and the relationship with human development indicators
A smart city is a city which encompasses many different
aspects. It makes use of ICT tools and applications to provide better access to
and delivery of government services. These services extend across the domains
of natural resources and energy, transport and mobility, buildings, living,
government, as well as the economy. E-Government initiatives, which form a part
of smart city projects, use ICT tools and applications to improve service
delivery to society. Local governments in South Africa are implementing smart
city initiatives, e-government initiatives as well as poverty alleviation
programmes to improve living conditions. The maturity of e-government is
dependent on the presence of certain of website features. Website maturity is
accelerating in the public sector, with a special focus on functionality and
performance, and municipalities have moved away from static dissemination of
information.
My study aims to investigate the current state of
e-government maturity in South Africa, and examine the relationship maturity
has with human development indicators. To achieve this, I employ a purposive
sampling of 26 municipal websites. The research is quantitative and descriptive
in nature and follows a positivist paradigm. The outcome of this paper will be
the current state of e-government in South Africa, and the relationship of
e-government maturity with human development indicators. Recommendations will
be made on the improvements required for progressive e-government.
Letlotlo Khoathane
Ecosystem
factors that impact the implementation of smart city services
Smart cities are a relatively new phenomenon in
Africa and little research has been carried out in this context. Therefore
identifying factors that contribute towards a smart city ecosystem is
significant to understand how smart city services can be implemented within
South Africa. The identification of ecosystem factors that have an impact on
smart city service implementation can substantially contribute towards
understanding which factors to focus on to ensure a greater chance of
successful smart city services implementation within the City of Johannesburg.
With this understanding, organisations that have a vested interest in smart
services can be prepared in dealing with the complexities of implementing smart
services and further know how to go about fostering innovation within the city.
This research therefore proposes a framework that explores 6 dimensions which
are suggested to encompass smart city ecosystem factors. The model is tested
using a quantitative approach and makes use of a close-ended field survey. An
electronic survey will be distributed to 400 potential respondents in order to
gain at least 80 useful responses. The research makes use of regression
analysis to establish the extent to which the proposed factors impact the
successful implementation of smart city services in the City of
Johannesburg.
Lizalise
Myataza
A study of data science use for informated
transport services within Southern African Development Community countries
In order to achieve a successful transportation
sector, it is imperative for a country to have decent transport infrastructure
and services. However, this is not the case as many African countries are still
grossly underdeveloped with regards to transportation. The idea of smart cities
is a much debated topic in terms of what qualifies as smartness for smart
cities, and how this can be achieved. The general consensus by authors is that
smart cities can enhance the quality of life and transform the transportation
industry by providing informated transport services to create an informated
living experience. In addition, the emergence of data science brings high hopes
for enhancing smart cities due to its capability to transform city life by
utilizing big data to provide increased sophistication, in-depth and real time
knowledge and management of a city on a larger scale. The research studies the
concept of creating smart cities through the provision of informated transport
services using data science technologies, specifically in SADC countries.
This research is an exploratory study underpinned
by a qualitative methodology. A study is conducted across informated service
providers in African cities and the findings are reflected in the research
report. The purpose of the study is to determine what informated transport
services are offered in SADC countries, identify the providers of such services
and establish to what extent informated transport services are supported by
data science. The research explores the initial steps for futures studies that
may assess the impact of data science use in smart informated services.
Kundai Mutseyekwa
Influential factors
for corporations to invest in smart city initiatives as part of their corporate
social responsibility programmes in South Africa
The study examines
the factors that influence public limited companies and multinational companies
to invest in smart city initiatives in South Africa as part of their corporate
social responsibility programmes. The study is conducted in South Africa and
focuses on corporate social responsibility and smart cities. It aims to fill a
gap in our understanding of corporate social responsibility and smart cities: Why
do corporations invest in smart city initiatives? The study will provide
guidance to stakeholders who are seeking funding from corporations for smart
city initiatives. Stakeholders will understand the factors that influence corporations
to fund smart city initiatives as part of their social responsibility programmes.
This study will be a contribution to academia and to practice.
Brian Pheelwane
Factors influencing the adoption of smartphone applications
in the context of a smart city’s e-services
This research focuses on the adoption of smartphone applications
(smart city apps), which will assist citizens to access and utilise the
services provided by the City of Johannesburg. The factors that influence the
adoption of smart city e-services are investigated for further knowledge on how
these services can enhance quality of life and to explore challenges in the
implementation and adoption of smartphone applications to deliver services
efficiently to the city’s residents. This research is underpinned by Rogers
1995 Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT). The theory will be explored for
knowledge that can assist the City in enhancing its smart city status, through
the use of e-services.
Friday, 3 June 2016
Data collection: A tale of two African cities
Intrepid master's student Nalukui Malambo has been completing her data collection and writes here about the experience...
Nairobi (Kenya)
My data collection trip in
Nairobi was conducted over a period of 14 days from the 6th to 19th
of April 2016. Being the first time in Kenya and not knowing anyone or where I
was going, a quick realisation that bravery was on call kicked in immediately.
The data collection was more of an adventurous process
than usual, the pace started out a little slower, the first few days involved orienting
myself to the city, sorting out tech (buying a sim card, registering on the
local network, and finding the right power adapters took a whole day), learning
how to navigate the local transportation networks and routes, finding
suitable accommodation, restaurants, local supermarkets and understanding
the basic words in the commonly spoken local language Swahili. Although Kenya's official language is English,
local languages are still widely spoken. Navigation around the city was made
easier by the assistance of a student guide (extremely important if you are
there for the first time).
I conducted a total of 11 interviews
within and around Nairobi with various stakeholders identified for the research. The first set of interviews were conducted in
Machakos county, specifically in an area called Konza. Konza is situated 60 kilometres
outside Nairobi, earmarked to be a new Smart city by the government of Kenya to
be built from scratch, locally referred to as “Konza Technology City”.
| "Getting around was interesting..." |
Getting around was interesting. My trip
from Nairobi to Konza started out on a Friday at 6am using local public minibuses
known as matatu. It took approximately 3 hours and 3 matatus to Konza, as
there is no direct route to Konza using public transport. Access into the
residential area from the main road required the use of a local motor-bike
(boda-boda) to the area chief’s office. Before conducting the interviews,
permission from the current Chief was requested and granted. Stakeholders
interviewed at Konza included: the area Chief, a former Councillor, the secondary
school principal and local residents, as well as a site visit to the construction
area where the city structures are to be constructed. At the time of my site
visit, the Konza project team had just broken ground a week before. On observation, Konza is a beautiful area and
strategically located on Kenya’s main highway leading from Nairobi to Mombasa.
The land still remains pretty much virgin land, with an abundance of all sorts
of wild animals, a swampy patch and plenty of vegetation.
![]() |
| Interviewing the Konza area Chief |
Back in Nairobi, some of the interviews
were conducted at the Konza administrative offices. The Konza project office
(KotDA) was established to oversee the implementation of the Konza Technology
City project tasked with managing the new Smart City project under the
directorate of CEO John Tanui. Overall, data collection in Nairobi took on
an unstructured approach, partly because of the nature of the research being
exploratory, as well as the nature of key informants that snowballed from
informant to informant. In addition, I spent most of my free time (which
included weekends) collecting information on the smart city agenda from pedestrians,
noting construction activities and taking photographs. I also interviewed
representatives of organisations that are indirectly involved in the Smart City
agenda such as the United Nations, IBM, Cisco, University of Nairobi etc.
Cape
Town (South Africa)
My data collection trip to
Cape Town started out on the 7th to 12th February 2016. In contrast
to Nairobi, the trip was short and structured. Before leaving for Cape Town, I
had diarised eight interviews and managed to secure an extra four while in Cape
Town. I conducted at least three interviews per day with the various stakeholders
involved in the Smart City initiatives of Cape Town.
My way around Cape Town was
simple. The city has well run and organised, structured public transport. I used
Uber for most of my morning rides (to avoid arriving late at my meeting
destinations) as my accommodation was situated 11 kilometres out of the way of
public transportation. It was easy to
find my way around the city even though this was not my first time in Cape Town.
I hopped on and off public transportation for my afternoon ride (train, taxi
and buses) to the hotel and any other meeting places I had to get to.
I would like to think my
data collection trip to Cape Town prepared me to some extent for my Nairobi
trip from a research point of view, but the experience was very different and I
was not prepared for the differences in how the cities worked.
From this, I learnt that a
certain comfort with ambiguity is necessary to conducting research in an African
city, which most often comes with the upside of learning creative problem
solving skills. I learnt that information is available, but not necessarily in
the places you expect to find it. Most importantly, I learnt that you have to
be brave, patient and flexible to collect data in African cities.
Monday, 25 April 2016
Welcome to the 2016 honours students
The project welcomes a new batch of information systems honours students for 2016.
They are, from left, Brian Opheelwane, Lizalise Myataza, Letlotlo Khoathane, Bonolo Motsepe and Isa Osmany. Lizalise, Letlotlo, Bonolo and Isa are recipients of NRF bursaries for the project.
Kundai Mutseyekwa has also joined the team, but was not available for the photo shoot.
The honours students are hard at work developing their research proposals and we will post information about their research here soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




