Advertisement

A Goal-Oriented Framework for Analyzing and Modeling City Dashboards in Smart Cities

  • Katiuscia Mannaro
  • Gavina Baralla
  • Chiara Garau
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

For several years, many cities around the world are moving through a number of initiatives to implement the so-called “city dashboards”, as an opportunity for a new quality of urban life in terms of knowing and governing cities. The main contribution of this paper is to examine how city dashboards are performing on various metrics and comparing them in order to understand what they do. Starting from this perspective, to the best of our knowledge and by examining dashboard examples, there are many differences in the products that go by the name “city dashboards”. Moreover there are several methodological and technical issues that are not dealt with and yet solved in terms of data, indicators and benchmarking. The design of a city dashboard needs a clear vision of the direction that public administrations intend to undertake, alongside an ability to build scenarios and analyze the results of experiments in the context of the changing urban variables. Given the gap in academic literature concerning this subject, we developed a goal-oriented framework for examining the characteristics of various city dashboards and developing a taxonomy. Our framework enables a more systematic process for developing an effective city dashboard and provides useful insights to decision makers. The results suggest that some features emerge and our findings highlight specific clusters.

Keywords

City dashboard Urban governance Taxonomy Smart cities, goal/question/metric 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the MIUR (Ministry of Education, Universities and Research [Italy]) through a project entitled Governing the smart city: a governance-centred approach to Smart urbanismGHOST (Project code: RBSI14FDPF; CUP Code: F22I15000070008), financed with the SIR (Scientific Independence of Young Researchers) programme.

References

  1. Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akbar, M., Sukmana, H. T., & Khairani, D. (2014). Models and software measurement using Goal/Question/Metric method and CMS Matrix parameter (Case study discussion forum). In 2014 International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) (pp. 34–38). South Tangerang.Google Scholar
  4. Basili, V. R. (1993). Applying the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm in the experience factory (pp. 21–44). Software Quality Assurance and Measurement: A Worldwide Perspective.Google Scholar
  5. Basili, V., Heidrich, J., Lindvall, M., Münch, J., Regardie, M., Rombach, D., & Trendowicz, A. (2014). GQM + Strategies: A comprehensive methodology for aligning business strategies with software measurement.Google Scholar
  6. Behkamal, B., Kahani, M., Bagheri, E., & Jeremic, Z. (2014). A metrics-driven approach for quality assessment of linked open data. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2), 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bui, L. (2015, October). Breathing smarter: A critical look at representations of air quality sensing data across platforms and publics. In 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  8. Cagliero, L., Cerquitelli, T., Chiusano, S., Garino, P., Nardone, M., Pralio, B., et al. (2015, April). Monitoring the citizens’ perception on urban security in smart city environments. In 2015 31st IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) (pp. 112–116).Google Scholar
  9. Caldiera, V. R. B. G., & Rombach, H. D. (1994). The goal question metric approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2(1994), 528–532.Google Scholar
  10. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carta, M. (2017). Augmented city. A Paradigm Shift. Trento-Barcelona: Listlab (in press).Google Scholar
  12. Dameri, R. P. (2016). Smart city implementation: Creating economic and public value in innovative urban systems. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Fegraus, E. H., Zaslavsky, I., Whitenack, T., Dempewolf, J., Ahumada, J. A., Lin, K., et al. (2012). Interdisciplinary decision support dashboard: A new framework for a Tanzanian agricultural and ecosystem service monitoring system pilot. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 5(6), 1700–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Facility, Global City Indicators. (2013). Data, boundaries, and competitiveness: The Toronto urban region in global context. Global City Indicators Facility: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  15. ISO 37101. (2016). Sustainable development and resilience of communities—management systems—general principles and requirements. Technical Committee: ISO/TC 268 Sustainable cities and communities. ICS: 13.020.20 Environmental economics. Sustainability. Publication date: 2016-07. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/61885.html.
  16. ISO 37120. (2014). Sustainable development in communities: Indicators for city services and quality of life. Technical Committee: ISO/TC 268. Sustainable cities and communities. ICS: 13.020.20 Environmental economics. Sustainability. Publication date: 2014-05. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/62436.html.
  17. Kitchin, R., Coletta, C., & McArdle, G. (2017). Urban informatics, governmentality and the logics of urban control. Available at osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/27hz8.
  18. Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. P., & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitchin, R., & McArdle, G. (2016). Urban data and city dashboards: Six key issues. Working paper. Programmable city working paper 21, Maynooth.Google Scholar
  20. Mannaro, K., Melis, M., & Marchesi, M. (2004). Empirical analysis on the satisfaction of IT employees comparing XP practices with other software development methodologies. In International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (pp. 166–174). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendonça, M., Moreira, B., Coelho, J., Cacho, N., Lopes, F., Cavalcante, E., et al. (2016). Improving public safety at fingertips: A smart city experience. In 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  23. Nesi, P., Badii, C., Bellini, P., Cenni, D., Martelli, G., & Paolucci, M. (2016). Km4City smart city API: An integrated support for mobility services. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP) (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  24. Nuzzolese, A. G., Gangemi, A., Presutti, V., Draicchio, F., Musetti, A., & Ciancarini, P. (2013). Tìpalo: A tool for automatic typing of dbpedia entities. In Extended Semantic Web Conference (pp. 253–257). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD. (2017). Getting skills right: Skills for Jobs indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris..  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277878-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osella, M., Ferro, E., & Pautasso, M. E. (2016). Toward a methodological approach to assess public value in smart cities. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda (pp. 129–148). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Pani, F. E., Lunesu, M. I., Concas, G., & Baralla, G. (2015). The web knowledge management: A taxonomy-based approach. In Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: 5th International Joint Conference, IC3 K 2013. Vilamoura, Portugal, September 19–22, 2013.Google Scholar
  28. Southekal, P. (2017). Data for business performance: The goal-question-metric (GQM) model to transform business data into an enterprise asset. Technics Publications; First edition.Google Scholar
  29. Suakanto, S., Supangkat, S. H., & Saragih, R. (2013). Smart city dashboard for integrating various data of sensor networks. In 2013 International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  30. Usurelu, C. C., & Pop, F. (2017). My city dashboard: Real-time data processing platform for smart cities. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 1, 89.Google Scholar
  31. Yeh, T. M., & Huang, Y. L. (2014). Factors in determining wind farm location: Integrating GQM, fuzzy DEMATEL, and ANP. Renewable Energy, 66, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zdraveski, V., Mishev, K., Trajanov, D., & Kocarev, L. (2017). ISO-standardized smart city platform architecture and dashboard. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 16(2), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katiuscia Mannaro
    • 1
  • Gavina Baralla
    • 1
  • Chiara Garau
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electric and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations