# data[].attributes.body
Materials on how to sustain and grow civic tech solutions in Africa may help. It will be more helpful if these materials have links to funding opportunities for civic tech in Africa.

# data[].attributes.body
For us, having the resources to implement strategies to attract more citizens to the platform and ensuring the citizens take actions has been a major barrier.

# data[].attributes.body
Going loud will attract collaboration from public institutions. By loud, I mean having a large database, telling the right stories of impact through the right channels.

# data[].attributes.body
We are growing our userbase to make small wins to attract public institutions to collaborate with us.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do we know which wheels have already been invented?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do we know which wheels have already been invented?

# data[].attributes.body
Duplication of efforts can be a big problem. Even after searching, we often don't find something that has solved our problem already, and so build something new. Only once it's built does someone say "oh hey that's like [product]." *sigh* We need a better way of finding out who has created (output tags) what and who is working on which problems (issue tags). This will allow us to start much quicker and be more effective. Network orgs can definitely help with this as they sit at the nexus (nexes?).

# data[].attributes.body
Since we launched www.itakeactions.org, it has been a big challenge collaborating with public institutions. This is so primarily  because they dont see any big and known name behind the project. But having large userbase could have substituted for a 'big and known name'.

# data[].attributes.body
Particularly outlining collaborative working methods, with practical advice on how to manage work pipelines between public sector and social innovator spaces. From comms to conflict res strategies

# data[].attributes.headline
Global survey of civic tech practitioners 

# data[].attributes.subject
Global survey of civic tech practitioners 

# data[].attributes.body
This survey could collect info on the barriers and challenges civic tech practitioners face when working with government. It would be nice to put this out there to try and change practice post-covid.

# data[].attributes.body
Quick answers to public sector push back on sharing data outside projects, which reflect on up to date copyright and privacy law.

# data[].attributes.body
Positive social impact/change within the public sector takes five, ten, twenty years, and these timeframes are often untenable to non-profits who need to show impact or commercial private collaborators who need ongoing revenue. This leads to focus on success over impact, trying to rush or be too disruptive in public spaces, and other distortions that ultimately hurts the potential for impact.

# data[].attributes.headline
Establishing a an interface position in city administration 

# data[].attributes.subject
Establishing a an interface position in city administration 

# data[].attributes.body
In order to foster PPPs, one of our partnering smart cities projects established an innovation lab which employs an employee working in the laboratory itself and at the same time is part of the city administration. His position is project based, so he was not a stuff member of the city admin before, what made things difficult in the end. But since he is an active member of Code4Germany he could mediate well between civic tech projects, elaborated in the innovation lab, and the administration. But: administration does not make use of this civic tech application, due to missing skills, interest, time,... Nevertheless I consider his interface position as really fruitful for future PPP aspirations. For further discussions on this please contact me via LinkedIn - Charlotte Lydia Bock

# data[].attributes.body
One of the challenges we've experienced is the reasons that people have for doing something inside gov, or as a private collaborator, are often misaligned. So you find, for example, key stakeholders inside government that might be critical for input to a project or initiative whose KPIs or other motivators are not concerned with the impact goals, or private collaborators don't have a distinct need to solve a problem fully (the consulting dilemma that if you solve the problem you remove your potential for future revenue), etc

# data[].attributes.body
We ensure our working methodology, which is agile and also uses a form of user-centred design, is clearly articulated in our Proposals and Tender Bids. We also try and onboard our 'clients'.

# data[].attributes.body
We have a project here in Mexico to teach people how and where to report crimes (www.denuncia.org) and one of the biggest challenges was how to get all the information needed from the public institutions. We had to do some deep and sometimes even comedic research to get some of the data we needed, but basically the challenge is to get the authorities on board with our projects. In other words, on big barrier we still face concerning civic tech is the political will to actually do it in partnership with external actors.

# data[].attributes.body
Having a good understanding of existing cultures and trends in local or nation gov can help, it gives people a chance to talk who often feel like they're not listened to. Then presenting a solution to their problem is often received well

# data[].attributes.body
as a consultant at a private sector company who helps local gov connect people with decision making processes, going against long standing cultures and trying to introduce a new way of doing things is often an issue. It takes talking to the right person in that org usually to get round it.

# data[].attributes.body
Often there are (too) many cooks involved in producing software, but still not enough citizen input. The priorities of different actors are often misaligned which results in more-or-less terrible results.

1) Municipality/Government
People who are actually employed by the city/state have a set of requirements mostly focusing on making their jobs easier.

2) Project owner
Often an outside person who secured the funding for the project (in our experience it is quite rare that the municipality/state budgets for these things, they are usually part of a grant someone else secured).

3) The people who pay for it
Often the money comes from a grant, and so most of the time people are preoccupied with making sure they won't have problems with their grant managers instead of being flexible in terms of how the software should be designed/deployed to best serve citizens.

4) Techies
Programmers, designers etc. At first they want to create the best possible project, but towards the end, faced with "clients from hell" they just want the project to end.

It is rare to see everyone's interests aligned and everyone being ready to compromise, redesign and correct course according to feedback. This is all made worse by the fact that end-users (citizens) are usually very poorly represented in these teams.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Invested time to build trust and relationships with stakeholders
2. Used data supplied by the stakeholders to build these connections

# data[].attributes.body
1. Lack of trust and health respect (from the public) for the resources available in the private
2. Lack of capacity in the public sectors
3. Adhoc-ism in public sector
4. Rigid bureacracy and heirarachical organizations in public and private
5. Inability to mantain sustainable relationships

# data[].attributes.headline
Small wins in pilot projects or prototypes

# data[].attributes.subject
Small wins in pilot projects or prototypes

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at some of the projects in Finland, or by SPACE10, SideWalk Labs, and GOV.UK, I guess we need to invest in small wins by showing quick prototypes to win their trust. Citizens-data and community-driven projects around the priority concerns for the government and the people, should catch the attention of the right people, provided we can articulate the story in the language that they understand.

# data[].attributes.headline
Proposed a sustainable and future-friendly, citizens-experience driven and connected city

# data[].attributes.subject
Proposed a sustainable and future-friendly, citizens-experience driven and connected city

# data[].attributes.body
My city—Çhandigarh ran an open competition for smart city category and I proposed something for a citizens-experience driven future-friendly city that is sustainable and connected. It fell totally flat, the people in the chairs are years behind. The digital is so broken and so deep rooted in conventional 3G CPUs that they could not even respond to their own broken digital touchpoints. Here are the slides: https://www.slideshare.net/vingar/a-digitally-prepared-chandigarh-connected-sustainable-futurefriendly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What to Upload to SlideShare

Download Now

Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

A technology idea that I pitched for *Innovate Chandigarh* contest organized by ISB and CAN, in October 2018. I proposed a *Digitally Prepared City - Chandigarh* that is digitally equipped for early steps in its smart city growth goals. A digitally prepared city makes it connected (people, devices, transport, assets, infrastructure, and technology) and sustainable for a data-driven governance. My idea pitch won the first round, and I will be pitching live in January.

Read more

Co-founder. UX and Storytelling

For a Chandigarh that is Digitally Prepared for Future - For Connected Buildings and Devices - for a Data Driven Governance - To Restore the Trust for a Citizen-Oriented Chandigarh administration that is efficient, trust-inspiring, and branded.

Sunil, owns a restaurant in Chandigarh!

Citizens of Chandigarh - a mix of different skills, professions, classes, primarily from Punjab, Haryana, Himachal. They all need to interact with government agencies and departments, for different reasons, using technology, or sometimes without an access to technology.

Consider an example of a teacher in Chandigarh - Ram Prasad. In a time interval of 12 to 18 months, he had multiple interactions with city governance for different scenarios and reasons. Whenever he wanted some information, or status update - most often he would write the *search terms* in Google search, or he opens directly the department website - MC Chandigarh, Electricity Department, Animal Husbandry Website, and so on. Finding the correct website itself is a pain. Then he fills same details (Name, Age, Aadhar, etc.), and there is absolutely no context of how the information is stored, processed, used, searched, and pushed back to Ram Prasad.

Example 2: If Charan Kaur wants to find a case and she finds it in the Case Management website, there is no relevance to, or story of Charan Kaur's interaction with city governance - neither in a court, in police department, in any departmental inquiry, in some challan for some violation. Absolutely no use of this static-looking record.

Example 3: A tourist - Jeanie lands in city for Germany and she tries to find information about Chandigarh's museum. The entire experience is broken and frustrating, and see what she finds. The website URL is not working and it points to an IP address?

But who owns this broken experience?

The German inside her makes her write a support email to website owners, and she tweeted too. No reply either to email or tweet? For EIGHT months? Look at the ownership.

There is no use of highlighting all such points.
And let us not talk about phone-friendly digital experience - Chandigarh governance IT perspective is miles behind. Why will someone trust a governance website while finding some departmental information? And how is that information trustworthy enough?

But are we all, as citizens of Chandigarh bothered about it? Not really.
Or, we do not complaint enough. So, in context, our Today is tolerable. Since we are not complaining (really), we are enjoying. But. Tomorrow?

We find it tolerable. Even if we lose hours in transit, in queue, across windows and departments - to share our same or similar type of information. Even if it impacts our work, and so our productivity and our mood, our family and relationships, and our health. More important and what we do not even fully realize - we do not even know that our information that resides on hundreds of Windows XP and Windows 7 computers, lacks context or any relationship. As if versions of same orphan.

Is it not surprising that so many people in governance ask us for our same type of information, they process it, store it, share it, mark it (sometimes print it), ask again, process again, mark again in a file (name, Aadhar, PAN, address...). And they are doing it so often at the same time - RLA Office, MC office, Police, Transport, Hospitals, RTI, BSNL, and many more. So much of technical debt is being piled on, without any governance, and for very little utility. It is like 4 plumbers are working on 4 different drain pipes in a kitchen whereas only one strategically planned pipe could serve the purpose for all those 4 plumbers and for the owner as well.

Will the current digital investment scale for tomorrow?

Yes, we see a promise of a Chandigarh that is Digitally Prepared for Future - For Connected Buildings and Devices - for a Data Driven Governance - To Restore the Trust for a Citizen-Oriented Chandigarh administration that is efficient, trust-inspiring, and branded.

But Chandigarh is already digital, if even broken somewhere.
Ok, is that scalable? No.

Tomorrow is not only for this generation - and the technology is not the only challenge.

The challenge is across classes, minds, opinions, age barriers, work commitments, relationship status. The future is about *Inclusivity* - the city has to adapt for ALL. People will have a choice to living - co-living, work-living, or even living in self-driving cars.

Preparing for future is NOT about preparing for flying cars, or drones for service, or mobile homes. We are talking about amenities that can make Chandigarh as a live-able city - a city that acts as a service to its citizens - for safety, mobility, utilities, energy aware, connected, and smart enough.

This is taken from a McKinsey report. For digital products (PayTm, Amazon, Uber, ICICI), we talk about *customer journey*. In hospitals, we talk about *patient journey*. Likewise, a digitally prepared city responds to its *Citizens Journey*. And citizens journey is essentially connected with their touch points with the governance model.

By 2030, People may raise a voice that they need mobile homes, or they wanted co-living buildings, or they use self-driving cards to spend nights. At the same time, Chandigarh's periphery may grow inorganically. We need to anticipate everything. We may not plan a solution for every use case, but we can be digitally prepared for all such use cases.

The first step is to identify the right people who should be interested to listen to you. Then, *Pitch The Outcome* - and NOT the solution.

The first steps in realizing any vision is planning the inventory - a structured inventory that scales itself across technology, subject matter domain, functions, language, and even across time. A forever living inventory that can be easily ported to any other format or language or technology, anytime.

A layered architecture that connects all data-driven dots for:
Mobility
Infra (including adjacent physical assets)
Citizen
Via apps or future technology

The project is less of technology-driven, and more of outcome-driven. So, if we notice (anticipated) roadblocks such as by administration policies, or a new regulation, the pivot is handled in *Business Rules* that define the technology architecture. The product as well as the roadmap - are scalable and fluid for change.

We may not invest in a smart and connect city unless we are digitally prepared - we, the people, our assets, utilities, our devices, and infrastructure.

Lets see important nodes in the model.
Node 1 is Mobility: Planning for citizens' community, transport of goods and services, ensuring safety, air pollution. And being prepared for unknown modes of transit (for technology, ownership, or working model). The expected outcome is to driven by goal to save time and energy.

Node 1 is Mobility: Chandigarh should be digitally prepared (with data) for
Shared rides (does it impact car ownership stats?)
EV transport (by 2023?)
Driverless cars (car ownership related governance - registrations, transfer, thefts, insurance)
Seamless (connecting) transit
Connected public transport?
And - Pedestrian Culture! Isn't that beautiful if we can bring the pedestrian culture back to city beautiful?
-- How about Pedestrian Culture beyond that sector 17 square?
-- Traffic Lights that are intelligent for volume of cars, or water-logged streets, or for emergency cases

Node 1 is Mobility: Some facts from a McKinsey Report - "Mobility in Future Cities"

Node 2 is 'Connected and Smart Buildings': We already see sensors for entry, for elevators, and taps. However, there are many use cases that call for a data-driven buildings-design strategy.

When Sunil enters a building - he gets alerts for temperature or humidity inside the building. Alternatively, the building to responds to sudden (or expected) change in weather conditions (rain-induced humidity or for sun).

When Ram Prasad had already submitted an online query to a department, the building guides him for directions (exact desk and contact person) when Ram enters the same building. It guides Ram for proper dress or medicines based on Ram's recent health condition (connected but de-coupled data as I said).

When Jeannie enters a building, the facility identifies that Jeannie is a tourist. So, the building gives her first-hand information alerts for transport options, for priority utilities available around, and access to police for security concerns.

Apps. Technology in hand, and in pockets. Such an important layer that connects citizens with government, with transport, facilities, and with assets.

Citizens data, captured with permission and complying with their privacy concerns. Show them use cases for how it is a win-win for all. The data is structured into layers - for use across departments, use cases, languages, time zones, and for context.

We need to come out of this nightmare - we are not in 2002 and we are 16 years late.

The targeted outcome of the project are:
An aware city (using data)
A responsive city
City serves its people
People see the difference - they are ready to contribute back.

Gradually, the city will be positioned for:
- A working recycle strategy for waste, water, and other forms of energy
The immediate rewards will gradually improve the quality of life, and it books tourism as well.
The city will be more prepared for new business opportunities, employment opportunities, and for trade.
It certainly points to a more efficient administration also - a Win-Win for all.

We often see such pitches for Numbers. Chandigarh deserves a digital transformation beyond numbers.
Numbers are meant for *proposal stage* to guide strategy and roadmap.

Citizens behind the vision - Vinish Garg

Citizens behind the vision - have right experience and right network to get right people on board for successful execution!

Citizens behind the vision - Archit Garg

Citizens behind the vision - Deepak Jindal

What the world is doing for similar goals!
Gov.UK is an industry-best reference and its owner - Sarah Richards is a good friend of me whom we can get on board for consultancy, if required.

Our experience lives across continents and industries.

Contact us!

Find me on Google! 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Digitally Prepared Chandigarh - Connected, Sustainable, Future-Friendly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What to Upload to SlideShare Download Now Download to read offline and view in fullscreen. A technology idea that I pitched for *Innovate Chandigarh* contest organized by ISB and CAN, in October 2018. I proposed a *Digitally Prepared City - Chandigarh* that is digitally equipped for early steps in its smart city growth goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
The fragments within different functions in the government, and between government and technology providers are too deep and wide

# data[].attributes.subject
The fragments within different functions in the government, and between government and technology providers are too deep and wide

# data[].attributes.body
It is a systems issue and governments are a complicated socio-technological system. In smaller systems, we talk about *change management* but in civic design, it is *change awareness* at multiple levels.

For example:
* How do they measure whatever they are doing? Is it for trust and transparency, or services-delivery, or policy compliance, or for the citizens?
* If it a mix—who validates their assumptions.
* Are they open to learn (as Peter Senge often said)? If not, what stops them to unlearn what does not make sense anymore? What are their motivations and incentives in this unlearn-relearn cycle?

To start system mapping for functions and not people, is the biggest challenge.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not impossible, but it is difficult, to find and contact the technically competent people in government, national or local. I would suggest that all departments should have a person, email address, and phone number to help members of the public make contact. Perhaps there should be times of day, or days of the week, when the public could expect a response from such gatekeepers. I have had experience of problems with

data science,
environmental,
and AI matters.

Who does one contact on such issues? Has anyone surveyed the scene in any formal way?

# data[].attributes.body
The dominating discourse of what civic tech really is makes it too prescriptive and less organic or dynamic. My role as an academic has often been predefined as just a 'researcher' in civic tech, yet i am a citizen myself and an implementer. Civic tech actors need to be open-minded to the contribution any citizen, from any walk of life can bring.

# data[].attributes.body
Each context is unique, at local, national and international level. Understanding how communities and contexts operate and support each other will provide a better lens of key partnerships needed. It will also speaks to constraints and limitations, as collaborative partnerships that may mitigate or work around these.

# data[].attributes.body
As an academic, the value of training and support from local academic institutions is valuable, especially in global south contexts. Government training and digital literacy is just as important as it is for citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
The lack of capacity building for government and citizens when the collaboration ends. This affects the sustainability of the initiative