Smart Procurement for Smart Cities
With limited resources and little room for failure, choosing the right procurement strategy has been crucial for US cities to stay ahead of the innovation curve. Standard procurement processes are restrictive. They take time and lack the flexibility required to change and adapt specifications to the reality of the problem they are trying to solve. Searching for the right partner through a competitive RFP process may not even make sense when looking for a solution that does not exist yet. As a result, some cities end up purchasing technologies that are out-of-date or out-of-scope.
On their end, innovators willing to work with local governments know that talent and motivation are not the only keys to success. Patience and persistence are also required to crack the procurement process. This is even more accurate for early stage startups that lack the experience and references often required to participate in a competitive bidding process. They’re dealing with the same problem job seekers are facing when searching for their first job in a market that values experience. Who’s willing to take the risk and give them a first chance?
The necessity to provide a flawless framework to attract startups and test technologies in a low-risk environment before moving to full scale (through RFP for instance) has encouraged innovative cities to think differently. A solution has emerged with modularity. By breaking down the procurement process into pieces, local governments have been able to dedicate more attention to the first and most critical stage of the procurement process; the selection of a relevant technology.
By calling on vendors to test and demonstrate their solutions at a small scale before moving to RFI or RFP, cities have been able to gain flexibility and agility, identify failures earlier, and make the whole experience of working with local governments much smoother. For the innovators, small-scale experiments (a.k.a. “pilots”) are an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to solve real-world problems with real-world solutions. It allows them to collaborate closely with the cities in creating the specifications for a future product or solution.
One of the forerunners of this approach is Kansas City, Missouri. Through its Innovation Partnership Program, Kansas City has created a sandbox environment to enable innovators to showcase their solutions before embarking on the long and uncertain procurement journey. For the City, the advantage is two-fold. It minimizes the risks associated with the adoption of new solutions, and it also gives the City access to new technologies at no cost. In return, Kansas City grants access to the city data and infrastructure to the IPP’s participants.
“Kansas City has a strong entrepreneurship history”, recalls Bob Bennett, Kansas City’s CIO. “Our Innovation Partnership Program (IPP) is a city tool that allows us to continue this tradition. We welcome companies into City Hall to validate an entrepreneur’s business plan or product. When it works well, as it did with Xaqt and RFP 365, the technologies make an immediate impact on Kansas City and rapidly expand to other communities”.
Urban labs and innovation programs are a great way to minimize the risks associated with the traditional contracting process. It’s also a good way to attract innovative vendors to small communities who have limited access to innovative startups and huge problems to solve. With a population of almost 80,000 and a very extended network of 500 miles of roads and streets, the city of Palm Coast, Florida is turning to the private sector to bring innovative solutions to problems related to pedestrian safety and to general walkability, through testing and experiments.
Modularity is only solving part of the problem. The city of Pittsburgh, which has been at the edge of public-private partnership for innovation through its urban lab called the PGH Lab, wants to go a step further. Its leadership wants to bring data into the picture to evaluate proposals next to each other and inform the decision process. To achieve this objective, PGH Lab entered a partnership with UrbanLeap, a Palo Alto based company leader in innovation management, to plan, track and evaluate the selected pilots. Through its cloud-based platform, UrbanLeap offers a collaborative space to Pittsburgh and the vendors to engage and collect strategic data.
For Annia Aleman, City Innovation Specialist for the City of Pittsburgh and Manager of PGH Lab, “the platform is playing a major role in bringing transparency to the process, helping the city track and measure the progress of the pilots in real time”.
Cities are not the only local governments to encourage experiments as a first step to purchase innovative solutions. The County of San Mateo in the Bay Area has created its own urban lab—SMC Labs—which aims at addressing complex regional issues that span across cities. But the county of San Mateo is facing another type of challenge. Strategically located at the heart of the Silicon Valley, the county is overwhelmed with a flow of unsolicited proposals. To handle the situation, the county is also using UrbanLeap’s Opportunity Management toolkit to structure and improve the process of collecting, reviewing and evaluating the proposals.
While more and more US cities are competing for the title of Smart City, adapting the procurement process to today’s challenges is key. But calling on startups to demonstrate their solutions is not enough. It also requires structured workflows and data-driven solutions to successfully test and evaluate the solutions of tomorrow.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
Accenture analysts recently released a report calling for cities to take the lead in creating coordinated, “orchestrated” mobility ecosystems. Limiting shared services to routes that connect people with mass transit would be one way to deploy human-driven services now and to prepare for driverless service in the future. Services and schedules can be linked at the backend, and operators can, for example, automatically send more shared vehicles to a train station when the train has more passengers than usual, or tell the shared vehicles to wait for a train that is running late.
Managing urban congestion and mobility comes down to the matter of managing space. Cities are characterized by defined and restricted residential, commercial, and transportation spaces. Private autos are the most inefficient use of transportation space, and mass transit represents the most efficient use of transportation space. Getting more people out of private cars, and into shared feeder routes to and from mass transit modes is the most promising way to reduce auto traffic. Computer models show that it can be done, and we don’t need autonomous vehicles to realize the benefits of shared mobility.
The role of government, and the planning community, is perhaps to facilitate these kinds of partnerships and make it easier for serendipity to occur. While many cities mandate a portion of the development budget toward art, this will not necessarily result in an ongoing benefit to the arts community as in most cases the budget is used for public art projects versus creating opportunities for cultural programming.
Rather than relying solely on this mandate, planners might want to consider educating developers with examples and case studies about the myriad ways that artists can participate in the development process. Likewise, outreach and education for the arts community about what role they can play in projects may stimulate a dialogue that can yield great results. In this sense, the planning community can be an invaluable translator in helping all parties to discover a richer, more inspiring, common language.
While the outlook for the environment may often seem bleak, there are many proven methods already available for cities to make their energy systems and other infrastructure not only more sustainable, but cheaper and more resilient at the same time. This confluence of benefits will drive investments in clean, efficient energy, transportation, and water infrastructure that will enable cities to realize their sustainability goals.
Given that many of the policy mechanisms that impact cities’ ability to boost sustainability are implemented at the state or federal level, municipalities should look to their own operations to implement change. Cities can lead as a major market player, for example, by converting their own fleets to zero emission electric vehicles, investing in more robust and efficient water facilities, procuring clean power, and requiring municipal buildings to be LEED certified.