In an era of rapid technological advancement and urbanisation, smart cities have captivated imaginations and captured headlines. Based on United Nations projections, over 55% of the world’s population resides in urban areas, and this will reach 68% by 2050. The global smart city market had doubled to over US$700 billion by 2023 as cities worldwide invest more than ever in sophisticated systems designed to improve urban life. While these investments signal progress, we must remember that technology alone cannot solve urban challenges. True innovation requires a human-centred approach, emphasising empathy, creativity and collaboration.
At its core, the idea of a smart city is captivating: an urban centre where technology seamlessly integrates with infrastructure, services and daily life to create a more efficient, sustainable and liveable environment. These cities use data and digital technology to enhance urban life, from smart traffic systems to energy-efficient buildings. Examples abound across the globe: Barcelona’s extensive sensor network, Amsterdam’s innovative energy grid and Singapore’s smart nation vision.
However, as we strive to build these technological utopias, we must acknowledge the limitations and challenges inherent in the smart city concept. Often, these initiatives apply a one-size-fits-all approach, failing to address the unique needs of individual communities. Over-reliance on technology can also lead to neglecting the human experience, which is essential for creating genuinely liveable cities. Moreover, smart city projects can encounter significant environmental and economic sustainability issues without careful planning and consideration.
One stark example of a smart city project gone awry is the now-defunct Sidewalk Toronto neighbourhood, led by Alphabet’s Sidewalk Labs. Sidewalk Toronto envisioned a cutting-edge urban development featuring timber skyscrapers, autonomous vehicles and self-heating sidewalks. Yet, despite the grand vision, the project faltered due to a lack of transparency and significant public privacy concerns. Though the project boasted “unprecedented public engagement”, most planning and paperwork occurred behind closed doors. When Torontonians received invitations to participate, they had little time to deliberate and found that a third-party company made crucial decisions with minimal local input. The result was a public outcry and the rise of the resistance movement #BlockSidewalk, ultimately leading to the project’s cancellation. This example underscores the need for a more inclusive, transparent and empathetic approach to urban planning.
Enter design thinking — a powerful methodology that places humans at the heart of problem-solving. Design thinking is grounded in understanding people’s needs, experiences and desires. It encourages brainstorming, prototyping and testing solutions in an iterative process, ensuring ideas are continuously refined and improved. By focusing on empathy, creativity and collaboration, design thinking helps create solutions that are not only innovative but also profoundly attuned to the people they serve. Companies and organisations like IBM, Google and Airbnb wield design thinking to drive innovation processes.
Consider the transformative power of design thinking in urban planning through several compelling case studies. In Singapore, the challenge was to streamline and enhance the work pass application experience — a notoriously frustrating government process. Recognising that Singapore’s economy depends heavily on international workers, it aimed to create a pleasant, efficient experience that would leave a lasting positive impression on foreign professionals. By focusing on the entire user journey, Singapore redesigned the process to include personalised interactions, such as calling visitors by name instead of a number and conducting interviews in open-air cabanas with toys for children. An online appointment booking service drastically reduced wait times from four hours to 15 minutes. This holistic approach, grounded in empathy and user experience, sped up the process and made it more welcoming and humane, leading to high satisfaction scores and attracting top global talent.
In Holstebro, Denmark, the city applied design thinking to tackle poor nutrition among elderly citizens dependent on government-provided meal delivery. Initially stigmatised and impersonal, the municipality completely redesigned the meal service to address its customers’ emotional and social needs. By empathising with seniors and understanding their preferences, Holstebro transformed the service into “The Good Kitchen”. The rebranding included making delivery vans and staff uniforms look more like professional chefs and introducing feedback mechanisms that allowed seniors to influence meal preparation. This empathetic redesign significantly increased client satisfaction, provided healthier meals and gave a more positive perception of the service.
Mexico City offers another inspiring example of design thinking in action. The city sought to introduce a bicycle-sharing network but faced cultural and infrastructural barriers. Bicycles were viewed as a “poor man’s” mode of transport, and the city’s car-oriented design was unsuitable for cycling. By thoroughly researching and understanding these challenges, Mexico City rebranded bicycling as a modern, middle-class mode of transport. It launched a public campaign to discourage aggressive driving and built extensive bicycle infrastructure. The result was the successful implementation of EcoBici, a bicycle-sharing system that dramatically increased bicycle use, reduced CO2 emissions, and improved the quality of life for residents.
From a Malaysian perspective, we can look at Cyberjaya’s struggles and the River of Life project in Kuala Lumpur to understand the importance of design thinking in urban planning. Instead of attracting talents to build the Googles of the future, Cyberjaya, envisioned as Malaysia’s Silicon Valley, hosts shared services outsourcing (SSO) employment, supporting call centre services for global IT firms and students of universities and colleges. Despite significant technological investments, Cyberjaya’s failure to address human-centred needs has hindered its ability to realise its vision as Malaysia’s innovation and entrepreneurship hub.
The River of Life project in Kuala Lumpur, which aimed to transform the Klang River into a vibrant waterfront with high economic and recreational value, faced similar issues. While the project sought to rejuvenate the river and surrounding areas, it struggled with community engagement. Many locals felt disconnected from the vision of an iconic riverfront as an integral part of daily life. Incorporating design thinking could have facilitated a more inclusive planning process, ensuring that the project addressed the community’s environmental, social and economic needs more effectively.
As we look to the future, embracing this human-centred approach to urban innovation is crucial. City governments and planners must resist the urge to treat urban issues as mere technological conundrums. Instead, they should prioritise empathy, collaboration and creativity to develop solutions that genuinely enhance the lives of their citizens. This approach starts with asking the crucial question: Is a smart city solution the only smart solution out there?
The journey to building better cities is ongoing, requiring us to think deeply about what makes a city truly liveable. By adopting design thinking, we can ensure that our urban environments are high-tech marvels and vibrant, inclusive communities where people thrive. Let’s commit to creating smart solutions that reflect the diverse needs of our citizens and pave the way for a brighter, more equitable urban future.
---
Autor(en)/Author(s): Ahmad Azuar Zainuddin
Quelle/Source: The Edge Malaysia, 12.08.2024
Bitte besuchen Sie/Please visit:
