Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
Print this Page
06/07/2007Roundtable Report: Service Providers and CIOs Face Off in Chicago
The concept of a smart digital community, offering people focused technology amenities designed to improve daily life; and integrating computing and communications power to enhance public safety and civic services, is appealing to a very broad spectrum of community leaders. It is easy to expand on a relatively modest vision for a cool-town digital future in a matter of moments with innovative and important examples from communities leading the way. It is harder to actually create and sustain a digital community that delivers on the promise of a positive customer experience as well as a positive cash flow.
The W2i Digital Cities Convention Chicago this May 22-23 provided the setting for the sixth in a series of roundtables designed to bring together local-government CIOs and broadband network service-provider executives to share experiences, explore new ideas and determine how they might best achieve their individual and collective goals for a digital community that works. The group brought a wide range of interests, real-world outcomes and sometimes conflicting priorities into the room. Small, rural community leaders were joined by large, urban local-government managers and rapidly growing county executives to represent the perspectives of elected officials, staff and, most importantly, their constituents — the residents, business workers and visitors in their local community. At the same table, service-provider representatives from a very diverse group of profit and not-for-profit organizations represented the views of equipment manufacturers, software developers, solution integrators, network managers, customers, employees and investors.
There are four types of people; those who cause problems, those who see problems, those who solve problems, and those who prevent them. All types attended the session. It was easy to focus on the problems, challenges, concerns, and impasses associated with designing and deploying community networks. They are better understood now, and it became clear that these networks are not simple to implement, and that the processes necessary to surmount technical, financial, political, and timeline issues are always complex and often underestimated.
When asked to identify the greatest challenges, local-government leaders focused on the inexperience of service providers in working with local-government processes, a shortage of off-the-shelf, value-added government and community applications, and limited budgets. Service-provider executives pointed to extended decision timelines, the lack of anchor-tenant arrangements, a resistance to phased implementations, and complex permitting and asset acquisition processes as roadblocks to the viability of network initiatives. It was clear to the group that people were causing problems, and they were easy to see.
The next order of business was to ascertain how these problems could be solved and prevented. The flow of ideas was slower. The specifics were less crisp. There was agreement that economic balance is essential if this market is to be sustainable over time. Service providers and local governments stand to benefit greatly from each other’s successes. The ability to deliver on promises that remain largely in the future is uncertain at best if local governments and service providers are not able to find ways to accelerate their collaboration in creating the digital community of tomorrow, today. The problems identified are in fact solvable and preventable. The first step is always to be clear about common goals. The second is to be clear about individual roles. The third is to agree on common methods for coordinating action and communications.
The ability to develop more livable communities, streamline the delivery of local-government services, create digital inclusion across socio-economic strata, geographic areas and the limits of physical abilities, and benefit from innovation in education, healthcare, banking and entertainment offerings are compelling to both local governments and service providers. This vision of the future is not a one-size-fits-all package, but in the context of a specific community, at a specific time, it is clear that a right-sized vision can be shaped and shared by both local-government and service-provider representatives.
What is not as clear in the market at the moment is the role that local government and service providers should play. The questions focus on business models, technology strategies, sources of funding, network uses, business partnerships, implementation and management staffing and the like. The secret here is to be honest with yourself and each other. The most dangerous game a local government can play in the marketplace is to say: "If you guess what it is that we want, we will buy it from you.” The goals and priorities need to be clear, prioritized and communicated to the marketplace. By the same token, service providers need to be clear about their capabilities, the economic realities of their proposed business model and the anticipated customer experience associated with their technology approach. The most dangerous game a service provider can play in the marketplace is to say, "Trust me. I can read your mind.” James Farstad is President of rClient in Minneapolis. He moderates the Service Provider Executives and Local-Government CIOs Roundtable at the W2i Digital Cities Convention.
back
Related Items:
• Rockville, MD
• EarthLink Narrows Quarterly Loss on Lower Exposure
• All Service Providers Should Embrace "Community Broadband" Projects
• Brad Mayer, IT Director, Chaska (MN)
Comments
No records were found.
Post new comment:Only registered users can add comments.
Please Log-in
|
