The smart way to run smart cities: New report explores data governance and trusted data sharing in Toronto
Cities are custodians of large amounts of civic data resulting from a range of human and non-human activity. A new report from SRI researchers Beth Coleman and Madison Mackley with collaborators explores trusted municipal data sharing to improve public policy and service delivery.
One of the defining characteristics of so-called ‘smart’ cities is the massive amounts of data they collect and store. But in many large municipalities around the world—including Toronto—data is siloed within discrete city divisions and across incompatible tools and technologies.
“Large cities are by far the most complex organizations found in the world,” says Mark Fox, professor of industrial engineering and computer science in the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Engineering.
“Past approaches to data gathering, generation, and use are incapable of scaling in a city like Toronto that is growing larger and more complex,” says Fox.
So, what does the future of smart cities look like?
A new report from SRI Research Lead Beth Coleman, SRI Graduate Fellow Madison Mackley, and collaborators Fox, Anderson Wong, and William Lim explores questions such as: How can we facilitate data-sharing across divisions to improve public policy and service delivery? What are the risks of data-sharing, how can we mitigate those risks, and what are the potential benefits of doing it right?
➦ READ THE REPORT: “Policy and Practice in Data Governance and Sharing: Engaging Toronto’s Digital Infrastructure Strategic Framework (DISF) to Model Trusted Data Sharing” (PDF)
“In early 2022, the City of Toronto sent out a call for researchers to work on issues of data in the context of the newly announced Digital Infrastructure Strategic Framework (DISF),” says Coleman. “From our early work on municipal issues around data sharing, we knew this would be an important and timely opportunity.”
“Neither policy, nor engineering, nor advocacy alone will produce the needed 21st century framework for data governance and infrastructure,” says SRI Research Lead Beth Coleman. Photo: Johnny Guatto.
The new report investigates how data flows—or doesn’t flow—across divisions in the City of Toronto, and what the hindrances are to more effective sharing. It aims to shed light on the processes and policies that prevent the City of Toronto from effectively sharing data and to provide suggestions on reducing these barriers through a Trusted Data Governance Framework.
With support from SRI, the Urban Data Research Centre (UDRC) at the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, and Toronto’s DISF, the report takes an end-to-end approach to closely examining existing and current tools, practices, and data flows through interviews with City staff, assessment of infrastructure and business processes, and outcomes-based recommendations for improvement.
What’s a Trusted Data Sharing Framework?
Mackley, the SRI graduate fellow who is a co-author on the report, says that even though some data sharing between City divisions is currently permitted, “each division is responsible for determining the approaches that meet their needs while adhering to provincial privacy legislation,” says Mackley. “So, although every division works with data, there are differences between divisions in mandate, resources, and technology that influence what the data looks like and how readily it can be shared.”
“Large cities are by far the most complex organizations found in the world,” says Mark Fox. Photo: Nick Iwanyshyn.
Various City divisions may use different software and databases from each other—meaning they might not be interoperable. A lack of standardization between datasets and data attributes can make sharing data very challenging. And the parameters of proprietary software may block data sharing entirely.
“Divisions may even interpret privacy rules differently,” says Fox.
The challenges are not in short supply.
The report’s Trusted Data Sharing Framework aims to address the fact that Toronto could “achieve greater levels of equitable service effectiveness and efficiency along with resiliency and sustainability,” says Fox. “But to share data, we need to guarantee that the data being shared is valid and will be used for the purposes agreed upon.”
According to Fox, the Framework was developed through analysis of business processes at the City by asking questions such as: What are the goals of a given process? Who is participating in the process? What data is required in order for the process to deliver on its goals? After answering these questions, stakeholders would ideally be able to specify what each party will do with the data in question while agreeing to share data that is only specific to a given process and use data only for the purposes defined by the process.
What does success look like for smart cities?
“We are at a watershed moment in terms of new technologies that allow for real-time sensing across cities,” says Coleman. “How these technologies are designed and deployed, which includes crucial issues such as trusted data sharing, is really important.”
However, Coleman points out that “data governance is a necessarily socio-technological issue,” meaning it requires input and expertise from a variety of fields of inquiry including STEM, social sciences, and humanities.
“Neither policy, nor engineering, nor advocacy alone will produce the needed 21st century framework for data governance and infrastructure,” says Coleman.
“There are differences between [City] divisions in mandate, resources, and technology that influence what data looks like and how readily it can be shared,” says SRI Graduate Fellow Madison Mackley.
As a convener of researchers across academic disciplines, SRI has regularly supported interdisciplinary work on data governance and data sharing—see, for example, “Redrawing Data Boundaries” with SRI Associate Director Lisa Austin and research on the ethics of data production by our graduate fellows.
“Rapid shifts in technologies, regulation, and, importantly, the legacy of service delivery make it difficult to change how things are done,” says Coleman. “But the City has every incentive and we are glad to contribute.”
Fox says the adoption of the data-sharing template by not only Toronto but also a number of other cities around the world would constitute success for the team.
What does it mean for cities to be “data-rich”?
The world’s awareness of the value of data has increased with the rapid development of powerful technologies like machine learning.
“Cities are custodians of large amounts of civic data resulting from the range of human and non-human activity that occurs within cities,” says Mackley.
But it’s not merely the collection of data that makes some cities more “data-rich” than others—it’s their abilities to store, catalogue, and make data available along with their support of an ecosystem in which a variety of data analysis can be performed.
“The difference is in what might be understood as a city’s data maturity,” says Mackley. “That is, how effectively does a city manage and make use of data?”
With the group’s new report and its ongoing collaboration with municipal staff and stakeholders, Toronto can manage and make use of the important data it collects in efficient, safe, and privacy-preserving ways that stand to benefit everyone.
Want to learn more?
Read the report: “Policy and Practice in Data Governance and Sharing: Engaging Toronto’s Digital Infrastructure Strategic Framework (DISF) to Model Trusted Data Sharing” (PDF)
SRI working group investigating the concept of trust from across disciplinary perspectives
Global group of experts advises on concrete steps towards a robust AI certification ecosystem
