Challenges in Using IoT in Public Spaces
Over the past decades a number of new perspectives on public administration have emerged, for instance New Public Service, New Public Governance, and Digital Era Governance. Several of these perspectives seem to have the concept of co-production in common, implying that the public sector engages citizens to take part in the design and execution of services. A rather new way to achieve co-production in the public sector has been to utilize crowdsourcing or social media monitoring. However, the way these “methods” have been implemented in public sector is often associated with difficulties, and to overcome some of them we propose an Internet of Things (IoT) approach that hopefully will create improved conditions for data-driven business development. At present, the approach is tested in a local government in northern Sweden in which we have set up a Low Power Wide Area Network designed for wireless battery-operated sensors. Although the test is still in an initial stage, results so far are promising and using sensor data in business development may be one way to improve public sector services. However, our test also shows that there are some issues that are of importance when designing and using IoT in public spaces. We conclude by suggesting that the concept of affordance can be useful to understand how we design and implement sensors in public spaces.
KeywordsInternet of Things Business development Affordances Public space
We would like to thank Interreg Botnia-Atlantica 2014-2020 (grant no. 20201055) and Sweden’s Innovation Agency (grant no. 2017-02133) for financially supporting the research project discussed in this paper. We would also like to thank Katarzyna Wikström for providing us with the statistics in Fig. 5.
- 6.Danneels, L., Viaene, S.: How to move towards digital era governance: the case of VDAB. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, New York, NY (2015)Google Scholar
- 9.Fensel, D., Leiter, B., Stavrakantonakis, I.: Social media monitoring. https://oc.sti2.at/sites/default/files/SMM%20Handouts.pdf (2012). Accessed 12 Sep 2018
- 11.LoRa-alliance: https://lora-alliance.org/ (2018). Accessed 12 Sep 2018
- 12.Jetter, H-C., Gallacher, S., Kalnikaite, V., Rogers Y.: Suspicious boxes and friendly aliens: exploring the physical design of urban sensing technology. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on IoT in Urban Space (URB-IOT ’14). Brussels, Belgium, pp. 68–73 (2014)Google Scholar
- 16.Checkland, P.: System Thinking, System Practice. Wiley, Avon (1981)Google Scholar
- 17.Mikusz, M., Houben, S., Davies, N., Moessner, K., Langheinrich, M.: Raising awareness of IoT sensor deployment. In: Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT. Institution of Engineering and Technology, London (2018)Google Scholar
- 18.Weiser, M., Brown, J-S.: The coming age of calm technology. http://quicksilver.be.washington.edu/courses/arch498cre/2.Readings/2.Theory/CalmTech(Weiser%20&%20Brown,%201996).pdf (1996). Accessed 12 Sep 2018
- 19.Laurel, B.: Computers as Theatre, Second edn. Pearson Education, Crawfordsville (2014)Google Scholar
- 20.Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
- 21.Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1999)Google Scholar
- 22.Kaptelinin, V., Hedestig, U.: Breakdowns, affordances and indirect design: a study of videoconference learning environment in undergraduate education. In: Dirckinck-Holfeld, L., et al. (eds.) Analysing Networked Learning Practices in Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development, pp. 223–240. Sense Publisher, Rotterdam (2009)Google Scholar
- 23.Gaver, W.: Technology affordances. In: CHI’91 Conference Proceedings, pp. 79–84. ACM Press, New Orleans (1991)Google Scholar