=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1817/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=Programmable Cities: A New ICT Approach
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1817/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-1817
|authors=Mario Siller,Agnis Stibe
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/persuasive/SillerS16
}}
==Programmable Cities: A New ICT Approach==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1817/paper4.pdf
Programmable Cities: A new ICT approach
Mario Siller*+ and Agnis Stibe*
*
MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA, USA
{msiller}agnis@mit.edu
+
Cinvestav Unidad Guadalajara
Abstract. This paper introduces a new approach for the design, deployment and
operation of information and communication technology infrastructure for what
we conceived as “Programmable Cities”. We address how urban environments
can be retrofitted and complemented with technology considering the core na-
ture of cities being systems of systems and complex adaptive systems. We be-
lieve that this novel approach will allow city stakeholders to set the ground to
transit from a passive to an active ICT infrastructure. Based on this, the emer-
gent and aggregated complex behavior of a city, which is driven by its different
layers and elements, is better matched by their digital counterparts as it evolves
and adapts. The aim is to address the implications of systems of systems and
complexity theory in City Science for the development of the ICT infrastruc-
ture.
Keywords: ICT Adaptive Complex Systems, Wellbeing, Quality of Experience
(QoE), City QoE, ICT QoE
1 Introduction
Evolution is constant in our species in many aspects. As we do evolve the artifacts we
have created are evolving too. This includes the cities we have created in which by
2050, 70% of the World's Population will live in them. The first human settlements
appeared 8,000 BC and the rise of technology based societies in 600 AD. Cities and
technology have been bi-directionally related since the very beginning. In fact the
evolution of one wouldn´t have been possible without the other. It is estimated that
most of the technological progress made by modern humans has occurred over the last
10,000 years. This occurred after humans were able to domesticate plants and ani-
mals, went from stone to metal tools, simple artifacts to the development of systems,
and the initial settlements evolve into larger and permanents ones allowing civiliza-
tion to take place.
Human settlements and the activities that take place in them have been studied for
many years. This includes attempts to define a city, from the classical categories
approach [1] to what has now been referred to as a new science in its own, City Sci-
ence. The conceptualization of a city has been addressed by different disciplines:
economics, sociology, anthropology, ecology, systems engineering, etc. A basic and
general definition is as follows – Cities are large and permanent centers of popula-
tion, commerce, and culture-. In terms of size there is not a unique number to define it
but it can be agreed that a digitalization process has been taking place in many aspects
over the past years. This actually intensified as we entered the second wave in compu-
ting (the era of the PCs) and especially during the third wave, ubiquitous computing
(UbiCom) as referred to as Mark Weiser in [2]. In the latter, Information and Com-
munication Technology (ICT) systems allow information and tasks anytime and eve-
rywhere, in an intuitive way to the user. There are three types of environments identi-
fied for these systems [3]: (i) the infrastructure of other ICT systems; (ii) the physical
world; and (iii) the human.
As we reduced the size of computing devices (hardware and software) we started
to embed them into other specific design purpose systems, mainly mechanical and
electrical systems. This derived into a new classification of integrated systems, known
as embedded systems. The interconnection of these systems resulted in new network-
ing paradigms, underlying technologies, systems architectures and applications, in-
cluding machine-to-machine communications (M2M) and the Internet of Things
(IoT). In the latter a new dimension was added to the ICTs, connectivity for anything
[4]. This new dimension extended the previous two, “anyplace and anytime connec-
tivity for anyone”. Systems consisting of interconnected computing devices designed
to interact with the physical world, using sensor and actuators in a feedback loop are
called cyber-physical systems. The ICT system infrastructure is also referred to as
cyberspace.
The ICT for Cities and technology in general is being driven mainly by 4 digital
laws [5]: (i) Kryder´s law (“memory doubles about every 12 months”); (ii) Moore´s
law (“power of chips doubles every 18 months”); (iii) Nielsen´s law (“effective
bandwidth doubles every 21 months”); and (iv) the Caveman Law (“Whenever there
is a conflict between modern technology and the desires of our primitive ancestors,
these primitive desires win each time”).
W. Mitchell suggests in [6] that twenty-first century cities have all the sub-systems
that are needed by living organisms. This includes structural skeletons, various layers
of protective skins and artificial nervous systems. In other words, cities have evolved
from physical fabrics in which the inhabitants (urban agents) supplied the coordinat-
ing intelligence need it to make a city to function as a system to entities in which now
combining different technological elements intelligence emerges in a different way.
According to W. Mitchel the intelligence of cities "resides in the increasingly effec-
tive combination of digital telecommunication networks (the nerves), ubiquitously
embedded intelligence (the brains), sensors and tags (the sensory organs), and soft-
ware (the knowledge and cognitive competence)" [7]. Further elaboration of these
ideas of how cities work smarter not harder is presented in [8] [9] [10]. The first de-
ployment of these intelligence-enabling technologies was done in the Smart City Lab
(now Changing Places) of the MIT Media Lab, lead by Mitchel at that time [11].
The conceptualization of using technology related to different aspects of Cities has
been termed in different ways such as “Smart Cities”, “Intelligent Cities, “Digital
Cities”, etc. The most popular one has been “Smart Cities” over the past 20 years in
many sectors and areas, and yet there is not a single agreed definition. A wide review
of many of the different definitions is presented in [12]. For instance, the ITU-T Fo-
cus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities at its fifth meeting in June 2014 after review-
ing many of them agreed on the following definition of a smart sustainable city [13]:
“A smart sustainable city is an innovative city that uses information and communica-
tion technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of ur-
ban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the
needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social and envi-
ronmental aspects”. The British Standards Institution developed a different definition
in 2014 (BSI PAS 180) in [14] as: “effective integration of physical, digital and hu-
man systems in the built environment to deliver a sustainable, prosperous and inclu-
sive future for its citizens”. The notion of considering the goal of enhancing the quali-
ty of life considering the needs of people and community (wellbeing) had been previ-
ously addressed in [15] by Batty et. al. A common denominator in all definitions is
the use of ICT technology to enable the smartness and computation of the city.
In [16] the ISO/IEC JTC 1 presents a model on the system integration characteris-
tic of a Smart City (Figure A.6). This is a view of the system integration property of a
Smart City in which it is represented as a combination of four Internets or networks:
Internet of Data, Internet of Things, Internet of People and Internet of Services. A
similar integrative view is presented in [17] by Cisco in which cities are considered as
microcosms of the interconnected networks that make up the Internet of Everything
(people, process, data, and things). The ICT infrastructure can be modeled as a single
layer of multiple ones that compose a city such as physical city, environment, applica-
tions, innovation, society, etc. A comprehensive set of layered abstractions for smart
cities is presented in [16].
From Systems Engineering perspective cities can be modeled as Systems of Sys-
tems (SoS) and their “smartness” depicts the ability to bring together all their re-
sources, to effectively and seamlessly achieve their goals and fulfil their purposes
[16]. One focus area of city science is the study and modeling of Cities as complex
systems. Besides of being SoS and complex systems cities are also self-organizing and
non equilibrium systems. Following the work of Nicolis and Prigigogine (dissipative
structures) from [18] in Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium systems, Perter Allen
showed that towns and cities are self-organizing systems [19]. He showed that the
landscape rather than following an equilibrium state, as suggested from The Central
Theory of Christaller and Lösch, a far-from-equilibrium condition is observed.
A different approach and discipline to study self-organizing complex systems was
proposed by Haken in [20] as synergetic theory. Both Progigogine and Haken works
are known as the Brussels School. From the perspective of synergetics two approach-
es have been used to study self-organization in the cities: (i) master-equation; and (ii)
pattern recognition approach. For the former relevant research work has been done by
Weidlich while for the latter Haken and Portugali. In [1] Portugali distinguishes two
main elements to model the city: infrastructure objects and urban agents. In [21][22]
using theory of cognition, cognitive mapping and urban dynamics based on synergetic
inter-representation nets (SIRN) showed that local behavior and interaction between
urban agents give rise to the global structure of the city. He also argues that Planning
Theory has not yet adopted the implications of complexity theory to city planning.
A alternative perspective, known as the Santa Fe School or the Algorithmic Ap-
proach, was developed initially by Stanislaw Ulman and John von Newman in 1940s,
then followed Christopher Langton and Stuart Kauffman (1990s) and more recently
Stephan Wolfram (2000s). The studies are based on computational models to under-
stand in a general way how complex systems self-organize and adapt. The main focus
is on the algorithmic logic of model systems. Further review of studies of cities as
self-organization and complex systems can be found in [1][23][24][25].
We believe that a new conceptual model of the city, which considers inhabitants-
wellbeing and the SoS, and complex system nature of cities still has to be developed.
From this model an active ICT infrastructure approach for the design, deployment
and operation of ICT infrastructure is required. The proposed framework is integra-
tive and transversal to all city stakeholders. The proposed conceptual model extend-
ing Mitchel´s abstraction of cities as living organisms to a new one in which key
properties such as openness, non-linearity, unpredictable mutations of triggers for
change, feed-back (positive and negative) and feed-forward, circular causality and
wellbeing are taking into account.
The rest of the paper is structure as follows. Section 2, elaborates the need of trans-
iting from a passive to an active ICT infrastructure. In Section 3 the new ICT ap-
proach is presented. In Section 4 the wellbeing aspect in the context of the new model
is addressed. Section 5 presents conclusions and further research.
2 From a passive to an active ICT infrastructure
The smart city ICT infrastructure matches the three dimensions of IoT introduced
by the ITU-T in (any place, anytime “for anyone”, and any thing). Furthermore, giv-
en the systems of systems nature of a city and its integrative property viewed either as
microcosms of interconnected networks or as a set of Internets, opens the ground for
new three dimensions. These are any person, any data and any service. In the context
of cities, the “for anyone” ITU-T expression from the original two dimensions refers
to urban agents. Therefore, we redefine it as a new dimension, meaning people. The
any data refers to all possible information that originates and flows across all the
different layers (physical city, etc.) while the any service to the set of activities in-
tended to meet the urban agents needs and ultimately their wellbeing.
The first two IoT dimensions are associated to UbiCom systems. In [3] Posland
identifies five core properties for this type of systems (distributed system properties,
iHCI system properties, context-aware system properties, autonomous systems prop-
erties and intelligent systems properties) and a set of 70 sub-properties for this kind of
systems. Furthermore, he identifies four main types of designs for autonomous sys-
tems: (i) reusable and extensible component (design & interface autonomy); (ii)
event-driven architectures (EDA) and context-aware; (iii) hybrid goal-based and
model-based Intelligent system (IS) (distributed artificial intelligence or multi-agent
system design); and (iv) pre-configured inbuilt local goals. However, the concepts
and definitions of autonomous, automatic and autonomic systems have mature and
conveyed as follows. Automatic systems are self-steering systems in which a human
designer provides the control rules, for instance, a software script. The autonomous
systems extend automatic systems as self-governance is achieved [26]. IETF RFC
7575 [27] refers to autonomic systems as self-managed systems, meaning, they are
self-configuring, self-protecting, self-healing, and self-optimizing with a high level
guidance (intent) of a central entity. These four properties are known as the four core
major characteristics of autonomic systems [28] and were originally defined by
Kephart and Chess in [29].
Cities are SoS and complex systems. However, not all complex systems are con-
sidered SoS from the perspective of Systems Engineering. It is the collaborative na-
ture, neither the complexity nor the geographic distribution, of its components what
makes an SoS. The definition that has been adopted by many was proposed by Maier
in [30] as follows:
“A system-of-systems is an assemblage of components which individually may
be regarded as systems, and which possesses two additional properties:
1. Operational Independence of the Components: If the system-of-systems
is disassembled into its component systems the component systems
must be able to usefully operate independently. That is, the components
fulfill customer-operator purposes on their own.
2. Managerial Independence of the Components: The component systems
not only can operate independently, they do operate independently. The
component systems are separately acquired and integrated but main-
tain a continuing operational existence independent of the system-of-
systems.”
Some other characteristic of SoS are [32]: autonomy, belonging, connectivity, di-
versity and emergence (Boardman-Sauser characteristics). These characteristics in-
teract with opposing forces [33] and they are meaningfully independent among each
other [32]. We argue that emergence in the case of cities is driven by its self-
organizing complex system nature. Four kinds of SoS have been defined: virtual,
collaborative, acknowledge and directed [31], see Table 1. Cities, in a sense, can be
mapped to acknowledge and directed SoS, depending on their organization and opera-
tional and management policies. SoS are in many cases complex systems but this is
not always true [34].
There is not a rigorous and unique definition for complexity. In [35] Mitchell pre-
sents two definitions for complex systems:
• “a systems in which large networks of components with no central control
and simple rules of operation gives rise to complex collective behavior,
sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evo-
lution”
• “a system that exhibits nontrivial emergent and self-organization behaviors”
Complex systems components are referred to as agents. There are two sub-fields
in the studies of complexity, which focus on two kinds of emergence [36]: complex
physical systems (CPS) and complex adaptive systems (CAS). In general, they pre-
sent properties such as [37]: distributed control, synergy, emergence, autopoises,
dissipation and adaptivity; see Table 2. Emergence (aggregated behaviors) can occur
both at local and global scales. In the literature some other properties are defined and
in some cases these are also referred to as behaviors and even with different names. In
most cases these behaviors are counter-intuitive. These include collective behavior,
hysteresis, signaling and information processing (internal and external environments),
self-organization, chaotic behavior (chaotic dynamics and butterfly effect), “flat-tail”
behavior, competition, cooperation, reproduction, innovation, reinforcement learning,
robustness to perturbation (“stable attractor”), abrupt change from one state to a com-
pletely different (“tipping points” and systemic shift), arbitrarily large fluctuations,
cascading effects (characterized by power laws ), and critical fluctuations
[35][36][38][39]. In some cases complex systems might present only some of these
properties. For instance, some properties relevant to cities are [1], see Table 3: no-
linearity, unpredictable mutations of triggers for change, embedded system observers
and predictions, existence of feed-forward and feedback loops, open future, and self-
organization. In the case of cities self-organization has been studied in detail consid-
ering different aspects of them [1][23][40][41]. Some of these aspects and urban pro-
cesses include land organization, spatial structures, interactions among agents, flows,
networks (physicals and socials), evolution and emergence, size, shape, scaling, etc.
The self-organization property of cities can be further expanded into the following
sub-properties or characteristics:
i. No one fully controls them.
ii. Both a city and systems of cities can be characterized as networks following
the power of law. This maps Barabasi´s mark of self-organization [42].
iii. Circular causality occurs between the local and the global.
iv. Dual-self-organizing: urban agents are complex systems themselves and plan-
ners at a certain scale.
v. Slaving principle (proposed by Haken): the order parameters both the macro-
scopic structures of the system and govern and enslave the space-time behav-
ior of the systems parts to their specific space-time motion. This defines the
interplay between slow and fast processes. In the city context, fast maps the
local micro level and slow to regions. This can also be scaled to cities and re-
gions.
vi. Captivity principle: cities evolve stably as a whole but with the presence of
instable chaotic areas being captive in the overall stability. Portugali suggests
that this principle complements the Hakens slaving principle and that “local
islands of instability are needed in order to maintain the overall global stabil-
ity of the city” [1].
vii. Self-similarity and fractal dimensions: this applies to several aspects of a city
such as: edge of built-up area, spatial distribution of land uses, size distribu-
tion of internal clusters, transportation networks, among others [25].
viii. Self-organized criticality: the system is stable in its global state but unstable in
many of its local locations.
ix. Physical and cognitive circular causality: urban agents, according to Haken
and Portugali [43], determine their location and actions in the city based on
their cognitive maps. A circular causality occurs between the physical and the
cognitive. The cognitive maps determine the physical structure of the city and
it affects the individuals’ cognitive maps of the cities.
x. Information interpretation: information that comes from the environment is
interpreted with meaning assigned to it [44]. This is referred to as semantic in-
formation, which is different from Shannonian information.
xi. Low entropy: self-organization means greater order, which implies lower en-
tropy. In other words, as order takes place entropy is exported from the sys-
tem elsewhere.
Table 1. SoS Types
SoS Type Description
Virtual Lack of central management authority and central agreed
purpose.
Collaborative Voluntary fulfillment of agreed central purposes.
Acknowledged Recognized objectives and defined managers and resources.
Built and managed to fulfill specific purposes.
Directed Components systems operate independent to each other but
subordinated to the central manager.
Table 2. Complex Systems General Properties
Property Description
Distributed Control There is no central supervision of components.
Emergence Global structures appear from local interactions. This is
caused usually by positive feedback. This involves a state of
high-level properties and relationships.
Autopoiesis Emerged global structures are preserved by local interactions.
This is caused usually by negative feedback.
Dissipation Systems are far from equilibrium but stable. In information
theory this is modeled as a low-entropy state.
Adaptability Interacting agents modify their behavior or system structure
based on experience or an evolutionary process.
Table 3. Cities as Complex Systems properties
Property Description
Non-linearity Cause-effect relationship is not linear.
Triggers mutations The triggers that cause state transitions can change.
Embedded system The observer and predictions (planners) are part or embedded
observers and in the system and its dynamics.
predictions
Feed-forward/Feedback This is a key property in the context of cities. This is derived
loops from the circular causality that occurs in different aspects of
cities.
Open future This is characteristic of opened systems.
Self-organization Order, rules and organization emerge from the interaction of a
number and variety number of agents without any full control.
The main approach for SoS management has been to address the SoS characteris-
tics. It has also been derived from the fact that a SoS can be considered as an array or
network of systems functioning together to achieve a common goal (as suggested in
[45]). Based on this the Gorod et.al in [46] applied network management theory to
study SoS management. Furthermore, in [32] they proposed a SoSE management
framework using modified fault, configuration, accounting, performance and security
(FACPS) network principles from ISO. This framework was founded from five SoSE
Management areas: risk management, configuration management, business manage-
ment, performance management, and policy management. It consists of four essential
functions: (i) indication of current overall status of SoS (Part A); (ii) feedback process
(Part B); (iii) development of policies for the SoS management, covering the five
conceptual areas (Part C); and (iv) forces interaction among the SoS distinguishing
characteristics (Part D). In other words, the A, C, D parts (functions) are looped by
the B part. This feedback approach and part principles have been similarly used to
architecture ICT infrastructure. In [47] this feedback loop is presented for autonomic
systems based on four functions: collect, analyses, decide and act. These functions
(autonomic system phases) have been also referred to as [48]: monitoring, analysis,
planning and execution. The aim is to allow the operation of communication devices
and services in a totally unsupervised manner (self-configure, self-adapt, self-
monitor, and self-heal). In the case of computing devices, the autonomic architecture
aim is to reduce intervention and perform administrative tasks according to predefined
policies [49]. The building blocks of autonomic computing systems are the autonomic
elements (software agents). These consist of two parts: managed elements and auto-
nomic manager. The former implement behaviors while the latter the self-
management function guided by administration policies.
The control loop (feedback loop) from autonomic systems approach has been also
proposed in the context of smart cities in order to simplify the management process
and reduce human intervention [50]. This proposal was made on the ground that both
cities and autonomic computing activities have complexity, dynamism and heteroge-
neity. They also considered smart cities environments as complex, unpredictable and
large scale. The authors on [50] also mapped this consideration to autonomic compu-
ting challenges such as: (i) heterogeneous functionality management; (ii) reliability;
(iii) scalability; (iv) robustness; (v) adaptability; (vi) application of learning and rea-
soning techniques to support intelligent interaction. From these challenges they de-
rived their framework autonomic architecture requirements as: scalability, modularity,
self-stabilization, real-time requirements, and learning and reasoning. However, the
framework is limited to enable autonomic properties to city management systems. In
other words, their main focus is system-self management and approached as original-
ly suggested in network management theory.
We postulate that the ICT infrastructure must reflect the SoS and complex system
nature of Cities. For this we present the following arguments:
1) Beyond system management. As suggested by W. Mitchell, cities can be abstracted as
living organisms, and therefore system management is just one aspect of many that
should be addressed as we get a better understanding of cities. We believe that cities
are the most complex systems ever created by humanity.
2) Meeting and supporting city properties. This includes the Boardman-Sauser charac-
teristics, general complex systems properties from Table 2, the specific complexity
considerations of cities from Table 3, and self-organization sub-properties of cities.
3) It should support all scales of planning and their cognitive essence [51] derived from
the self-organization property of cities. Portugali in [1] suggested that there are dif-
ferent scales of planning: solitary, collective and professional. Furthermore, such lev-
els of intervention are not necessarily proportional effects or consequences in cities
[57].
4) ICT infrastructure should be ubiquitously provided and supported. As technology
continues to evolve, according to the 4 digital laws, its use and intervention in city
processes and activities happens at both scales SoS (holistic - inter-systems) and in-
tra-system.
5) ICT infrastructure should meet and enable the proposed five dimensions: any place,
anytime any person, any data and any service.
6) We need better and even in some cases different ICT infrastructure interfaces to sup-
port arguments 1-5. This implies other activities as those proposed for the control
loop from autonomic systems (collect, analyse, decide and act).
7) Wellbeing should and ICT persuasiveness plays key property on this.
8) There is a need to study and perhaps identify tipping points of cities. In other words,
to study how the city and its systems can maintain its basic functionality in the event
of errors, failures and environmental changes. For instance, the network characteris-
tics that enhance or diminish complex systems in general have been identified in [53]
From the previous discussion we define two types of ICT infrastructure: active and
passive. The former refers to ICT infrastructure, which reflects the SoS and complex
system nature of Cities while the latter to the traditional ICT approach. We believe
that active ICT infrastructure will be part and enablers of future cities.
3 The Programmable City ICT Abstraction
In this section we define a basic and initial abstraction for cities in the context of ac-
tive ICT infrastructure. We extend Mitchel notion of intelligence of cities from a
holistic point of view and black box approach. Rather than defining the elements in
which intelligence resides (nerves, brains, sensory organs, etc) we encapsulate all SoS
components in a single box with computational capabilities. This box, the city, is a
complex system in nature in which many different systems/components coexist and
interact and yet emergence is observed. Some of these systems/components and their
properties and interactions are even unknown. We call this box (abstraction) the pro-
grammable city. The active ICT infrastructure itself is part of the universe of systems
within the box. Intelligence is an emergent behavior and mainly driven by the self-
organization property of the city. Any intervention is considered as a “program” be-
ing fed into the programmable city (box). Each program consists of both Shannonian
and semantic information, which is received and interpreted in inside the box, respec-
tively. According to the latter, the corresponding effects to the systemic interactions
take place. Programs can be originated and fed from the outside and within the box.
The ICT city infrastructure is in its own a SoS. This is referred to as SoSICT.
Fig. 1. The Programmable City ICT Abstraction.
We believe that this abstraction allows viewing the city in a simplistic way and the
holistic complex and SoS nature of it. Based on this we can make some of many pos-
sible questions such as:
• Is there a difference in the code associated to the scale of the intervention or
whether it’s fed from within or outside?
• What other SoSs or Ss (systems) are inside the box?
• Is it possible to identify the tipping point between resilience and collapse for
the box and the Ss and SoSs inside of it, given their interactions?
• In relation to the SoSICT:
o What computing paradigm is better for the SoSICT given that it is in-
side the box?
o What are the architectural and design principles that convey with the
arguments from the previous section and Figure 1?
o What other tasks besides those from the autonomic computing ap-
proach model are required (monitoring, analysis, planning and exe-
cution)?
o How should Wellbeing be addressed as part of the design of the So-
SICT?
From the previous discussion we propose the following basic methodology to address
some of the SoSICT. Questions:
I. Typify the system for which the ICT infrastructure is required within the box.
II. Interface the ICT infrastructure to the overall SoSICT.inside the box.
III. Design the ICT infrastructure considering interfaces and interaction with other
known systems within the city.
IV. Identify the nature of all interacting systems; otherwise assume SoS and com-
plex system nature.
V. The system interface should allow all scales of interventions (see argument 2
from previous section).
VI. Observe and measure emergence. Some relevant metrics at urban agent scales
are:
o City Quality of Experience (QoE)
o SoSICT QoE
o City Wellbeing
4 Conclusions
In this paper a new approach for the design, deployment and operation of information
and communication technology infrastructure for what we conceived as “Programma-
ble Cities”. We presented a definition for ICT city infrastructure as active and passive.
The proposed model considers inhabitants-wellbeing and the SoS, and complex sys-
tem nature of cities. This includes key properties such as openness, non-linearity,
unpredictable mutations of triggers for change, feedback (positive and negative) and
feed-forward, circular causality and wellbeing. In the model rather than defining the
elements in which intelligence resides (nerves, brains, sensory organs, etc) we encap-
sulated all SoS components in a single box with computational capabilities. We called
this box (abstraction) the programmable city. The active ICT infrastructure itself is
part of the universe of systems within the box. Intelligence is an emergent behavior
and mainly driven by the self-organization property of the city.
We have proposed a total of 5 dimensions for ICT infrastructure in the context of
cities: any place, anytime any person, any data and any service. We presented a series
of 8 arguments to support our postulate that the ICT infrastructure must reflect the
SoS and complex system nature of Cities. Based on the proposed model we have
raised a series of opened questions for further research.
References
1. Juval Portugali, “Self-Organization and the City”, Encyclopedia of Complexity
and Systems Science, pp 7953-7991, 2009, Print ISBN: 978-0-387-75888-6,
Springer New York
2. Mark Weiser, "The Computer for the Twenty-First Century," Scientific Ameri-
can, pp. 94-10, September 1991
3. Poslad, Stefan (2009). Ubiquitous Computing Smart Devices, Smart Environ-
ments and Smart Interaction. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-03560-3.
4. ITU Internet Reports, The Internet of Things, November 2005.
5. “4 Digital Laws”, Greg Satell, 2011 October 12.
http://www.digitaltonto.com/2011/4-digital-laws/
6. W. Mitchell, Me ++: The Cyborg-Self and the Networked City (Cambridge Mas-
sachusetts: MIT Press, 2003).
7. W. Mitchell, "Intelligent cities". e-Journal on the Knowledge Society. (2007).
8. W. Mitchell, “City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn” (Cambridge Massa-
chusetts: MIT Press, 1995).
9. W. Mitchell, “e-Topia: Urban Life, Jim but not as You Know It” (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1999).
10. W. Mitchell, “Equitable Access to an On-lineWorld,” in D. Schon, B. Sanyal,
andW. Mitchell, eds., High Technology and Low-Income Communities (Cam-
bridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001).
11. Sam Allwinkle & Peter Cruickshank (2011) Creating Smarter Cities: An Over-
view, Journal of Urban Technology, 18:2, 1-16, DOI:
10.1080/10630732.2011.601103
12. Vito Albino, Umberto Berardi & Rosa Maria Dangelico (2015) Smart Cities:
Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives, Journal of Urban Tech-
nology, 22:1, 3-21, DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
13. “An overview of smart sustainable cities and the role of information and commu-
nication technologies”, ITU-T, FG-SSC, ITU-T Focus Group on Smart Sustaina-
ble Cities, (10/2014).
14. “Smart Cities - Vocabulary PAS 180”, British Standards Institution, BSI, 2014
15. M. Batty, K.W. Axhausen, F. Giannotti, A. Pozdnoukhov, A. Bazzani,
M.Wachowicz, G. Ouzounis, and Y. Portugali, “Smart Cities of the Future,” The
European Physical Journal Special Topics 214 (2012) 481–518.
16. ISO/IEC JTC 1, “Smart Cities”, Preliminary Report 2014
17. “The Internet of Everything for Cities Connecting People, Process, Data, and
Things To Improve the 'Livability' of Cities and Communities”, Shane Mitchell,
Nicola Villa, Martin Stewart-Weeks and Anne Lange, Cisco, 2013.
18. Nicolis G, Prigogine I (1977) “Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems:
From Dissipative Structures to Order Through Fluctuations”, Wiley-Interscience,
New York
19. Allen PM, “Cities and Regions As Self-Organizing Systems: Model of Com-
plexity”. Routledge, London, (1997).
20. H. Haken: "Synergetics, An Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and
Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology", (New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1977).
21. Haken H, “Synergetic Computers and Cognition”. Springer, Berlin, (1991/2004).
22. Haken H, Portugali J, “Synergetics, inter-representation networks and cognitive
maps”. In: Portugali J (ed) The Construction of Cognitive Maps. Kluwer, Dor-
drecht, pp 45–67, (1996).
23. Juval Portugali, “Self-Organization and the City”, , Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
2000
24. Michael Batty, “ The New Science of Cities”, (Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT
Press, 2003).
25. Roger White, Guy Engelen, and Inge Uljee, “ Modeling Cities and Regions as
Complex Systems, From Theory to Planning Applications”, (Cambridge Massa-
chusetts: MIT Press, 2015).
26. Steels, L. When are robots intelligent autonomous agents? Robotics and Auton-
omous Systems, 15: 3–9, (1995).
27. M. Behringer, M. Pritikin, S. Bjarnason, A. Clemm, B. Carpenter, S. Jiang and L.
Ciavaglia, “Autonomic Networking: Definitions and Design Goals”, RFC 7575,
June 2015, .
28. Nami, M.R. and Bertels, K. “A survey of autonomic computing systems”,. In
Proceedings 3rd International, Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Sys-
tems, pp. 26–30 ,(2007).
29. Kephart, J.0. and Chess, D.M. The vision of autonomic computing. Computer,
36(1): 41–52, (2003).
30. Maier, M.W. "Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems". Systems Engi-
neering, 1(4): 267-84, 1998.
31. “Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)”,v1.5.1, De-
cember 18, 2015.
32. Gorod, A., B. Sauser, and J. Boardman. 2008. "System-of-Systems Engineering
Management: A Review of Modern History and a Path Forward". IEEE Systems
Journal, 2(4): 484-499.
33. B. Sauser, J. Boardman, and A. Gorod, “SoS management,” in System of systems
engineering—Innovations for the 21st Century, M. Jamshidi, Ed. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 2008.
34. Sarah A. Sheard , Ali Mostashari, “Principles of complex systems for systems
engineering, Systems Engineering”, v.12 n.4, p.295-311, November 2009
[doi>10.1002/sys.v12:4]
35. Melanie Mitchell, “Complexity, A Guided Tour” (New York, USA: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2009 ).
36. John H. Holland, “Complexity, A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 2014).
37. Keith L. Dowing, “Intelligence Emerging, Adaptively and Search in Evolving
Neural Systems” (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2015).
38. Dirk Helbing,“ Quantitative Sociodynamics, Stochastic Methods and Models of
Social Interaction Processes”, (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010).
39. Helbing, Dirk and Balietti, Stefano, How to Do Agent-Based Simulations in the
Future: From Modeling Social Mechanisms to Emergent Phenomena and Interac-
tive Systems Design (October 13, 2013). Chapter "Agent-Based Modeling" of the
book "Social Self-Organization" by Dirk Helbing (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp.
25-70.. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2339770.
40. Rosi A., “The Architecture of the City”, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
1982).
41. Batty M. and P.A. Longley,”Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Fucntion”,
San Diego, (CA, Academic Press, 1994)
42. Barabási A. L., “Linked: The new science of networks”, (New York, Perseus,
2002)
43. Haken H, Portugali J, “A synergetic approach to the self-organization of cities.
Environment and Planning, B: Planning and Design 22”, 35-46 (1995)
44. Haken H, “Information and Self-Organization: A Macroscopic Approach to
Complex Systems”. Springer, Berlin. (1988/2000).
45. Aaron J. Shenhar and Zeev Bonen, “The New Taxonomy of Systems: Toward an
Adaptive Systems Engineering Framework”, IEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 27; No. 2, March 1997.
46. Gorod, R. Gove, B. Sauser, and J. Boardman, “System of systems management:
A network management approach,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Syst. Eng. ,
Apr. 2007, pp. 1–5.
47. S. Dobson, S. Denazis, A. Fernandez, D. Gaiti, E. Gelenbe, F. Massacci, P. Nix-
on, F. Saffre, N. Schmidt, and F. Zambonelli, “A survey of autonomic communi-
cations,” ACMTrans. Autonomous Adapt. Syst., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 223–259, 2006.
48. Bezerra, R. M.S.; Martins, Hoberto Sergio Barbosa. Scability Issues in Network
Self-Manamgent: A Partitioning Approach Towards Scalable Autonomic Ma-
namegement Computations. Internation Journal of Innovative Computing, Infor-
mation and Control, V 10, p.1., isssn 13494198 2014.
49. Mohammad Reza Nami, and Koen Bertels, “A Survey of Autonomic Computing
Systems”, . Third International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Sys-
tems, 2007. ICAS07, 19-25 June 2007
50. R. M. S. Bezerra; F. M. S. Nascimento; J. S. B. Martins, “On computational in-
fraestructure requirements to smart and autonomic cities framework”, IEEE First
International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), 2015 Pages: 1–6.
51. Haken H, “Decision making and optimization in regional planning”. In:
Knowledge and Networks in a Dynamic Economy; Beckmann MJ, Johansson B,
Snickars F, Thord R (eds) Springer, Berlin (1998).
52. Portugali J “The scope of complex artificial environments”, In: Complex Artifi-
cial Environments: Simulation, cognition and VR in the study and planning of
cities; Portugali J (ed). Springer, Heidelberg, (2006).
53. Jianxi G., Barzel B, Barabási A. “Universal resilience patterns in complex net-
works”. Nature 530, 307–312 (2016).