I can fully understand that the extra content makes the structure harder to follow. In large part, I think this is simply due to the standardised and unhelpful lay-out of BSI’s compulsory formatting for a consultation document. The final version will be properly typeset, and we will have much more design flexibility to signal the move from one pattern to the next.
Peter: could you please elaborate on how you think the TGF patterns are enumerated and tightly-cross-referenced in a way that the SCF guidance notes are not? My aim was to use precisely the same sort of system of enumeration, except that where TGF uses numbers 1-20, the SCF uses letters A, B1-13, C and D. Each guidance note ends with a cross-referencing to other relevant notes in the same way the TGF does (in fact it does so more comprehensively, because we ended up spotting important linkages which are missing in TGF). So while I take the point that what we have now is a long document which is not very visually accessible, I’m less sure how that’s due to any structural differences from the TGF in terms of numbering or cross-referencing. And actually, I think there are some helpful signposting changes in the SCF which we could usefully bring into TGF v2, notably:
· Whereas the TGF Pattern Language introduces the pattern structure at the start, and effectively asks the reader to learn and remember the purpose of the different elements of the pattern, the SCF takes this problem away by titling the pattern elements as section headings within each guidance note (ie “Context”, “The Need”, “Recommendations”, “Linkages”).
· The numbering of the SCF guidance notes in the document is also called out in the overview diagram (Fig 1), which we did not do in the equivalent TGF diagram but which I think would be sensible for TGFv2.
On the point about the use of the term “guidance notes”, this is done consistently at all points in the SCF – and as a deliberate choice in preference to “patterns”. This is because the stakeholders on the SCF steering group reacted very strongly against the pattern concept. This was particularly so of the architecture and town planning stakeholders, who had all sort of negative baggage about the original Alexander patterns in the architectural context. And city council people also didn’t like the concept, which for most of them smacked of a rigid one-size-fits-all pattern being imposed upon cities. At one stage, I thought this aversion was such was that we would end up losing any connection with TGF at all. In the end, people became entirely happy with the idea of a series of modular guidance notes which use a common structure to help cities think through their problems in a systematic way and arrive at a specific solution that works for them. But that is not what the term “pattern” or “pattern language” conjures up for them, which is why the SCF calls them all Guidance Notes. Might be worth thinking about this for the TGF too. I’m not recommending we change from the pattern term necessarily, but it’s certainly worth thinking about given the strength of reaction I got in the UK.
Finally, I absolutely agree with the idea of cross-referencing to TGF patterns. I didn’t do this originally, because BSI were very concerned about any suggestion we were unthinkingly emulating the TGF rather than building a framework that met the needs of UK city stakeholders - so my strategy was not to keep announcing to stakeholders every time I drew on TGF content. Now however, everyone seems very pleased with the outcome, and it is self-evident that it is TGF-based. So I think it would be very helpful if the TC response suggests that the “linkages” section of each SCF Guidance Note were to cross-refer to the relevant TGF Pattern. For most there is a one-to-one cross-reference, although in a couple of areas a single SCF Guidance Note draws on two TGF Patterns. And there is one SCF Guidance Note which has no parallel at all in TGF: “Guidance Note [B1] City Vision” . The TGF effectively focuses on how to put a vision for transformational change into practice: the vision itself is sort of taken as a prior starting point. In the smart city context, stakeholders felt very strongly that we needed to give guidance on the importance of developing a clear vision and how to set about doing so. I’d be grateful for views: should we be looking at a less city-specific version of Guidance Note B1 as the basis for a new pattern in TGFv2?
In terms of how we would do a cross-reference, I think there are soft and hard options:
· The soft option would be something like: “Additional guidance on this areas is available in TGF Pattern [2] Program Leadership”
· The hard option would be something like: “The OASIS Technical Committee has advised the BSI that any city following in full the guidance in this Guidance Note would be meeting the conformance clauses of TGF Pattern [2] Program Leadership”.
Is the latter a road we might want to go down in any way? Not sure if that’s a role the TC can play, but it would certainly have the effect of hardwiring the two things together.
Regards,
Chris Parker
Managing Partner
CS Transform Limited
T: +44 7951 754060
F: +44 207 681 3908
Citizen Service Transformation
From: Joseph D. Wheeler [mailto:jdw@mtgmc.com]
Sent: 05 September 2013 20:29
To: Peter F Brown; Chris Parker; John Borras
Cc: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] SMART CITIES FRAMEWORK
That may be where Chris was headed with the Annex that he started to suggest toward the end of that discussion.
j
Joe Wheeler
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010 Phone
(206) 849-7772 Mobile
Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Agree.
The ‘patterns’ in TGF are enumerated and tightly cross-referenced. In the Smart Cities Framework, I’m not 100% which ‘chunks’ are intended to be patterns or not, and in most parts are individually referred to as ‘guidance notes’ rather than patterns – which makes that cross-referencing less transparent.
Another related issue: when a specific SCF pattern exactly overlaps with a corresponding TGF pattern (or refers to it), do we want/are we able to make that sort of specific cross-reference, to a numbered TGF pattern?
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Folks,
I agree with the notes below and would like to give my support to comment offered on the call about the organization of the work product. While there is an effort to refer back to the decomposition in the structure in Figure 1, by the time you get halfway through section 5, you are pretty lost. The level of detail and structure of material for each guidance note ‘subsection’ varies greatly.
My recommendations would be to:
· Make the subsection heading clearer and more prominent
· Keep the level of detail consistent/parallel
· Be consistent/parallel in the use of elaborating exhibits in each subsection.
Hope this helps.
Joe
Joe Wheeler
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010 Phone
(206) 849-7772 Mobile
Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Thanks John
I’ve responded in red text on each point below, sometimes giving a bit of context but mostly just to say “yes, and it would be good to make these points via a formal TC response”. I think that would be best, as it means they will be logged properly in the BSI system.
Chris Parker
Managing Partner
CS Transform Limited
T: +44 7951 754060
F: +44 207 681 3908
Citizen Service Transformation
Chris
I've read through the draft SCF and have a few questions/observations which you might wish to think about before our TGF TC call on Thursday.
1. I appreciate it is very topical to talk about Smart Cities these days but surely there is no reason why the SCF is not applicable to any town, municipality or other community? I'm not suggesting changing the title or use of the words Smart Cities throughout the document, but why not acknowledge up front that although the focus is primarily on Cities it can also be used by any other level of local government. I thought we had done so! The steering group spent a long time on this issue, and came up with the idea that this was focused on cities but applicable elsewhere. This is reflected in: a) the sub-title “Guidance for decision-makers in smart cities and communities” and b) the Scope, which says: “This PAS is aimed at UK city leaders. Much in the guidance can also be helpful to leaders of communities other than at city-scale, and for city leaders outside the UK. But the prime intended audience, with which the guidance has been developed and tested is UK city leaders…”
2. Should we ask BSI to consider the new material produced by Mark and yourself on Benefits Realisation? I will certainly send BSI and the PAS Steering group the new material if it is agreed by the TC – or it could form part of a TC formal response. I suspect however that they will not want to expand the BR section of the SCF at this stage, partly because any TGF changes will take some time to ratify, and partly because the stakeholder demand for more detail about benefits in the smart city context is less about the process of benefit realisation (which our new material expands on), but the specifics of KPIs, success measures and so on which might be used in smart city programmes. Doing something on this would be a big piece of work outside the current SCF remit, but it might well form part of a future agenda.
3. The Guiding Principles contain no acknowledgement of the need by Cities to meet national and EC commitments eg green targets, waste re-cycling targets, etc. These can impact the vision and roadmap and cannot be ignored by citizens and businesses if they are looking to help develop services. I think something about this needs to be said in the Stakeholder Engagement section, eg make sure all stakeholders are aware of these commitments which can impact the delivery and priority of services. Worth making this point in the TC response
4. There is nothing comparable to the TGF Pattern 18 on Skills. The SCF says a bit on leadership skills but our pattern relates to the wider issue of skills shortages and I would have thought local authorities suffer from that more than central government. Is this a deliberate omission or an oversight? Worth making this point in the TC response. It is not there at present because none of the consultations that preceded this highlighted skills issues, other than the skills required to lead this sort of transformation programme (which as you say is covered in the Leadership pattern of the SCF. The risk of expanding it is it would have to cover not just local authority skills, but skills across the full city eco-system.
5. Page 11, Title B7 - the wording of the title is wrong and should be Common terminology and reference model. Worth making this point in the TC response
Apart from these I think the SCF looks to be a very solid piece of work and sets a very good template for us to follow with TGF v2. It is however quite a lengthy document and suffers from the problem of needing a "simple read version" that we have already discussed about TGF v2. I don't know there's an easy answer to this as any 60+ page document is going to be a hard read. I'm not suggesting we raise this with BSI in our response but if we do a single merged TGF v2 document it does show that we will face this problem and somehow we need to try and overcome the issue. If we do go down the merged primer and pattern language route, this points to also producing a separate Executive Summary.
John