About Hyperconnected Cities

Data Navigator Overview
About the Project
The Hyperconnected Cities Survey
The Hyperconnected Cities Index

The Hyperconnected Cities Data Navigator, along with an interactive eBook—Building a Hyperconnected City—was created in conjunction with a coalition of leading corporate sponsors and research partners. The objective of the research was to understand how cities can unlock the greatest economic, business, and social value by using advanced technology and data analytics to transform, interconnect, and secure key areas of their urban ecosystem.

We chose the phrase “hyperconnected cities,” rather than smart cities, since focusing on technological advancements is not enough. To meet the varied needs of citizens and other stakeholders, cities need to morph into hyperconnected urban centers. Such cities use innovative solutions to join up city assets and stakeholders—from roads to cars, buildings to energy grids, street lights to police stations, citizens to government, business and academia, and cities to cities.

Lead Sponsors

Supporting Sponsors

The Data Navigator consists of four sections:

City rankings

This analysis allows you to see how 100 cities rank in terms of their success in using technology and data to transform, interconnect, and secure key areas of their urban ecosystems. The rankings are based on progress across four pillars of excellence in creating hyperconnected cities (technology, data and analytics, cybersecurity, and connected citizens), and performance across key urban dimensions (mobility and transportation, environment and sustainability, energy and electricity, public safety, health and well-being, and governance and funding). In addition to the hyperconnectivity rankings, users can see how cities perform against other measures.

City comparisons

This section provides a side-by-side comparison of different urban areas for up to three cities. In addition to an overview, these areas include data and analytics, technology and IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, citizen engagement, mobility and transportation, environment and sustainability, energy and water, public safety and health, and governance and funding). Access to this page is restricted to sponsors.

City profiles

City data

This section enables users to download of any or all of the city data in an Excel spreadsheet. To download data, users need to select the city and the data categories. Access to this page is restricted just to sponsors.

This index goes beyond a smart city lens. It not only measures the progress cities are making with technology and data analytics, but also their effectiveness in keeping systems secure and citizens connected. The index reflects the efforts that cities are taking to address their economic, social, and environmental goals and challenges.

The Data Navigator includes a rich set of comparative data points for each city, drawn from two main sources: a proprietary survey of 100 global smart city leaders and respected secondary data sources. A “—” signifies that data is not available for the city shown. “N/A” means that such data is not applicable for that city.

The secondary data was drawn from a variety of sources, including Numbeo, World Bank, Eurostat, OECD, Teleport, United Nations, WHO, and others. Download the complete list of data points and sources here (XLS).

Since the survey data was self-reported—and can be open to the judgment of the respondent—we took quality control steps to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. These measures included comparing (and where appropriate, combining) survey data with respected third-party analysis, rechecking questionable survey input with cities, and reviewing the output with our advisory board.

We encourage cities to provide further input as their urban ecosystems evolve to ensure the timeliness and accuracy of the information. If you would like to update, revise, or add data on your city to this database please contact: Beckie DeJoseph at dejoseph@EconsultSolutions.com. Participating cities are eligible to receive complimentary access to the Data Navigator.

About the Project

Urban residents and businesses are embracing technological innovation faster than many cities can react. With digital change happening in hyper-speed, urban leaders need to act now to bridge the widening technology gap between their cities and stakeholders. Cities adopting smart technologies are already seeing less crime, congestion, and pollution, as well as improvements in public health, productivity, and living conditions.

But becoming a smart city is no longer enough, particularly if public leaders expect to keep citizens on board. To unlock the full economic, social, environmental, and business value from technology, cities need to morph into hyperconnected urban centers: those that use the latest technologies to transform and interconnect key areas of their ecosystem—from roads to cars, buildings to energy grids, citizens to government, business to academia, and cities to cities. By doing so, urban leaders can generate a range of economic, business, environmental, and social benefits, which in turn will attract additional business, talent, and investment.

To provide urban leaders with guidance, ESI ThoughtLab conducted a comprehensive study into the practices, plans, and performance results of cities already on the hyperconnected path. By categorizing cities according to their level of maturity, we were able to analyze the investments, strategies, and technologies that drive the highest ROI and the hurdles that can get in the way.

To better understand how cities are using data and technology to transform and interconnect each part of their urban ecosystems, ESI ThoughtLab conducted a four-pronged research program:

Benchmarking survey of 100 cities worldwide. We surveyed cities about their use of advanced technologies, data, and analytics across all areas of their urban ecosystem, and gathered in-depth information on their smart city investments, outcomes, and returns. All ROI data were self-reported.
Hyperconnected Cities Index. Our economists used the survey data to develop a hyperconnected maturity index that ranks cities by their progress in four key areas of excellence—technology, data and analytics, cybersecurity, and citizen engagement. Therefore, the rankings may differ from other smart city outputs, since we are measuring different dimensions of connectivity.
Secondary city data from trusted sources. To augment the survey data, our economists also collected data from secondary sources on a range of metrics that measure the performance of city services and the quality of life. These sources included the World Bank, Numbeo, and the IESE, among others. The primary survey and secondary data were integrated into a data tool, called the Hyperconnected City Data Navigator.
Insights from urban leaders and smart city experts. To identify best practices, we held in-depth interviews with government decision-makers in smart cities around the world. These interviews provided the basis for in-depth case studies. Throughout the research process, our distinguished advisory board of business and academic experts provided valuable input and insights.

Please see the project microsite for additional study-related materials including the eBook, case studies, and infographics.

View the Hyperconnected Cities microsite

The Hyperconnected Cities Survey

The first step was to compile a list of cities advanced in the use of smart technologies. ESI ThoughtLab economists identified a list of 171 municipalities designated as smart cities by respected secondary sources. Specifically, to be included in our benchmarking study, the city had to be ranked as a smart city on at least one of the following smart city lists – IESE Cities in Motion Index, Top 50 Smart City Governments, Easy Park Smart City Index, Juniper Research top 20 Smart Cities, and Deloitte’s China Smart City rankings.

The survey was administered through personal phone interviews with qualified government officials from 100 of the prescreened cities. Fifty-two percent of the respondents were the senior executives in city departments and 48% were direct reports. Of the survey respondents, 25% serve in an executive function (mayor, city manager, chief of staff); 40% have a technology role (chief technology officer, chief information officer, director of smart city initiatives, director of innovation, or director of technology); nearly 30% have a policy or operations role (chief operating officer and policy director); and 8% of respondents work in the finance function. Some cities that are advanced in the use of smart technologies chose not to participate.

The Hyperconnected Cities Index

Hyperconnected cites unlock the greatest economic, business, and social value by leveraging technology to transform, interconnect, and secure key assets and stakeholders. Measuring the use of smart technology is not enough to reflect that value to citizens and other stakeholders. To create the Hyperconnected Cities Index, we looked at four pillars of city transformation: technology, data and analytics, cybersecurity, and connected citizens. Unlike smart city indexes, the hyperconnected city index not only measures the use of smart technology and data analytics, but also a city’s effectiveness in securing these systems and, crucially, connecting with citizens and other stakeholders.

To underpin each of the four pillars, ESI ThoughtLab economists used data from several survey questions, calculating a score for each, and then normalizing and combining them to arrive at a pillar score.

The technology pillar examines the digital technologies that cities use, and how and where they use them.

The pillar is based on the following questions:

Q19 - Which of the following digital technologies does your city actively use to support its operations?

5G
Blockchain
Cloud-based technology
Collaborative open-source platforms
Internet of things/sensors
Low-powered wide area networks (LPWA)
Mobile applications
Public wi-fi network
Robots and drones
Telematics or location-based technology

The city received 1 point for each technology in use.

Q20 - Do you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to your city’s approach to technology use and digital innovation?

Our city complies with international standards and best practices.
Our city ensures that cybersecurity is considered early on when adopting a new technology or smart initiative.
Our city has a formal process to identify new digital technologies for use by the city.
Our city has a senior executive with adequate resources to oversee the use of technology throughout our city.
Our city has an innovation hub to promote the adoption of advanced technologies across departments.
Our city has prioritized inter-operability and is taking actions to break down barriers between departments.
Our city’s procurement policies hinder the adoption of new technologies and business models.

The city received 1 point for each of the first six statements that they agreed with and 1 point if they disagreed with the last statement.

Q22 - Cities are at different stages of maturity in their smart city programs across their urban ecosystem. Please tell us your city’s maturity stage in the following urban areas today

IT infrastructure and telecommunications

The maturity stages are defined as follows:

Stage 0 - No action—Not undertaking any smart initiatives. (0 points)
Stage 1 - Beginning—Creating a smart city program and implementation plan. (1 point)
Stage 2 - Developing— Implementing smart city initiatives and starting to see results. (2 points)
Stage 3 – Maturing—Making considerable progress on smart initiatives and seeing growing benefits. (3 points)
Stage 4 - Leading—Fully scaled smart initiatives and seeing considerable benefits. (4 points)

In addition to the survey data, we also used secondary data on the average internet speed in the city as part of the technology pillar.

The data and analytics pillar examines a city’s approach to gathering, using, and managing data, the types of data used, and where the city is using data to drive results. The pillar is based on the following questions:

Q15 - Do you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to your city’s approach to data gathering and management?

Our city has established a data management system that integrates data across our city.
Our city has established a written data policy to ensure the proper use, management, and development of data.
Our city has the staff in place with the necessary data analytics, strategic thinking, and problem-solving skills.
Our city is advanced in gathering, integrating, and gaining value from data.
Our city works with businesses and other entities outside of government to gather data.
Our data policy is flexible to keep up with changing technologies.
Rather than dictate data use, our city has an open approach to encourage data usage and development.
The regulatory environment hinders our city’s ability to use, develop, and manage data.

The city received 1 point for each of the first seven statements that they agreed with and 1 point if they disagreed with the last statement.

Q16 - Which of the following types of data is your city actively using now to drive smart city initiatives?

Administrative—internal data from across departments and city services
Artificial intelligence—data derived through AI and machine learning
Behavioral—data on how residents act
Business—data from local companies reflecting trends and activities of
their customers
Channel usage—data on how residents use digital and physical channels
Citizen satisfaction – data sourced from regular surveys of citizens
Crowd-sourced—data sourced from individual citizens via the internet
Geospatial—data based on geographic location
IoT—data from the interconnection of devices and machines
Predictive—data generated by predictive models and technology
Real-time—data used immediately after it is generated
Social media—data derived from social media

The city received 1 point for each type of data currently being used.

Q17 - Please tell us your city’s maturity stage in the use of data and data analytics in the following areas today.

Analyzing data—Using advanced analytics and technologies to gain greater insights from data.
Collecting data—Gathering high volumes of data through advanced technologies, such as IoT sensors, artificial intelligence, wearables, and drones.
Extracting value from data—Using data to constantly improve the operations of the city and to generate value for citizens, businesses, and the government.
Integrating data—Combining multiple types of data across internal and external sources to get a fuller urban picture.
Making data accessible and usable—Making data widely available to stakeholders in a user-friendly way, including open data websites/portals, a single data hub, APIs, etc.
Managing data—Using advanced systems, such as a data management warehouse or data lakes, to manage data.
Monetizing data—Creating fee-generating services offered by my city or its partners.
Predicting trends from data—Using data to forecast future trends and impacts.
Protecting data—Putting robust measures in place to safeguard data and ensure data privacy.

Maturity was defined as follows:

Stage 0 - No action—Not currently taking any action. (0 points)
Stage 1 - Beginning—Creating a plan on this data activity. (1 point)
Stage 2 - Developing— Making some progress on this data activity and starting to see benefits. (2 points)
Stage 3 - Maturing—Making considerable progress and seeing growing benefits. (3 points)
Stage 4 - Leading—Fully acting on this activity and seeing considerable benefits. (4 points)

Q18 - In which areas is your city using advanced data and analytics to gain insights and improve performance?

The city received 1 point for each area where data analytics is being used.

Q19 - Which of the following data and analytics technologies does your city actively use to support its operations?

The number of areas where the following technologies are used:

Augmented and virtual reality

The city received 1 point for each data and analytics technology being used.

Q22 - Cities are at different stages of maturity in their smart city programs across their urban ecosystem. Please tell us your city’s maturity stage in the following urban areas today

Data and analytics

The maturity stages are defined as follows:

Stage 0 - No action—Not undertaking any smart initiatives. (0 points)
Stage 1 - Beginning—Creating a smart city program and implementation plan. (1 point)
Stage 2 - Developing— Implementing smart city initiatives and starting to see results. (2 points)
Stage 3 – Maturing—Making considerable progress on smart initiatives and seeing growing benefits. (3 points)
Stage 4 - Leading—Fully scaled smart initiatives and seeing considerable benefits. (4 points)

The cybersecurity pillar assesses how prepared cities are for cybersecurity attacks and the risk mitigation steps they are taking. The pillar is based on the following questions:

Q50 - Overall, how well prepared is your city for cyberattacks?

Not at all prepared (0 points)
Slightly prepared (1 point)
Moderately prepared (2 points)
Well prepared (3 points)
Very well prepared (4 points)

Q54 - What progress have you made in each of the following cybersecurity activities and what progress do you expect to make over the next three years?

Identify vulnerabilities and risks
Protect against cyber-risks
Detect cyberattacks
Respond to cyberattacks
Recover from cyberattacks

Progress was defined as follows:

Stage 0 - No action—Not currently taking any action. (0 points)
Stage 1 - Beginning—Creating a plan. (1 point)
Stage 2 - Developing— Making progress. (2 points)
Stage 3 - Maturing—Have made progress on many aspects of this activity. Tracking and seeing benefits. (3 points)
Stage 4 - Leading—We have fully acted on this activity and are ahead of most of our peers. (4 points)

Q22 - Cities are at different stages of maturity in their smart city programs across their urban ecosystem. Please tell us your city’s maturity stage in the following urban areas today

Physical and digital security

The maturity stages are defined as follows:

Stage 0 - No action—Not undertaking any smart initiatives. (0 points)
Stage 1 - Beginning—Creating a smart city program and implementation plan. (1 point)
Stage 2 - Developing— Implementing smart city initiatives and starting to see results. (2 points)
Stage 3 – Maturing—Making considerable progress on smart initiatives and seeing growing benefits. (3 points)
Stage 4 - Leading—Fully scaled smart initiatives and seeing considerable benefits. (4 points)

The connected citizen pillar measures how well cities engage with their key stakeholders and the methods they use to communicate and interact. The pillar is based on the following questions:

Q8 - Which of the following methods do you use now for citizen engagement?

24-hour telephone call center
Citizen satisfaction surveys
City dashboards
City’s open data portal
Community group websites
Email
Mobile apps
Official government website
Online chat rooms
Social media
Text messages

The city received 1 point for each engagement method being used.

Q9 - Do you agree or disagree with the following statements relating to your city’s approach to citizen engagement?

Our city has done an audit of the different local social groups that are in danger of exclusion as city services become digitized.
Our city identifies relevant stakeholders and their potential roles when planning for each smart city initiative.
Our city reaches out to relevant stakeholders to demonstrate the value they could gain from the project.
Our city takes steps to ensure that disadvantaged populations, such as the handicapped, the poor, digitally illiterate, and immigrants, are involved in the process.
Our city uses an effective process that allows citizens to find out about city initiatives and how they can provide input.
Our city uses gamification and other incentives to increase citizen engagement.
Our city’s shareholders are actively engaged in our smart city initiatives.

The city received 1 point for each statement that they agreed with.

Q10 - Does your city have a Chief Citizen Experience Officer (CCXO), Chief Citizen Officer (CCO), or similar individual who is responsible for citizen engagement?

The city received 1 point if they had a CCXO.

Q11 - How familiar are each of the following groups with your city’s smart city activities?

Elected officials (Mayor, City Council)
The average city employee
Citizens
Business leaders

Familiarity was defined as

Not at all familiar (0 points)
Slightly familiar (1 point)
Moderately familiar (2 points)
Very familiar (3 points)
Extremely familiar (4 points).

In addition to the survey data, we also used secondary data on number of datasets that the city makes available on their open data portal/website.

We then aggregated the individual pillar scores into an overall index score based on the survey data.

Since the survey data were self-reported, we augmented the survey-based rankings with data from the IESE Cities in Motion Index and from Teleport. We also used webometric analysis to examine a city’s association with the term “smart city.” The first analysis used data from Joss et al (2019) that counted the number of web search hit counts when searching for the city’s name + “smart city” in Yahoo. The second webometric analysis focused on the number of news articles written over the last twelve months that were associated with a search of Google News using the same search terms. To control for the impact that the size of a city may have on the amount of coverage that a city receives, we used both the total number of search hits as well as the per capita number. We calculated the average across the four data points.

The final score for each city was based on weighted average of the ranking calculated from the survey data and the ranking calculated from the secondary data sources. The survey ranking was weighted 60% and the ranking based on the secondary data was weighted 40%.

Based on the weighted average ranking, we stratified the cities into three categories: implementer, advancer, and leader. The top 25 cities were classified as leaders, cities 26 through 75 as advancers, and 76 through 100 as implementers.

The scores for each area were based on the number of projects that a city had in partial or widescale deployment and the average ROI that they have seen from those projects. We normalized each variable (the number of projects and the average ROI) and then calculated the geometric mean to arrive at the final score for each city. We used the geometric mean to help control for cases where a city may be only doing a few projects but are getting very high ROI on the project or vice versa. In that case, the average score would be higher than the geometric mean.