5: Establishing a Framework for Innovation & Technology Deployment

Seattle should embrace the deployment of digital technologies while mitigating their risks. To achieve this, Seattle should develop a clear framework for innovation and technology deployment among its agencies. In doing so, the City has an opportunity to serve as a model for other cities on how to deploy digital technologies in transparent and equitable ways. This section recommends that the City of Seattle establish itself as a laboratory The U.S. Department of Commerce defines innovation as “the design, invention, development, and/or implementation of new or altered products, services, processes, systems, organizational structures or business models for the purposes of creating new value for customers.” 79 Innovation enables city agencies to find new ways to deliver services and increase the quality of life for residents. However, encouraging innovation can be challenging for governments. Since city governments provide vital functions to their residents, such as supplying safe drinking water and ensuring public safety, there is often a view that experimentation –and its associated risk of failure–is simply not an option. for digital technology deployment and develop a framework for scaling successful pilots. A laboratory approach can enable city agencies to experiment with new technologies and service delivery models in low-risk environments. Meanwhile, establishing a framework for scaling successful experiments, and an ecosystem of related institutional actors, will ensure that the city is embedding equity within its major

Approaches to innovation in Seattle

technology initiatives. Seattle, like most municipal governments, currently possesses an ad hoc approach to technology experimentation and service delivery innovation. While there are emerging pockets of innovation such as the Innovation & Performance team and the recently launched Innovation Advisory Council (IAC), most city agencies we spoke to were not encouraged to experiment and assumed a risk averse position. This ad hoc, risk averse approach presents a missed opportunity for the City on many fronts. First, the approach hinders City agencies’ ability to identify new performance improvements that could improve quality of services residents receive.

As a result, agencies are slow to change or iterate on business operations and become reliant on antiquated, legacy systems. And when agencies do decide to adopt a new technology, the lack of systematic field testing prior to large scale implementation can lead to failed Embracing innovation requires establishing the right culture, framework, and guardrails for experimentation across city agencies. It is often employees who are closest to customers who are in the best position to innovate, which underscores the need to build a culture of innovation across all levels of city government. Additionally, leveraging user-centered design principles and community engagement tools will ensure the laboratory approach will be centered around RSJEI efforts as well as innovation. With this culture as a foundation, a laboratory approach to service delivery innovation and technology deployment has become more prominent across major U.S. cities. For example, Box 5.1 presents a case study from Boston’s Office of New Urban Mechanics. A laboratory approach to innovation is distinguished bysix key activities. 80 a laboratory approach embraces failure, it is essential to identify which failures are acceptable and technology deployments where course corrections are costly and timely. Instead, the City should encourage experimentation across its agencies to improve the quality of its services while building the risk tolerance and evidence base needed to effectively scale new

Recommendation 5.1: Embrace the “City as Laboratory” approach to technology deployment

Identify Appropriate Risks: While technologies which are not. Managers should mitigate harmful risks and avoid experiments that have inequitable impacts on vulnerable populations or jeopardize the public’s health, safety, and privacy.

Generate a Vision: Under a laboratory approach, managers must have a vision of the problem they aretrying to address as well as a potential solution for thatproblem. A good vision requires proximity to the end user, as well as soliciting and listening to user feedback through community engagement to understand the problem. Familiarity with design thinking principles such as journey-mapping and ideation can help formulate solutions.

Form a Hypothesis: Managers transform theirvision into a testable hypothesis. They flesh out the key conceptual and operational elements in a way that can be tested and proven right or wrong.

Build Minimum Viable Products: A hypothesis is built into a minimum

viable product (MVP), the simplest version of a product or service to meet the needs of customers while providing feedback for refinement. MVPs enable managers to maximize real-world feedback while minimizing the time spent developing untested products.

Test with Users: Managers should prioritize bringing their MVPs to users for testing. Doing so allows them to quickly build an evidence base on the product’s performance. Learn and Refine: Finally, managers should learn from user testing and evaluate the evidence to determine whether the experiment validated the initial hypotheses or not. Successful projects should be candidates for scaling while unsuccessful projects should be refined or discontinued. However, these unsuccessful experiments should not be treated as failures. All experiments provide valuable insights that inform and aid agency decision-making.

Box 5.1: Boston Office of New Urban Mechanics & Autonomous Vehicles

Boston’s Office of New Urban Mechanics (MONUM) is the city’s hub for experimentation and civic innovation. Established in 2010, MONUM launches experiments to test new ways to improve the quality of life for Bostonians across the topic areas ranging from public health to transportation to housing. If experiments are successful, MONUM works with the relevant city agencies to scale the experiment into a permanent service. In 2016, MONUM launched an experiment to test autonomous vehicles (AV) in Boston. AVs hold the promise of reducing traffic deaths, lowering vehicle emissions, and increasing access to public transportation. However, there is uncertainty about what regulations are needed to ensure AVs are deployed in a safe and responsible manner. MONUM’s experiment sought to provide policymakers more clarity to inform future transportation policies. MONUM restricted the experiment to ensure the safety of residents. AV companies were required to meet safety standards and protocols before gaining permission to test their vehicles. In addition, MONUM limited AV testing to a finite area within the city’s Seaport District. To date, the experiment has facilitated over 3,000 miles of autonomous driving and based on its performance thus far, the City has authorized one AVs company to begin testing its vehicles citywide. 81

MONUM’s AV experiment illustrates the benefits of a laboratory approach to developing and launching new programs. By testing their hypothesis that AVs can improve transportation for the city, the experiment equipped city policymakers with real-world data on how AVs perform in urban environments, enabling them to craft regulations to meet the challenges and opportunities that AVs present, while also improving safety by allowing companies to refine their AVs in real-work conditions. 82

A laboratory approach also requires a degree of flexible funding. We recommend creating innovation funds for major city agencies to more rapidly pilot small proof-of-concept initiatives. The “City as Laboratory” approach can unearth new ways to deliver city services and improve the quality of life for Seattle residents. However, it is important for the City to ensure new technology deployments are scaled in a responsible manner. To that end, the City should have a framework in place to evaluate any deployment’s effect on key issues such as safety, privacy, RSJEI, and impact on the municipal workforce. It is also important for the city to have institutional actors in place to implement these changes. In our The IAC’s internal review board ensures projects meet standards related to privacy, ethics, inclusion, procurement, and open data –among others. The board includes the City’s Chief Privacy Officer, the City’s Director of Ethics, and representatives from the City Attorney’s Office and Seattle IT. The board was identified by city stakeholders as a good foundation from which to adapt to major citywide technology deployments. Given the potential impacts of digital technologies The Seattle Innovation & Performance team already embodies many of the key laboratory activities, and is a

Scaling What Works in Equitable Ways

natural champion for this approach. conversations, we learned about the IAC’s internal review board that evaluates their projects across privacy, ethics, and other standards. The board could be adapted to ensure that city leaders can evaluate major citywide technology projects and ensure important safeguards are met prior to scaling. Meanwhile, a Chief Data Officer can serve as a catalyst for embedding data analytics into agency operations to aid in decision making and encourage continued accountability around

Recommendation 5.2: Broaden the Innovation Advisory Council’s Internal Review Board purview to all major city technology projects

technology. on the municipal workforce, this board should also examine the workforce impacts that any citywide deployment would have. To that end, the board should also include representation from the Seattle Department of Human Resources, the City’s Labor Relations team, and the Race and Social Justice, Equity, and Inclusion Officer –should the City establish the position (as we discuss in more detail in Section 7).

Recommendation 5.3: Appoint a Chief Data Officer

A Chief Data Officer (CDO) helps build the capacity for data-driven decisionmaking across city agencies. They can serve the important role of champion and catalyst in the deployment of data in both small-scale experiments and major technological transformations. In doing so, they are a key component to a city as laboratory approach. Many of Seattle’s peers have already established a CDO position. Sixteen major U.S. cities have a CDO including New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. 83

Seattle should establish a Chief Data Officer position to accelerate the use of data analytics in agency operations. We recommend providing the CDO with a small team to operationalize data

Within 12 months:

approach & identify pipeline of potential experiments (5.1) guidelines around municipal workforce impacts (5.2)

IAC Internal Review Board (5.2)

Within 3 years (2022):

with support from Innovation &

Performance team (5.1) driven initiatives. For cities with a CDO, the size of the CDO’s team varies, ranging from one to thirty. We would recommend starting with a team of 2-3 analysts who can carry out tasks associated with business process analysis, data analysis & visualization, and project management. 84

Reporting structures also vary by city. Some cities, such as Los Angeles, have their CDO report to the mayor or deputy mayor. Others, such as San Diego, have embedded their CDO within their Performance & Analytics team. 85 Given their current role in spurring the use of data analytics across city agencies, the Innovation & Performance team could be a natural fit to house the role in

Implementation timeline

Develop guidelines for laboratory Agree on adapted IAC rubric with Add SDHR representative to the

Agencies engaged in experiments,

Seattle.

Adapted IAC rubric in place for all major technology projects (5.2)

Innovation Advisory Board in place to review all major technology projects (5.2)

Establish Chief Data Officer housed in the Innovation & Performance team (5.3)

Chief Data Officer possesses team of three additional analysts within

Innovation & Performance team (5.3)