'SMART' Labelling ... Should Not Mean Only IT-enabled!
Smart is often used to describe a person who is well turned out and with a modicum of intelligence. However, if you google SMART it is also an acronym for five elements of specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based goals. It's a simple tool used by businesses to go beyond the realm of fuzzy goal-setting into an actionable plan for results. I guess this was the objective to be conveyed when many actions and policies were prefixed with the word SMART. Nearly all these goals are very much similar to that of IT, or information technology and therefore one tends to assume that any SMART action needs to be technology related though one may use technology to enhance that plan or action.
My reason to give you a little bit of a background of the constant difficulty I have in understanding many applications and policies which are tagged as SMART. Anything to do with technology with its applicable uses through artificial intelligence is highly valued today but it does need to help fulfil the basic premise of its use. In many cases, it is so and the tag richly deserved as well as valued. However, in other cases, it is a misrepresentation of using technology where none is required and it may be a collation of applicable goals with the acronym of SMART. It's important to differentiate if one wants to have a comprehensive development and not just better integration of systems.
Let's take an example of 'Smart City ' Programme which to my mind is one of the most significant for a country like India which has a large population and is rapidly urbanising. One does not have a clear definition of a Smart City which is comparable but the government in their policy declaration has given all objectives of Infrastructure, Institutional development, land use protocols, sanitation waste disposal, transportation as well as other civic guidelines brought together through IT-based systems along with governance. Basically it's a scheme to develop evolved cities of the future which are going to be needed. So far so good and the case for funding and choice has been made on those laudable objectives. The question now is whether we can execute our plans as intended which is where the problems lie. What is achievable is the service element as well as the use of technology in planning as well as integrating the facilities. What perhaps is not easy is building the ideal infrastructure, efficiency as well as timeliness of construction or project management and financing. SMART is far bigger than just digitising the processes.
Anything labelled SMART will be successful only if it fulfils the basic premise of the endeavour which if you take the cities concept would be the following;
Of course one will require systems and governance where IT and data backbones will play a great role in bringing it all together. They will also bring the ease of use. However, the fact remains that SMART is not only the systems piece but is heavily dependant in putting the right planning, the right as well as the actual infrastructure, the right financing solution and the right civic education for the total solution to work. Artificial intelligence can ride on top of good sense and right infrastructure but the same could be ineffectual or bad should the base be poor. Therefore SMART is welcome but equally important is the right assessment of needs and basic infrastructure on which the smart solutions can ride.
Are we paying enough attention to the basic premise is the question which needs to be asked again and again .....regardless of the cladding we are presented with!!
