All Issue

2020 Vol.14, Issue 6

Research Article

Evaluation Indicators and Case Study for Smart City Service based on Axiomatic Design

스마트시티 서비스를 위한 공리적 설계 기반 평가 지표 개발과 사례 연구

Hyung-Min Cho1
,
Dong-Chul Yoo2
,
Sun-Woo Lee3
,
Hyang-In Jang4†
조 형민1
,
유 동철2
,
이 선우3
,
장 향인4†
1Junior Researcher, Institute of Green Building and New Technology, Mirae Environment Plan, Seoul, Korea
2Senior Researcher, Institute of Green Building and New Technology, Mirae Environment Plan, Seoul, Korea
3Researcher, Department of Construction Science, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University, TX, U.S.
4Director, Institute of Green Building and New Technology, Mirae Environment Plan, Seoul, Korea
1미래환경플랜건축사사무소 건축친환경신기술연구소 선임연구원
2미래환경플랜건축사사무소 건축친환경신기술연구소 책임연구원
3Texas A&M 대학교 건설과학과 연구원
4미래환경플랜건축사사무소 건축친환경신기술연구소 연구소장
*hijang@mrplan.co.kr
30 December 2020. pp. 565-576
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

To achieve the smart city development successfully, smart city service is considered one of the most essential elements. Smart city service is a way to implement the concept in the business area, but the services should also include the key values of the smart city such as smart technologies and user-centric development. However, there are few studies that evaluated individual smart city services from private sectors. This study suggested the evaluation indicators for smart city services based on the axiomatic design method and social needs of the smart city. Indicators were selected as three higher-level design parameters and ten lower-level design parameters. These indicators represent the technical, operational, and governance attributes and each has criteria of evaluation by four scores; 0, 0.33, 0.67, 1. The suggested indicators were applied to five existing services as a case study. The result of the case study showed that indicators distinguished the services according to attributes, and the criteria were established within the range of existing services’ characteristics. The suggested indicators are expected to apply to evaluate the individual services and help make policy to develop and support the smart city services.

Keywords
Smart City Service
Indicator Evaluation
Axiomatic Design
Smart City Energy
키워드
스마트시티 서비스
지표 평가
공리적 설계
스마트시티 에너지
References
1
Abbate, T., Cesaroni, F., Cinici, M.C., Villari, M. (2019). Business models for developing smart cities. A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of an IoT platform. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 183-193. 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.031
2
Choi, J.U., Chun, E.Y. (2019). A Study on Smart City Planning Method for Residents' Experience by Applying the Concept of Core Index. Journal of the Korean Institute of Culture Architecture, 66, 141-150.
3
Díaz-Díaz, R., Muñoz, L., Pérez-González, D. (2017). Business model analysis of public services operating in the smart city ecosystem: The case of SmartSantander. Future Generation Computer Systems, 76, 198-214. 10.1016/j.future.2017.01.032
4
Han, S.H., Shin, Y.S., Yu, I.J., Lee, J.Y. (2018). A Study on the Korea Smart City Certification Index and Demonstration Authentication. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society, 19(1), 688-698.
5
Hwang, J.S. (2017). National Strategy Research Tasks through Smart City Development Trends and Issues. Information & communications magazine, 34(8), 14-18.
6
Kim, B.G., Kim, J.H., Lee, C.S. (2012). Development and Application of an Evaluation Model for Ubiquitous City Project. The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, 17(2), 87-104. 10.7838/jsebs.2012.17.2.087
7
Lee, M.S., Leem, C.S. (2019). A Study on Performance Evaluation of the Korea Smart City Demonstration Service. The Journal of Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences, 44(10), 1992-2002. 10.7840/kics.2019.44.10.1992
8
Perboli, G., De Marco, A., Perfetti, F., Marone, M. (2014). A new taxonomy of smart city projects. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 470-478. 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.028
9
Quak, H., Balm, S., Posthumus, B. (2014). Evaluation of city logistics solutions with business model analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 125, 111-124. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1460
10
Ryou, H.S., Lee, D.H. (2016). A Comparative Study on Analytical Tools of Business Model. Journal of Digital Convergence, 14(5), 137-147. 10.14400/JDC.2016.14.5.137
11
Shin, W.J., Kim, D.N., Cho, Y.T., Park, S.W. (2015). Comparative Analysis Research on the Difference Between U-City and Smart City for the Establishment of International Competitiveness of U-City. Journal of The Urban Design Insitute of Korea, 16(5), 5-16.
12
Suh, N.P. (1998). Axiomatic design theory for systems. Research in engineering design, 10(4), 189-209. 10.1007/s001639870001
13
Walravens, N. (2015). Qualitative indicators for smart city business models: The case of mobile services and applications. Telecommunications Policy, 39(3-4), 218-240. 10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.011
14
Monzon, A. (2015). Smart cities concept and challenges: Bases for the assessment of smart city projects. Paper Presented at the 2015 International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems: INSTICC. Lisbon, Portugal. 1-11. 10.1007/978-3-319-27753-0_2
15
Shin, J.S., Shin, S.M., Han, J.K., Park, H.K. (2013). Developing Indicators for Measuring Grenes of Urban Infrastructure based on Axiomatic Design. Paper presented at the 39th KSCE Convention 2013. 1489-1499.
16
Tanda, A., De Marco, A. (2019). Business Model Framework for Smart City Mobility Projects. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471(9), 1-11. 10.1088/1757-899X/471/9/092082
17
Ahn, Y.J., Lee, S.H., Yoo, M.O. (2018). Establishing Smart City Model Based on Citizen Participation. Daejeon: Daejeon Sejong Research Institute.
18
Antunes, C., Bohnsack, R., Caridade, L., Gregorio, V., Groot, J., Hoed, R., Khan. S., Matos. L., Mendes. R., Oliveira. A., Pruggler. N., Tamis. M., Teixeira. J., Thorsdottir, H. (2018). me²: Integrated Smart City Mobility and Energy Platform. Netherlands: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.
19
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). (2019a). Third Smart City Comprehensive Plan. Sejong: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
20
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). (2019b). Implementation Plan for Sejong Smart City National Demonstration City. Sejong: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
21
Navigant Research. (2019). Smart City Tracker 2Q19. Boulder: Navigant Consulting. Inc.
22
SharingCities. (2020). Retrofit of privately owned buildings Privately-owned buildings and multi-property buildings. Brussels: EUROCITIES.
23
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2015). Beyond Traffic: The Smart City Challenge. DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
24
CATALYST. (2020). https://project-catalyst.eu., Accessed: September 23, 2020.
25
DOLL. (2020). https://doll-livinglab.com, Accessed: September 23, 2020.
26
Luminext. (2020). https://www.luminext.eu/en/project/municipality-of-renkum-becomes- smart-city/, Accessed: September 23, 2020.
27
Woods, E. (2019). Scaling Smart City Solutions: City Leadership and Technology Innovation. https://guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/scaling-smart-city-solutions- city-leadership-and-technology-innovation, Accessed: September 23, 2020.
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국건축친환경설비학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국건축친환경설비학회논문집
  • Volume : 14
  • No :6
  • Pages :565-576
  • Received Date : 2020-10-12
  • Revised Date : 2020-11-09
  • Accepted Date : 2020-11-09
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.22696/jkiaebs.20200048
Journal Informaiton Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
Manuscript Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close