Применение проектов “умного города” для устойчивого развития Санкт-Петербурга (на примере здравоохранения)
Главной целью исследования является оценка применения инновационных проектов здравоохранения в Санкт-Петербурге, являющаяся основой для составления потенциально практически применимой модели для частных и государственных медицинских учреждений для оценки возможности внедрения определенной инновации с учетом факторов внешней и внутренней среды. Выделяются следующие задачи: • определить страновые особенности, которые отличают процесс применения концепции «умного города» от зарубежного опыта; • изучить кейсы применения инновационных проектов сфере здравоохранения концепции «умного города»; • выделить отличительные характеристики городской среды Санкт-Петербурга в рамках применения инновационных проектов в сфере здравоохранения; • определить внешние и внутренние факторы среды медицинских организаций Санкт-Петербурга, влияющие на процесс применения медицинских инновации. Главным результатом работы является составленная модель оценки внутренних и внешних факторов окружающей среды для медицинских организаций Санкт-Петербурга в рамках применения проектов инновационного здравоохранения, а также набор рекомендаций по состоянию благоприятной для развития инновационных проектов здравоохранения среды.
CHAPTER 1. DESCRIPTION OF SMART CITY PHENOMENON 6
1.1 Background: defining the smart city concept 6
1.2 Literature overview 11
1.3 Research problem, objectives, delimitation and methodology 14
1.4 Saint Petersburg as a smart city: linkage between sustainable development and healthcare innovations 18
Summary of chapter 1 20
CHAPTER 2. ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPLEMENTATION OF INNOVATIVE HEALTHCARE PROJECTS 21
2.1 Innovations in healthcare: a case of Russia 21
2.2 Smart city projects in healthcare in Russia: typology, examples and perspectives 27
2.3 Defining factors influencing healthcare innovations application: background 31
Summary of chapter 2 38
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF SMART CITY CONCEPT-BASED INNOVATIVE HEALTHCARE PROJECTS IN SAINT PETERSBURG 39
3.1 Defining Saint Petersburg environment for innovative healthcare projects application 39
3.2 Methodology of healthcare innovations application in Saint Petersburg 42
3.3 Conclusion: description of gained results and recommendations 46
LIST OF SOURCES 55
APPENDIX 1. 60
APPENDIX 2 62
APPENDIX 3. 65
APPENDIX 4. 68
Background: defining the smart city concept
The phenomenon of smart cities is becoming more and more popular with every day. Such approach to urban management is now familiar not only to people, who work in public management, but also to other people: the quantity of researches, studies and publications is rapidly increasing, which makes the topic a really “hot” one. Significant interest is formed by studying the concept in relation with specific case studies and possible ways of bringing this phenomenon to actually existing environment.
The topic of the master thesis can be classified as rather significant and unique, since now the list of publications of Russian authors on smart cities is quite limited, mentioning basic facts and description of the concept not deepening much into special points about its applicability in Russian environment, especially in the sphere of healthcare. The thesis is not concentrated only on basic characteristics of smart cities, but also on creation of the specific concept of smart city oriented project application, methodology of application and on the factors, influencing implementation of smart city in the sphere of healthcare, prepared especially for Saint Petersburg environment.
Nowadays cities of many countries are keep on gaining a special meaning, and it is implied by a significant role of cities in national, and even global development. Moreover, the number of urban inhabitants is steeply increasing (UN, 2014). The level of quality of life in a city is depending upon the local administration, that is why modern cities face serious requirements, such as presence of available traffic infrastructure, high safety of urban territories, ecology and developed city management. But as cities are facing increasing quantities of inhabitants, city governments tend to be, as well, required to fulfill emerging needs of people. This sets a number of tasks, which have to be related to urban transformation and further development.
The concept of smart city development, which is also called a “digital city”, is based on provision of modern conveniences for everyday life through implementation of innovative edge-cutting technologies. Such technologies are concentrated on effective and ecological usage of urban infrastructure and bringing use to city residents. A smart city is based on development, which is seriously related to informational technologies. The main stimulus for smart city creation is provision of improving infrastructure through special city management approach. The list of infrastructural objects, where the concept of smart cities can be applied, include the following:
• schools;
• green zones;
• traffic systems;
• electric grids;
• water supply systems;
• hospitals;
• etc.
As it has already been mentioned, modern cities have to adopt some transformations due to a number of emerging needs of city inhabitants and general environment aspects. One of the most important tasks facing cities today is the development of urban infrastructure forming “smart environment”. Cities are the place of residence, work, and leisure for millions of people, and one of the most crucial problems is large amount of time by people on the road and in traffic jams. The solutions leading to building new roads or increasing the capacity of the old doesn’t give the expected effect, as it has been a spread practice for many cities in the world. Only the planning and application of new long-term methods can have a positive effect. That means, that to solve this problem in an up-to-date manner and fulfill people’s requirements it is needed to apply new principles of city planning in order to provide better availability of public service and to organize roads in the most efficient way (Zanella, Bui and Castellani, 2014).
The next task covers safety as a social factor, and it can be done via developing informational-communicational systems to provide better counteraction on crimes alongside with ecological safety.
Here we face ecological issues: it is clear, that with growing urban population ecological environment, most probably, will suffer. To solve this issue it is required to introduce intellectual systems to control the level of pollution and to toughen existing laws and norms on emissions (Abdoullaev, 2011).
Low mobility of the city inhabitants might also appear and become a serious problem: existance of uncomfortable accomodations (for instance, homes in remote city districts). Absence of careful planning and connection to traffic infrastructure while creating massive high-rise buildings doesn’t fully solve lack of “living space” for people, but this issue can be sorted out by development of building technologies, materials and standards, alongside with implementation of “smart home” systems – technologies being installed into homes to automate a number of processes (Benevolo, Dameri and D’Auria, 2016).
One more issue concerning social aspects is saving cultural heritage: here the new IT systems and security of all cultural and historical legacy objects are required to create city-wide community of people and develop their self-identification (Lombardi, Giordano, Farouh and Yousef, 2012).
Another factor to be noted when analyzing the current situation with the development of cities is public participation in solving problems of the city and its directions of development. In connection with the development of information technologies and means of communication today it is necessary to apply the mechanism of inclusion of city residents into the process of discussion and making important management decisions. Therefore, the following methods are based on the “smart” management of the city, which can be achieved via stimulating people to participate in the decisions, taking surveys and making various committies: and all of it with the usage of modern IT solutions (Mishra, 2013).
After reviewing these issues, which appear because of the increasing urbanization, it is clear, that these very issues become incentives for cities to “go smart”.
But what actually is a “smart city”? Smart cities are believed to work for the future economic, social and ecological environment, as it was sorted out earlier in this work. The main goal of smart city is to raise the efficiency of urban infrastructure and services. Nowadays this concept is spreading indeed very fast, separate smart city projects were implemented in more than 2500 cities worldwide so far. Though many people understand the concept as an innovative approach to city management there is still no unified definition of what actually a smart city is. The problem here arises, that still there is a variety of definitions of the concept, but due to the fact, that it covers different infrastructural spheres, a lot of existing definitions cover only specific aspects, which refer to a specific sphere, and do not mention other spheres. What is meant here: for instance, as it has been mentioned above, some definitions contain only ecological aspects, not introducing infrastructure or social aspects of smart city approach. The reality is that the final idea of a smart city is to give city inhabitants a special environment, which can be done by the new ways of urban management. Such new urban management approaches shall count all aspects of urban life, relate one with another and give a complex approach finally. This means, that working on the development of a specific sphere of urban infrastructure alone will not solve other infrastructure issues (Monzón, 2015).
While analyzing existing definitions for the concept of smart cities it is possible to make a conclusion, that the main focus is being set on infrastructure as the main and, basically, central idea of the concept, and this infrastructure aims to be uniting all city systems (Nam and Pardo, 2011). Once again, it is vital to highlight the following: smart city concept is based on an integrated approach to city management and development in a balance with institutional, social, ecological and technological systems.
It is not a secret, that there is some critical attitude towards the concept: this is mainly affected by its uncertainty, as well as some ways of its application and its extensive use, which is not aimed at solving problems, but distraction from them. Some critics believe that the whole idea remains poor in terms of specifics. There is an opinion that studying the concept is confronted with the fact that there is not much information on the topic (Calzada and Cobo, 2015).
It is also not a secret that creating reasonable living conditions in a fast-changing urban environment and increase of urban inhabitants needs correlation with a clear picture of what is actually a phenomenon of a “smarter” city. Still, as it has been mentioned before, the approach itself is still in the stage of forming. But despite this fact this term is used all over the world in a variety of contexts. Sometimes the term “smart city” is supposed to have extremely close connection with “digital city” or “intelligent city”. Here it is reasonable to give a brief list of various explanations of the definition for the term itself to describe it from divergent angles. In regard with the scientific point of view a smart city is a safe, eco-friendly and efficient urban center of the future with cutting-edge infrastructure of technologies (electronics, networks, etc.) that stimulates sustainable development in terms of economy and better quality of life (Hall, 2000).
Another connotation of the concept suggests: a city becomes “smart” one when the investments into human capital and social infrastructure, as well as investments into both traditional, modern environment – here by traditional environmental infrastructure transport system is meant, and by modern infrastructure the modern technological solutions are meant – are the reason for growth of economy with sustainability and higher convenience of living environment: these investments are intended to be supported by reasonable natural resources management via urban city management, also formed with participation of urban inhabitants (Caragliu and Del Bo, 2009).
One more concept describes a smart city as the one, which has a clear-stated strategy of development in terms of economy as a starting point, but without lack of attention to human capital development, urban management development, natural environment protection and development of quality of life, supported by ongoing realization of such strategy. And such development is basically supported by city inhabitants’ activities, which act not only conscious, but are capable of taking solutions with no limitations (Giffinger and Gudrun, 2010).
From the urban perspective a smart city is a developed city with cutting-edge technological achievements, which unites people, informational flows, elements of urban infrastructure, alongside with simplified city management system and usage of new technologies for advancement of environmental protection, as well with creation with competitive and innovative trade and raise of life quality (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, 2014). Here an example of Amsterdam as a smart city is presented, which uses innovative technologies and special social policies, stimulating reasonable behavior of inhabitants on consumption of energy for resistance to climate change. Due to that the program of Amsterdam development is said to be implementing a unified approach towards forming a sustainable and economically developed city that is decreasing its carbon footprint (Amsterdam Smart City site, 2017).
• Abdoullaev, A. 2011. Keynote: a smart world: a development model for intelligent cities. The 11th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology.
• Achaerandio, R. et.al. 2011. Smart Cities Analysis in Spain. IDC White Paper, September. http://www.slideshare.net/cibbva/idcwp38-t-print (accessed November 3, 2017).
• Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R., and Hemous D. 2015. Innovation and Top Income Inequality. CEPR Discussion Paper.
• Akhtar, N., Sharma, H., Pathak, K. 2016. Onychomycosis: Potential of Nail Lacquers in Transungual Delivery of Antifungals. Scientifica
• Allwinkle S., Cruickshank P. 2011. Creating Smart-er Cities: An Overview. Journal of Urban Technology 18 (2): 1-16.
• Alshurafa, N., J. Eastwood, J., Nyamathi, S., Xu, W., Liu, J., Pourhomayoun, M., Ghasemzadeh, H., and Sarrafzadeh, M. 2014. Battery optimization in smartphones for remote health monitoring systems to enhance user adherence. 7th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments.
• Amsterdam Smart City site. 2017.
• Anderson, H. 1990. Survey Identifies Trends in Equipment Acquisitions. Hospitals 64 (18): 30–35.
• Bangale, R., Nadhe K., Gupta, N., Singh Parihar, S., and Mankar, G. 2014. Smart Remote Health Care Data Collection Server.
• Barros, P., Brouwer, W., Thomson, S., Varkevisser, M. 2016. Competition among health care providers: helpful or harmful? The European Journal of Health Economics 17: 229–233.
• Bartels, A. 2011. Which Vendors Have Gotten Smart (Computing, That Is)?. Forrester site, January 7. http://blogs.forrester.com/andrew_bartels/11-01-07- which_vendors_have_gotten_smart_computing_that_is (accessed October 31, 2017).
• Benevolo, C., Dameri, P., and D’Auria, B. 2016. Smart mobility in smart city. Empowering Organizations:13-28.
• Berger, J., Seth, I., and Iyengar, R. 2011. Role of Systems Pharmacology in Understanding Drug Adverse Events. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine 3.2: 129–135.
• Bhunia, S., Dhar, S., and Mukherjee, N. 2014. iHealth: A fuzzy approach for provisioning Intelligent Health-care system in Smart City. In Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) (2014): 187-193.
• Blake, S., Kohler, S., Rask, K. 2006. Facilitators and barriers to 10 National Quality Forum Safe Practices. American Journal of Medical Quality 21 (5): 323–334.
• Blount, M., Batra, V., Capella, A., Ebling, M., Jerome, W., Martin, S., Nidd, M. , Niemi, M., and Wright, S. 2007. Remote health-care monitoring using Personal Care Connect. IBM Systems Journal 46 (1): 95-113.
• Bobylev, S. 2011. Sustainable development: Methodology and methods of assessment.
• Boykova M., Ilina I., Salazkin M. 2016. The Smart City Approach as a Response to Emerging Challenges for Urban Development. Foresight and STI Governance 10 (3): 65–75.
• Brown, S. 2001. Remote health monitoring and maintenance system. U.S. Patent 6,168,563, issued January 2, 2001.
• Bryce, C., Cline, K. 1998. The Supply and Use of Selected Medical Technologies. Health Affairs 17 (1): 213–224.
• Cain, M., Mittman, R. 2002. Diffusion of Innovations in Healthcare. Health Reports. Institute for the Future.
• Calzada, I., and Cobo, C. 2015. Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. Journal of Urban Technology 22(1): 23-43.
• Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P. 2009. Smart cities in Europe. Serie Research Memoranda 0048. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
• Case Study: Barcelona’s Smart City Strategy. 2014.
• Chen, C. 2014. The Trend towards “Smart Cities”. Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC), Institute for Information Industry (III), Taiwan.
• Cocchia, A. 2014. Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. Smart city: 13-43.
Date of access: 14.03.2018
• Del Bo, C. and Florio, M. 2008. Infrastructure and growth in the European Union: an empirical analysis at the regional level in a spatial framework. Departmental Working Papers 2008-37. University of Milan, Milan.
• Giffinger, R., and Gudrun, H. 2010. Smart cities ranking: An effective instrument for the positioning of the cities. ACE: Architecture, City and Environment = Arquitectura, Ciudad y Entorno IV (12): 7-25.
• Hall, R. 2000. The Vision of A Smart City. 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop, Paris, France.
• Halm, E., Gelijns, A. 1991. An Introduction to the Changing Economics of Technological Innovation in Medicine. The Changing Economics of Medical Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Hersch, J., Jansen, J., Irwig, L., Barratt, A., Thornton H. 2011. How do we achieve informed choice for women considering breast screening? Preventive Medicine 53 (3): 144-150.
• Hirth, R., Chernew, M., Orzol, S. 2002. Ownership, Competition and the Adoption of New Technologies and Cost-Saving Practices in a Fixed-Price Environment. Inquiry 37: 282–294.
• Innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. 2004 A study undertaken for the European Commission by Charles River Associates: 171.
• Ketley, D., Woods, K. 1993. Impact of Clinical Trials on Clinical Practice: Example of Thrombolysis for Acute Myocardial Infarction. Lancet 342: 891–894.
• Khoumbati, K., Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z. 2006. Investigating Enterprise Application Integration Benefi ts and Barriers in Healthcare Organizations: an Exploratory Case Study. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare 2 (1): 66–78.
• Lazaro, P., Fitch, K. 1995. The Distribution of «Big Ticket» Medical Technologies in OECD Countries. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 11: 552–570.
• Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., and Yousef, W. 2012. Modelling the smart city performance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 25(2): 137-149.
• Mahal, A., Varshney, A., Taman S. 2006. Diffusion of Diagnostic Medical Devices and Policy Implications for India. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 22 (2): 184–190.
• Mishra, M. 2013. Role of Technology in Smart Governance. Smart City, Safe City.
• Monzón, A. 2015. Smart Cities Concept and Challenges: Bases for the Assessment of Smart City Projects. SMARTGREENS 2015 – 4th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, Proceedings: 17-31.
• Nam, T., and Pardo, T. 2011. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research.
• NHS. 2009. Institute for Innovation and Improvement Organisational and Behavioural Barriers to Medical Technology Adoption. York Health Economics Consortium.
• OECD – EUROSTAT. Oslo manual, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005.
• OECD 2005. Health Project Health technologies and decision making. Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Online source: http://healthtipsing.com/en/pages/36737/. Date of access: 01.04.2018
• Online source: http://smartcities.gov.in/content/innerpage/what-is-smart-city.php. Date of access: 24.03.2018
• Online source: http://smartcities.gov.in/content/innerpage/what-is-smart-city.php. Date of access: 12.02.2018
• Online source: http://spbmiac.ru/ehlektronnoe-zdravookhranenie/emk-peterburzhca/. Date of access: 17.04.2018
• Online source: http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/Diffusion%20of%20Innovation.
• Online source: https://hbr.org/2016/12/health-care-needs-real-competition. Date of access: 17.03.2018
• Online source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40852-017-0063-2. Date of access: 16.04.2018
• Online source: https://spboms.ru/page/mo. Date of access: 27.03.2018
• Online source: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informationondrugs/ucm079436.html. Date of access: 07.04.2018
• Online source: https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2018/03/01/building-smart-cities. Date of access: 19.03.2018
• Online source: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/28/12/2017/5a40c6199a79471680ef8f9f. Date of access: 01.05.2018
• Palesh, M., Fredrikson, S., Jamshidi, H. 2007. Diffusion of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Iran. Technol Assess Health Care 23 (2): 278–285.
• Project of the Strategy of Healthcare Development in the Russian Federation till 2025. 2017. Ministry of healthcare of the Russian Federation
• Ricketts, T., Saul, C., Newton, P., Brooker, C. 2003. Evaluating the Development, Implementation and Impact of Protocols between Primary Care and Specialist Mental Health Services. Journal of Mental Health 12 (4): 369–383.
• Rogers, E. 1995. Lessons for Guidelines from the Diffusion of Innovations. Journal on Quality Improvement 21 (7): 324–328.
• Romeo, A., Wagner, J., Lee, R. 1984. Prospective Reimbursement and the Diffusion of New Technologies in Hospital. Journal of Health Economics. 3 (1): 1–24.
• Rye, C., Kimberly, J. 2007. The Adoption of Innovations by Provider Organizations in Health Care. Medical Care Research and Review 64 (3): 235–278.
• Sheng, O., Hu L., Jen-Hwa, P. 1998. Adoption and Diffusion of Telemedicine Technology in Health Care Organizations: A Comparative Case Study in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 8 (4): 247–275.
• Slade, E., Anderson, G. 2001. The Relationship between Per Capita Income and Diffusion of Medical Technologies. Health Policy 58 (1): 1–14.
• Teplensky, J., Pauly, M., Kimberly, J. 1995. Hospital Adoption of Medical Technology: An Empirical Test of Alternative Models. Health Services Research 30 (3): 437–465.
• Thiri, N., Zainuddin, Y., Zailani, S. 2008. Determinants of Informational System Adoption in Private Hospitals in Malasia. Paper presented at 3rd ICTTA International Conference «Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications».
• UNDESA. 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. New York: United Nations.
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2005. Oslow Manual. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities 3: 164.
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2014.
• Van der Watt, A., Pretorius, M. 2008. Management of Engineering & Technology. PICMET Portland International Conference: 2251–2259.
• Velosa, A., Tratz-Ryan, B., Anavitarte, L., Fernando, H. 2011. Market Trends: Smart Cities Are the New Revenue Frontier for Technology Providers.
• Vershinina, I. 2016. “Smart” cities: prospects for the emergence and development in Russia. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science 22 (2): 163-175.
• Weber, R. 2010. Internet of things.
• Wild, C. 2000. Health Technology Assessment in Austria. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16 (2): 303–324.
• Woods, E. 2014. Smart Technologies and Infrastructure for Energy, Water, Transportation, Buildings, and Government: Business Drivers, City and Supplier Profiles, Market Analysis, and Forecasts. Navigant Research paper.
• Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L. and Zorzi, M. 2014. Internet of Things for Smart Cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 1 (1): 22-32.
• Zhang, Y., Liu, H., Su, X., Jiang, P., and Dongfei, W. 2015. Remote Mobile Health Monitoring System Based on Smart Phone and Browser/Server Structure. Journal of Healthcare Engineering 6 (4): 717-738
Последние выполненные заказы
Хочешь уникальную работу?
Больше 3 000 экспертов уже готовы начать работу над твоим проектом!
4.8 (211 отзывов)
4.8 (373 отзыва)
4.3 (248 отзывов)
4.6 (92 отзыва)
4.5 (330 отзывов)
4.8 (1033 отзыва)
4.7 (18 отзывов)
4.2 (5 отзывов)
4.7 (96 отзывов)
