Q&A 总结.

Could you start by sharing a bit about your background and what motivated your journey from network infrastructure to digital leadership roles in major cities?

My journey began with a Bachelor of Science in Technology Management, at a time when the only real tech option was Computer Science. I realized early on that my passion lay more with systems and management than coding, so I moved into Management Information Systems, which combined technical foundations like computer-aided manufacturing with broader systems analysis. From there, I built my expertise layer by layer, starting with network infrastructure at a time when ISDN and frame relay were cutting-edge. Working across telecommunications providers in Canada and the U.S., I gained a thorough understanding of the tech stack from infrastructure to applications.

However, I was always interested in how technology interfaces with people. This led me to pre-sales roles, architectural design work, and ultimately to leadership positions. I pursued an Executive MBA and a Master of Management to bridge the gap between technology and business, learning to translate technical innovation into business value. This dual capability positioned me to move from the private sector into public service leadership, eventually leading to my appointment as the first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the City of Toronto.

What were some of the most impactful smart city projects you led during your time as CTO in Toronto?

One of the most transformative initiatives was the creation of Toronto's Digital Infrastructure Strategic Framework (DISF). Recognizing the public's concerns around privacy, data ownership, and democratic accountability, we established a principles-based framework guiding how private sector technology would interact with city operations. Every tech deployment had to demonstrate its social, economic, and environmental impacts, while adhering to inclusivity, transparency, privacy, and security standards. Importantly, it received full endorsement from the elected city council, giving it significant weight and credibility.

Another high-impact project was providing free high-speed internet access to underserved communities during the pandemic. Partnering with a major telecommunications provider and hardware suppliers, we deployed cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity to apartment complexes, ensuring free service for a year. This initiative was about more than just technology; it addressed the real-world affordability gap in internet access, enabling online education, remote work, and digital services when they were most needed.

Public sector decision-making is often more complex than in private companies. How did you prioritize technology projects within the city government?

Prioritization in the public sector hinges on more than business cases; it involves navigating regulatory requirements, political considerations, and social outcomes. To guide our decision-making, I developed a "5S" framework: ensuring solutions were Stable, Scalable, Solutions-Integrated, Secure, and Sustainable.

We began every project by assessing regulatory needs. If regulations were outdated or missing, we worked quickly to modernize them—such as enabling digital burial licenses during the pandemic. Then we evaluated stability and scalability, because serving 2.9 million residents demands robust platforms. Integration was critical; every solution had to fit into our broader enterprise architecture to avoid further fragmentation. Security, both cyber and physical, was non-negotiable. Finally, we emphasized sustainability—leveraging Infrastructure as a Service and Platform as a Service models whenever possible.

We complemented this with methodologies like PEST (Political, Economic, Social, Technological analysis) and RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed), helping us align political pressures, budget realities, social expectations, and technological capabilities. In this environment, technology often came last—political acumen and relationship-building paved the way for technical innovation.

How did you ensure that residents' voices shaped Toronto’s digital strategy?

We knew that legitimacy in public service comes from the community. Before finalizing the DISF, we held extensive stakeholder engagements—town halls, forums, breakout sessions, and surveys—to capture the diverse perspectives across Toronto’s neighborhoods. We especially targeted underrepresented communities to ensure inclusivity. During the pandemic, we shifted these engagements online, maintaining momentum despite physical distancing.

We also rebranded our "Smart City" team to "Connected Communities" to reflect a more human-centric approach. The goal was not to push technology for technology's sake, but to connect residents to opportunities, services, and each other. By creating personas—residents, visitors, investors—we tailored engagement efforts, making sure every voice was heard where they were most comfortable. This approach built trust, strengthened transparency, and grounded our digital initiatives in the needs of the people.

Given all these moving parts, what were the biggest challenges you faced leading Toronto's digital transformation?

The greatest challenge was orchestrating alignment across 44 different city divisions, each with its own mandates, cultures, and operational realities. Managing this complexity demanded both architectural discipline and political sensitivity.

To break down silos, we established an Enterprise Architecture Review Board (EARB) composed of executives representing "hard services" (like water and waste), "soft services" (like community programs), and corporate services. EARB helped us ensure any new digital solution was interoperable and future-proof. During the pandemic, we formed Divisional Operational Centers, empowering subject-matter experts from all levels—not just senior titles—to make critical decisions. Innovation thrives when expertise, not hierarchy, drives action.

We also battled legacy technology debt and deeply entrenched silos. Building a shared digital blueprint across divisions required patience, clarity, and unrelenting focus on integration and scalability—all while operating under tight budgets and public scrutiny.

Reflecting on your leadership experience, what lessons stand out for leaders working in public sector innovation?

First and foremost: check your ego. Public service is about the people you serve, not personal recognition. True leadership means creating environments where others can succeed. You must own the outcomes, whether they succeed or fail, and treat failure as a critical part of innovation.

Structure and clarity are equally important. Clear methodologies and decision frameworks empower teams to act with confidence even when leadership isn't in the room. Diversity, equity, and inclusion aren't buzzwords; they are foundational to sustainable innovation because they unlock the full potential of your workforce and the community you serve.

Finally, courage and resilience are essential. Public leadership involves constant audits, public debates, and scrutiny. You have to be fearless and transparent, building relationships and trust over time. These experiences, along with the many lessons I've captured in my book "Bridging Worlds: A Journey of Technology, Leadership, and Public Service," are what I hope to pass on to the next generation of digital public leaders.

How do you see the future of digital transformation shaping public sector organizations globally?

I believe public sector innovation will be increasingly about building resilient, flexible ecosystems rather than rigid hierarchies. Technology must be human-centric, not just citizen-facing—it should integrate seamlessly into the fabric of community life. The next wave will focus heavily on sustainable digital infrastructure, transparent governance frameworks, and real-time responsiveness to citizen needs.

Most importantly, as governments face complex challenges—from climate change to economic inequality—technology will only be part of the answer. Success will depend on leaders who can blend technical excellence with political acuity, community engagement, and a deep commitment to public value. That's the true frontier of digital transformation in public service.

How do smart cities balance data privacy with innovation while maintaining public trust?

One of the biggest challenges in building a smart city is ensuring that the vast amounts of data collected are governed in a way that prioritizes privacy and builds public trust. The first step is understanding and aligning with national, regional, and local regulations. Every government must adopt a privacy-first approach, working closely with cybersecurity teams to ensure data collection practices are compliant and evolve as needed. In Toronto, for example, we emphasized anonymizing data to protect individuals while still enabling insights at a macroeconomic level.

A critical part of this is developing a robust digital infrastructure strategic framework where privacy and security are key principles. Data classification becomes essential—understanding what can be openly shared to foster economic development through open data portals and what must remain protected. The governance process involves strict compliance, regular measurement, and public evidence of compliance to reinforce trust. Additionally, ensuring that data can flow securely across systems is foundational, as without data, technologies like AI cannot thrive. Ultimately, ethical data use must demonstrate clear social, economic, and environmental benefits, reinforcing the community's confidence in its leaders.

You mentioned the importance of creating a “single source of truth” for smart cities. What does that look like in practice?

In practice, creating a single source of truth means centralizing data from different parts of the government into a unified platform. This integration allows for real-time dashboards, centralized command centers, and efficient operations management. In the Middle East, for instance, the ability to integrate disparate datasets has led to more coordinated and proactive city management.

The success of a smart city doesn't just hinge on technology; it rests on governance models that support data sharing across departments while respecting privacy standards. A centralized data environment enables decision-makers to respond quickly to emerging issues, optimize resource allocation, and improve citizen experiences. It also lays the groundwork for broader goals like building new economic models and driving innovation ecosystems based on open data without compromising individual privacy.

Looking ahead, what do you believe defines the future of smart cities?

The future of smart cities will not be defined solely by the adoption of new technologies. It will be about how cities harness the pulse of their environment—the data, resilience, and intelligence of their communities. While the term "smart city" originated from the private sector, cities now must tailor this concept to fit their unique identity and needs.

Smartness is not just about having the latest tech; it's about governance, process reengineering, and creating environments where citizens have seamless, efficient, and secure experiences. Whether it's leveraging predictive analytics, real-time monitoring, or automating routine services, the common thread is creating a responsive and adaptive urban environment. Importantly, governance structures must evolve alongside technology to ensure integration across city departments and alignment with broader societal goals.

Which emerging technologies do you see as most transformative for smart cities?

Biometrics is one area that stands out significantly. The validation of identity through facial recognition, fingerprints, or other biometric data is increasingly enhancing user experiences, particularly at points of entry like airports. In places like Singapore, streamlined processes using biometrics drastically reduce wait times, setting a new benchmark for city experiences.

Beyond biometrics, the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) continues to be critical for data collection, automation, and predictive maintenance. Drones are becoming indispensable, not just for logistics but for urban monitoring and emergency response. However, if there's one technology poised to radically transform the field, it is quantum computing. As quantum technologies mature, they will supercharge AI, enabling real-time decision-making at unprecedented scales, driving research and operational efficiencies across urban systems.

Despite the promise of these technologies, why do so many smart city initiatives struggle to scale?

Scaling digital solutions within cities often hits bottlenecks not because of technology limitations, but because of cultural and organizational challenges. At the leadership level, there needs to be a commitment to embedding technology into the city's operational DNA. Leaders must empower technologists and business managers alike, providing clear sponsorship and pathways for escalation when barriers arise.

From my time in Toronto, I learned that creating a culture of trust is essential. Junior employees often have the best insights into bottlenecks, but without executive sponsorship, their initiatives stall. Leadership must systematically create frameworks—such as regular forums, feedback loops, and cross-functional committees—to surface and address roadblocks. Once pilots demonstrate value, mandates must come from the top to drive scaling efforts while managing risk thoughtfully. Scaling technology is fundamentally about leadership and culture, not just infrastructure.

What advice would you give to cities embarking on their digital transformation journey?

Cities must prioritize leadership and cultural transformation as much as they prioritize technology investments. Leaders should foster open environments where innovation is encouraged, risks are managed rather than avoided, and failures are treated as learning opportunities.

It’s vital to build integrated digital strategies where data, technology, and governance align. Cities should also recognize that innovation isn’t limited to technology. Sometimes, reengineering outdated processes can have a more profound impact than introducing new tech. A digital transformation strategy must be realistic, customizable, and flexible enough to adapt as technology and citizen expectations evolve. Above all, cities must be prepared to document obstacles clearly and decide pragmatically when entrenched systems are too resistant to change.

Shifting focus, what current developments excite you the most in urban digitalization?

One of the most exciting areas is the use of digital twins, or common data environments (CDEs), to represent cities in three-dimensional virtual spaces. Digital twins allow city planners and leaders to visualize assets, infrastructure, and even social dynamics in ways that enhance decision-making. They become powerful tools for evaluating ROI, planning urban growth, and managing crises such as pandemics.

I am also fascinated by the growing role of command centers, which serve as the heartbeat of smart cities. These centers consolidate operations across health, safety, transportation, and more, offering real-time situational awareness. Combined with AI, such infrastructures enable predictive management, allowing cities to preemptively address challenges rather than reactively respond.

Additionally, the use of drones for logistics—such as delivering medications or essential supplies—is rapidly becoming a reality, especially in parts of Asia. This trend illustrates the tangible integration of the digital into the physical world, redefining citizen experiences in ways that were unimaginable a decade ago.

Finally, how do you see smart cities evolving over the next decade?

Over the next decade, smart cities will move beyond digitalization for efficiency's sake toward a full reimagining of urban living. Quantum computing will accelerate the processing of complex city datasets, enabling unprecedented levels of predictive planning and economic modeling. As cities adopt digital twins more widely, citizens and planners alike will engage with urban spaces more intuitively, bridging the gap between data and experience.

Smart cities will also become more human-centric, focusing on improving quality of life through sustainable, secure, and inclusive designs. Drone logistics, autonomous transport, and integrated health monitoring will become standard. However, underpinning all these advancements will be the essential pillars of trust, ethical governance, and thoughtful leadership. Cities that successfully integrate these elements will set the benchmark for the future of urban civilization.

音频文字.

Peter: Now in terms of the question, I got seven sections, Lawrence. So let's first talk about maybe your background and motivation. Maybe add something which I missed during your introduction. If there is anything you would like to add, you can do that now.

Lawrence: Thank you so much, Peter and Erik. Thank you to your audience for the opportunity to have this conversation. I'm looking forward to it. I'm a global digital transformation thought leader. Part of my background is that I've lived in five countries, various continents. I was born in Nigeria. I moved to the UK, where I had part of my education. Then I moved to Canada, spent time in the US, and now I'm in the Middle East—in Saudi Arabia. My evolution through technology has certainly been from a technical aspect. I started very strongly in the network infrastructure world to leading into an executive level, which then focus on cities. But I do have a private sector background as well, so I think that that has leveraged me very well in terms of the private and public service. I'm now in a part of the world where there is a rapid acceleration of digital transformation in the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia. So looking forward to this. Thank you so much.

Peter: Thank you. Could you share a bit about your journey from technologies to becoming a CTO of Toronto? How did you get there?

Lawrence: Yes, it started off very much with my educational background. I actually studied a degree called Bachelor of Science in Technology Management. At that stage, there was only a choice of Computer Science. So, programming, I decided, was not where I was going to focus. It was more Management Information Systems. I like the combination of computer-aided drawing, computer-aided manufacturing, systems analysis. Then with the technology of the technical aspects, I did do some programming aspects. From that, I generally then built my career in terms of working from the ground up. Most people may know there are seven layers of technology: the application, the presentation, session, transport, network, data link area. So I felt working through each of those areas were very important. So I did a lot of network configuration, past when you were bringing ISDN, frame relay, a lot of the telecommunications industry. I spent time working for telecommunications provider in Canada and also in the US. So that really had a good grasp. You're talking 20, in the early 2000s, when the internet was really coming out from the formation. So one-meg modems all the way back. So I did a lot of that work.

But what I really had passion was how the technology was going to integrate with humans. So I would normally go out with the pre-sales too. They would sell in the private sector, the technology, the connectivity we wanted at the time. And what we were building, which would be called the cloud now — I work for a company; they have five data centers across the world connecting it. Then from there, I went into the field of looking at how you're bringing telecommunications to TV. A lot of the telecommunications provider will now bring in television in terms of — I know that we're going to maybe have a technical conversation. But to some of your audience, it's called PPPoE, Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet, which was connected data as well as voice, RJ11 to RJ45. So I started very much in that networking technical domain. But what I quickly then realized was that the value was understanding some aspects of finance, accounting, on leading people—human resources, that aspect. So I did an MBA. I did a couple of MBAs— Executive Master of Business Administration and a Master of Management—which started to broaden me more into now letting the technical people sort of lay through. And I would look at the business case, the value, that was provided for the private sector. And so I found that work quite interesting, and it led me through now to be able to communicate fairly technical items into items that could be consumed by the business stakeholders at that time in the private sector.

One of the things I was really passionate as well was architecture. I felt if you're building a house today, you need to — you have an architect that designs the house. Technology, digital infrastructure needs to be there. So I went very strongly on an architectural path. So that was very good. Then, as I went on, I started getting into leadership role. I worked in Canada. I worked in one of the top 54 pension plans. I started to move them online. Then sort of 2000s, document management, and I worked. And so through that journey and all of that experience, then I was essentially head hunted and recruited to take on the Deputy Chief Information Officer of Infrastructure in the fourth largest city in Canada, which is the fourth largest city in North America, should I say. It's the largest city in Canada. Then two years from that, just before the pandemic, we changed the role from CIO, Chief Information Officer, to Chief Technology Officer. I became the first Chief Technology Officer, as the leading technology executive, in the city of Toronto.

Peter: Very interesting. So you went all the way from infrastructure up to applications, basically, where it touches the people and the IoT, right?

Lawrence: Correct. So all levels of the stream: databases, back-end, front-end, infrastructure. I've gone up and down the stack, which is important in building credibility when you're leading a technical group. But the business training— from the Executive MBA and the Master of Management—it then allows you to relate to the customers, whether the customers are in private sector or whether the customers are in a public sector. So that bridging provides that intersection to be able to translate technology into value, which, at the end of the day, there's no point making really great technology if it's not going to be consumed by the level of people that you're targeting it to be for.

Peter: Nice. Okay. So coming back to those smart city initiatives, what are the most impactful projects you have done there in Toronto, and what were the outcomes? Something tangible.

Lawrence: You know, when I took over the CTO role, a lot of people would think that the role of a technology executive, specifically from a city lens, is that you have to be deeply technical. You have to be technical, but you also have to be a technologist. The differentiation for me is understanding the impact, as I mentioned, the technology will bring. It would be surprising to people, but one of the most impactful things was building in terms of what we call the digital infrastructure strategic framework. People can look it up. It was a set of principles where the private sector, in engaging in Toronto, would have a set of guidelines as such that would allow them in terms of the interaction of technology. Because, at the time, there was conversations about how are you protecting the data, what is the role of government, et cetera. So we formed principles, which included that any technology that was going to be released in Toronto had to demonstrate social, economic and environmental impact. I had to ensure that it was equitable and inclusive, private and secure in the context of government, and in that part of the world—and certainly in some parts of the world—democracy and transparency. We also ensured that the technology had it. So that was very impactful because it was fully adopted by the elected official, by council and the mayor, which set a real foundation from a guideline’s infrastructure. Because at the end of the day, you can jump to the tech, but if the tech isn't having trust and confidence in the public service, people aren't going to feel that the city specifically has adopted it.

Then one of the most impactful actual implementations, it was around the pandemic. I would be on various conversations where the cost of broadband—in this particular case, the cost of high-speed internet—was very high. So we collaborated with the private sector to essentially build internet connectivity of apartments, having the cellular towers come off that. The government then created that sort of Wi-Fi service for communities for 12 months free. Why was that important? It created a PPP, private-public partnership, which was also a hit in the community. So we worked with the hardware provider, one of the large hardware providers of the equipment. We worked with a telecommunications company in Canada. We then provided the role of government to enable and facilitate that environment, and then we delivered it. So that was just a tangible piece which was, again, trying to ensure that we would provide internet to people who could not afford it. It wasn't accessibility. There was accessibility, but there was an affordability question as well. So that's an example of technology in a tech environment, architecting the environment to make the connectivity happen and then having from a human lens where people can consume it and they could use it for content. At that time, we were all at home, so there was home schooling, et cetera. So that was very rewarding as a public servant.

Peter: Oh, yeah, and data was a big topic at that time. Interesting. So when you go to those projects, when you go into them, overall, how do you prioritize them? It doesn't work like in a company. That's why we're so excited today. It's very different, I believe, that decision-making. So how do you prioritize the technologies or the projects? I guess there are budget constraints as well in the city, not only in companies. Then there are decision-makers that probably look totally different from a corporate structure. How does that work?

Lawrence: 100%. So there's an architectural principle I have—both from technical architecture, as well as business architecture I'll speak on—and then political architecture. I use a lot of methodologies on various other comments. I use the PEST — the political, the economic, the social, the technology. I use the RAC who's responsible, accountable, consult. All these methodologies are very well-known. But what I really did was one methodology that in the pandemic I formed was my 5S principles. So let me just start off on, first, it starts with the regulations or the guidelines. When you're working in public service, unlike the private sector, it's not about profit and loss. It's about enabling the environment to serve people. So first thing I do is: what are the regulations or the guidelines? Are the regulations or the guidelines need to be evolved? We had examples in Toronto where we had to evolve it very quickly because people weren't coming into the office. So that include, I'll give an example whereby we had to evolve the policy to ensure that if you wanted burial licenses, for example, with the regulations, it wasn't written in a digital format. So we quickly had to work with the city clerk office to change the regulation. Then we allowed people to do it digitally by creating applications.

The first thing that I focused on or the first S is that, is the technology stable? Is this technology going to provide a stability? Then the second S: is it's going to scale? Toronto had 2.9 million people. The third S is that the solution, was it going to be integrated? The reason why that is important is that I had lots of emails or lots of letters about how technology could fix this. But we would come out of the pandemic at some stage. So the integration, the APIs, were very, very important. There's no point bringing more technology where it can't speak or share data. So the third S is solution integration. The fourth S was security, ensuring that cyber security, not just physical security. That links into privacy as well. Then, was it sustainable? Infrastructure as a Service, on the cloud Platform as a Service software. The five S was the way that I defined in terms of how to lead a team, a large team. Then it started to look at, what is the past? What is the political angle? You're working with elected officials. There's a lot of pressure. They have constituency. So managing in terms of the communication, the direction, is very important.

Then the economics, the budget. I want to separate budget from finance because budget is about looking from an accountancy, how do we now work with the private sector where we can have private sector supporting us at that stage—whether it was through donations or contributions—so it would help us meet our goals? That's the economics of the PEST. The politics is what the politicians are looking for, politics is about. There was 44 divisions. I had 44 colleagues in executive roles. Then the social was about building the relationship. I'd built up relationships two years in Toronto with the telecommunications industry, with various industry, and then the tech. So if you notice, the tech comes at the end. You've got to build up these pieces, political acumen. You've got to build up economics. You have to have relationships. Then you deliver it, the tech, in terms of that in a rapid format. Then I incorporated the 5S, which spoke to inside my team, what is the methodology of decision making? Because the CTO and the leadership can't be everywhere. Then having a very strong architectural blueprint. It starts with regulations, then it builds with telecommunications, ICT. Then it builds essentially where the data is. So that I am a very strong methodology, architectural rate. That's how my brain works. Once you've sort of socialized that in terms of culture and leadership and diversity and equity, the system will run because people now have a set direction. So that's the sort of way that I governed a very large government. Toronto is very large in terms of Canada. But it was successful in the time, certainly, when I was there, based on what we were dealing with at the time with the pandemic.

Peter: Interesting. Okay. It's very political. We'll say, well, it is in companies as well, but very different—very different indeed. Okay. Maybe we can talk a bit about community engagement. So how are the different parties engaged? How are community members heard? How are their voices taken into the whole process when making decisions? I guess there are ideas coming from communities in the city, I could imagine. How does that information flow? Is this all centrally decided?

Lawrence: Yeah, and when you work in a democracy, you have to be very sensitive. Because at the end of the day, the elected officials have been elected because they are representing their constituency. So what we did—in this case, in Toronto, as the example, using that as a use case—before the pandemic, we started doing public consultations. We're developing the digital infrastructure strategic framework, which is the guidelines I mentioned of those principles. We had town halls. We brought the community into city hall. We had forums. We created breakout session. What is important to the community? Safety, ensuring they're secure, homelessness, poverty. What's that center around? It centers around accessibility of data. It's centers about how does a private sector. So we did that. Then in the pandemic, we took that online. So before we generated that Digital Infrastructure Strategic Framework—people can certainly go on the internet and find that it's a public document that can be shared. It's called the DISF. It came from the community—at all different levels of the community, from diverse communities, from different communities—so that when we went to council with the elected officials to get it adopted, we had confidence and evidence to say that we had done stakeholder engagement. That is very, very important. Now, of course 2.9 million people, you may not capture every single voice. But you want representation. So that's one aspect.

Another piece is that through the PEST that I mentioned, of the S, you need relationships in academia. You need relationships that cross the whole ecosystem so that you could have voices that are coming from different underrepresented groups. Some groups may not necessarily feel they have a voice. So that was something that was very, very predominant. So I created a team, a specific team. What we actually did was that we changed the name from smart city — I used to have a team. We called it 'connected community.' Because we didn't want the word smart city, which is a technical name based on history that was formed. And so what it meant is that we were able to reach aspects of the community. Because we were saying, we want to connect you with telecommunications. We want to connect you to services, that government is listening. That then brings trust and confidence. So stakeholder engagement, various forums. It depends on your city. Some people would fill surveys. Some people want to have in person. Some people want virtual. We created the various different channels, and then we segregate to personas. What is the persona? Now, when you start to look into transferring to other parts of the world, there's personas for visitors, residents, investors. Once you create the persona, you can now target where are those communities, and what is the voice of the customer? For those people who know Lean Six Sigma, you're always talking of the private sector. What is the voice of the customer? The customer in this sense, in government, is the community. You've got to go and find them in the space that they feel most comfortable in.

Peter: Okay. Nice. So how about challenges? What was the biggest challenge? When you think back to your time in Toronto, what was the biggest challenge you faced there implementing solutions in the city?

Lawrence: 44 heads in a city. You know, Toronto is a large component of the Canadian GDP. It's the center of a lot of the economic aspects. It's the biggest population in Canada. You have 44 divisions representing 2.9 million people. So imagine trying to bring everybody and to agree. That's where methodologies are very important. So that's challenging, you know. Who's responsible? I'm a big RAC one, as I mentioned, to say it's really great, but your role is the consultation. Then another challenge is that with that, through legacy, technology debt, technology silos, how do you bring all those systems together? As I mentioned, I'm very big on enterprise architecture, digital enterprise architecture, city architecture. So I formed something called an Enterprise Architectural Review Board (EARB). We may all have opinion, but at the end of the day, we have to integrate. Then that Enterprise Architectural Review Board is a combination of — within the 44 divisions, they are into what at the time was sectioned together. There was a group that dealt with the hard services, water, solid waste. There was a group that dealt with the soft services community. There was a group that dealt with the corporate services, which is where I was. So we would have champions of each of those sponsored at the executive level. They would sit on that EARB, Enterprise Architectural Review Board. That would be then the board that help us build an integrated architecture, especially as we were trying to, within the 5S principle, scale, stabilize, scale, integrate, make sure it's secure. So your biggest challenge is essentially trying to bring people together in good conversations but have very discipline in how those conversations transition to action. We can talk all day. That's great. But at the end of the day, you've got to deliver under a certain budget and under a certain pressure. The things I've just described was the way we managed it.

Then during the pandemic, we formed divisional operational centers. I'm a great believer that certainly titles are important, but you get some of the best innovation in any organization at different levels of the organization. So we selected people that it wasn't based on title. Our division operational center was based on what expertise. I'll give an example. The person who led our desktop deployments — you can imagine. The pandemic hit. Everybody left in March at that stage and that time. But our manager, who was leading that area, was very knowledgeable about on the ground what the desktops and the actual access in terms of phones, what was needed. So she was a part of the division operational center because we needed her input, not because her title was a manager. She had 100 people. She knew in terms of each of the divisions. So as the leader, you have to enable and facilitate an environment that finds: what are the subject matter experts, and how do you bring them into the decision process? So being a member of that EARB, Enterprise Architectural Review Board, the construct of the people sat on that board, whether it's title, and then giving them the authority to make decisions.

Peter: I guess this also leads into my next question. What would be a good lesson learned from this whole undertaking you've done there? I guess that's what you already mentioned, right, or is there another lesson learned you would like to mention?

Lawrence: Well, another lesson learned as a leader: check your ego. It's not about you. It's about the people you serve. So you have to have to serve in leadership. I'm just being very candid about it. But also as well, another lesson learned is that the buck stops with you. The accountability stops with you. You're not expected to know everything, but you have to create a culture. So check your ego. Create great structure, methodologies, process, so people are clear of how they could make decisions—this is just leadership 101, by the way, in any sector—and also ensure you fully back and support the people you're serving, your team, the external, the internal. And the buck stops with you. If it doesn't work out well, part of failure is learning to innovate, to grow. Stand up. Take it. So in my position, I was in council regularly. Whether it's being audited, whether it's being governed, et cetera, I have to explain. To me, it's about, I'm the CTO. I'm the Chief Technology Officer. While I may have not been the one making this decision, the principles are set. And if a decision has gone in the direction that doesn't meet its need, then we will go. Lessons learned. Re-evaluate. Come back. You have to have courage, and you have to be fearless. And if that's not what your personality of leadership is—certainly in technology, you're in the middle of anything—then it's not going to be a very happy experience. So that's what I learned. And we grew together. Relationships grew together. You create other leaders. So many lessons. Part of the reason those lessons I have formed into my book. Because I felt that those lessons should not just stay with me, but they should be shared globally within my book of Bridging Worlds: A Journey of Technology, Leadership, and Public Service.

Peter: I will have a look at the book.

Lawrence: Please do.

Peter: Nice.

(break)

If you're still listening, then you must take technology seriously. So I'd like to introduce you to our case study database. Think of it as a roadmap that can help you understand which use cases and technologies are being deployed in the world today. We have catalogued more than 9,000 case studies and are adding 500 per month with detailed tagging by industry and function. Our goal is to help you make better investment decisions that are backed by data. Check it out at the link below. And please share your thoughts. We'd love to hear how we can improve it. Thank you, and back to the show.

(interview)

Peter: Okay. Maybe moving on to the whole topic of data governance and privacy. It's a very big topic. Basically, two topics here concerned about data privacy. How is that addressed, and then also how is data used? I mean, a smart city collects data, collects information. How can you make sure that it's ethically used after it's being collected and then only used by the right people?

Lawrence: Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, there's lots of data collected, so let's talk about the data collection. Within different governments, the first thing is understanding both the national, regional, and local regulations. Various countries have various laws—whether it's privacy laws, et cetera. So making sure you're adopting that in terms of the privacy aspect. That's why working with the cybersecurity team—in Toronto, we had a cybersecurity team—is very, very important. So follow the regulation. And if the regulations need to be evolved, be a champion of how you evolve the regulation so that the data is not identifying the individual, but it's creating that viewpoint of trust. So within the digital infrastructure strategic framework I mentioned, privacy and security was a key principle. So we made sure that, through the various accountable parties, the classification of the data is accurately being done. The way the data is released, a lot of governments in city governments have open data portals. So they're releasing data to help build new economic models, new innovation, new companies. But it is not private data. It is not data that identifies Peter, Erik, Lawrence. It's data that identifies the macroeconomics. How many people are moving to the area? What is the general macro aspect? So it's having very strong skill sets of people who deal with data governance, who are very knowledgeable, making sure your data team understand the specific country, understand the regulations, and have influence to be able to either evolve the regulations. That's on the sort of data aspect. Then govern it. Measure it. Comply to it. Show evidence that you're compliant to that.

In terms of the utilization, it's ensuring that the data can move. There's always a topic of AI and some of the conversations we have. But without data, there is no machine learning, generative AI, or any other forms of AI. So it's creating a single source of truth. I've seen this more in the Middle East, based on the fact that you're able to integrate better so that the data is now providing value from a customer service. So if you have economic data from all aspects of government into a centralized single source of truth, you can have a centralized dashboard, a centralized command center. You can ensure that the city operation can run. So it's separating the classification of the data—which is really focused on the public and focused on what the public needs to feel trust and confidence—the way the data is shared inside government, making sure it's following all the right appropriate cybersecurity standards, et cetera, ensuring you're building that component, and then making the data accessible in an open data to build new economies, new jobs, new opportunities. But the underlying foundation is built on cybersecurity and privacy and following the regulation. So that's essentially the model of how you deal with it. Because in government, it's very sensitive. I mean, it's sensitive in the private sector. But in government, it's trust and confidence of the people. And if the people don't feel that you have leadership strength and you understand how to keep them safe, that piece. On the ethical part, it's then demonstrating that your data is going to be for good. It's making the economy, the community. That's why in the principles, we had: any tech that's come in that involves aspects needs to fall under, how is it demonstrating socially it's going to be better for the people? How is it demonstrating economically and also environmentally within the privacy and security foundation?

Peter: Very interesting. Yeah, indeed. I mean, data security here is something that comes from the government and not from a company. You can avoid a product of a certain company if you feel it's not safe or collecting your personal data. That is something you don't want to happen to a government. That's absolutely right. It's a different level, I would say.

Lawrence: It's a different level—the public service. You know, I spent five years in Toronto, and I really had an education of how it's a difficult role. Because it's not just working on a profit and loss and meeting market share and revenue. You're dealing with sensitive information to keep people feeling trust and confidence in you. That's your mandate. If you have no trust and confidence, you can't be a public servant. So people need to feel that, and you have to demonstrate that through some of the things I've discussed.

Peter: Yeah, and indeed it's one of the pillars, right? It comes first. Security and data governance is a question that has to be answered first before anything else happens, I would think. If a solution is not fulfilling the requirements at that level, then it will not proceed any further.

Lawrence: Correct.

Peter: Okay. I got a few questions left here. First of all, in your opinion, what does the future hold for smart cities? Obviously, things are evolving. But what is your idea? What is your opinion here? What do you think is the emerging technology out of all this? What will be the leading technology?

Lawrence: I think that also the future branding becomes important sometimes. I think that people need to, number one, define their city with the pulse of their city. Some people call it the intelligence of the city, the resilience of the city. While smart city is a broad name coined by the private sector many years ago, the conversation at the leadership level needs to be a lot of all these things. We are certainly making the city smarter, but the smarter means about data and technology. Data being is that, how can you make informed decisions to run the city, to create environment? Technology. How are you bringing the new technologies either to innovate, to test, to run, and then to scale? Because sometimes you need the experimentation to learn and creating that.

I think the future is bright. But what I do think is that a city has lots of potential, it will be smart. My experience based on various years is that it's actually the governance, of how the city has been governed, that will dictate how smart that city becomes. Because the governance means essentially some of the things I've explained. Not just the technology governance and data governance, but as well the governance within the city, within the business area. So if you're going to have a command center, you all have to agree as leaders that you're going to share that data, and it's meeting the principle. A city has smart. The smart is not just technology. It could be business process re-engineering. So when people say to you, "Is your city smart," the next conversation is that if your city isn't smart, is it the opposite which is done? No. It's really, what it's saying is that, can the city help me essentially have a good experience? When I arrive in a city, how is my experience based on data and technology? That's the aspect that I see necessarily of smart cities.

Now, in terms of technology, I think that some of the technology that I think is really, really interesting—which also is going to really come to certain aspects—is biometrics. I find it very interesting because it's the validation of data. I see that a lot in airports. I've mentioned before. It's that, to me, I judge a city by the first point of entry. What is the experience I have when I land in the city, especially if I'm coming from overseas? So you see that now with metadata being pre-approved. Because I want the experience. So come from an experience, a UX, and then ensure that the data is shared. It's worked on the privacy. So biometrics. A lot of the biometrics technologies are becoming very prevalent. Then, of course, you've got the drones. You've got the ability of Industrial Internet of Things, IoTs. It's all about the collection. So I see the technology less about invention; more about innovation that takes the baseline and continuously approve it—robotics process or automation. But I do think one technology that I would really state, that for years I've been watching—it just needs to have an economic model that is attractive enough to scale—is quantum computing. I think if we think of what generative AI can do right now, wait till really, really super computers start to look at quantum computing. The rapid pace of generating things is just lights away. So I would say quantum computing is one that is really going to ensure when you look at artificial intelligence and the future and what it is going to interact with us as humans in an ethical way. Quantum computing is one that I'm really excited with over the next few years, as it becomes more commercialized.

Peter: Okay.

Erik: Lawrence, a question here. First of all, I love that point about the airport being kind of your first touch point with the city. I was in Singapore a couple months ago. You get off the airport. You get off the plane. You go. You scan a QR code. You register. Then you just walk through a turnstile. It looks at your face. Five minutes later, you're waiting for a taxi. It's so pain-free. There's no lines, right, because there's 50 turnstiles. You're right through. It's such a different — it's a first impression, right? It's like going into an interview. You give a perfect first impression, rest of the conversation is much easier, right? You think, well, why doesn't every city do this? And so this comes to my question.

I see this a lot from organizations. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm curious how you're thinking about it, that you often have a situation—I'm thinking about it now from AI, but I think any digital technology could apply—where you have this maybe top-down assessment that this is important to do. So the city leaders or the corporate leaders say, yes, we need to consider this technology. Bottom up, you have a lot of smart people in the organization who are saying, "Yeah, okay, let's try this out. I think we can use it here." They're trying different things, and they're generating ideas. But then somehow, the technology never scales, right? You're using it in certain areas, but you never get that value where it just becomes a normal part of the operating procedure. I think this turnstile is kind of an example. Well, everybody can go to Singapore. They can experience it. But nonetheless, nobody else is using it, right? Why isn't every airport in the world using this? There's already a blueprint. My sense is that, it's kind of the middle of the organization. How do you create systematic adoption of a technology—changing processes, training people, changing thought processes around who should be doing what work and so forth? How have you addressed this, either at Toronto or at other organizations that you've been part of in terms of the systematic organizational adoption of technology?

Lawrence: Let me take a position here. What may seem a little bit controversial with things is that the world these days is being driven digitally. If you look at the top 100 organizations, they're technology companies. If you look at the way that the world is moving, whether it's even energy companies, they're all tech companies. The position of the leadership at the top is having to ensure you have a grounding of skills. One of the reasons, as I said, I did an MBA wasn't because I needed to do it; it was because I need to understand business. So if you have tech and technologists—that's the difference between technical. If you have technologist who have a business mind, which links to culture, they will find out where the bottleneck is, whether it's in the middle of the organization, and then it's leadership. You have to drive in.

So when I was in Toronto, I was in those meetings at the divisional operational center. My job was to guide. I didn't have to come up with the solution of how great the tech, but I needed to understand the culture that was stopping the tech in expanding or the culture that was inhibiting us to move integration. And if you as leaders in executive positions do not empower — your audience needs to hear this. If you do not empower organization — I've talked a whole series of things, the methodologies I used. It's that the manager now feels empowered. The CTO, or the CEO, or the most senior person, they know they have the trust and confidence. Here's the guardrails. Here's the area you can work in. And if it's an issue, where is the escalation? Where is it coming to seek support? But if you have bureaucracy, as in there's big organizations need that. I get that. But if a junior person is saying, it's the business process that's the problem. The tech can do all of this, but we're not having quality requirements. There's lots of methodologies. There's Agile. People have used different methodologies. There's Sprint. But if the leaders aren't willing to get sometimes a bit deep to help use their position, their titles, to create that culture, its culture to say, "No, listen to the manager."

So let me give you an area that I used to look at. When I used to look, I used to go into meetings. I would have this A4 sheet of paper, and I would look at where are the conversations in executive meetings with your team. Sometimes you find the most senior titles are not the ones that have the influence. It's maybe somebody in a junior title, but they just need the sponsorship. So if the executive can say, "I sponsor Erik, who is in this position. He will make those decisions with my sponsorship because his background is XY, and he's good at robotics. He's good at there," then I will create a forum—whether it's a steering committee, whatever is your government's culture. And we will drive this. Once we provide the POC or the pilot, then the mandate comes from the top that we're going to scale. And we scale it in incremented from a risk assessment. So if you're a big company, there's bureaucracy. There's regulations. There's compliance.

But if the leaders in their titles aren't sponsoring, you will never scale. You will never scale. Because why is the junior person going to take the risk when they don't have the authority? But if they have sponsorship, now if you create that trickle down—the CEO, the president, the VP, the directors, man—once you've created that culture all the way down, people feel embodied. That's what happened in Toronto. There's no way. I had a team of 800 odd people. I had a large budget. I cannot on my own recognize how to solve the problems of everywhere, but I had to create the culture to say, if this is the right tech — that's why the 5S principles were so successful. Because my team would just, at any level, would just check off the 5S and say, "Yep, we can show it hits this 5S. We're going to try to adopt this to scale." That's my piece. Certainly, I'm sharing that. I'm not saying it will work in every organization. But it's about leadership and culture. If you don't lean in and you don't have the ability to understand the PEST and all those things, technology leaders are essentially running organizations. They may not be called the CEO, but they should be on the table. Then with human capital or human resources, it's people and technology. That's what drives the change and allows you to scale, in my experience.

Erik: Yeah, thank you. That's really helpful. You know, I was in a workshop the other day, and I didn't think about it in this way. One of the more junior people, he put up his hand and he said, "Okay. We're here in China. We're trying to drive this smart factory ambition of it really being identified as a world economic foreign lighthouse factory." And so they're trying to drive this initiative. "Headquarters is now starting to put up some barriers. Because headquarters is saying, no, we're working on this thing. All of a sudden, the guys in China are starting to push. They're duplicating our effort." He said, "Well, what do we do? This is headquarters." The president was sitting down there in the workshop, and he said, "You escalate to me." Right? "There's going to be fights. We're trying to do something ambitious. People are going to push back. It's going to happen. Get used to it. If you feel like we're doing important work and somebody is putting a barrier—not because it's best for the company; because it's best for them, because they personally are feeling threatened—escalate to me, and I'll have the conversation." I hadn't thought about it in that systematic way that you've just outlined here, but I think that's what he was doing. He was trying to educate the organization that I'm supporting you. You're empowered. But there has to be that communication from the bottom up also to say, "Hey, boss, I need your help on this one to push it through."

Lawrence: And to build upon that, one of the things we did in Toronto was that, you always want to have access to the people. My office formed three levels. So every week, I would meet my senior leaders, like the deputy chief technology officers. We did that on a weekly basis. Then essentially, every month, I would meet those at the director level. That was the title structure, right? It's communication, making sure. Then I would then meet essentially the managers and then the supervisors. Then I would have a town hall. So within a six-month cycle, with a team of 800 people, in that example, I'm constantly getting feedback loop all the time through my office. "Lawrence, we tried this. This is being blocked." Okay. Then I would send a champion in, understand where it's being blocked. Then, can we scale this? Can we put, whether it's a process or procedure, like what is a committee? So you're constantly problem solving, troubleshooting and looking at a way to release the bottleneck, to release. But if that's not coming from the top, and I mean the most top in the organization with authority, that's the key. What you've mentioned, the president has the authority to go to the headquarters, the HQ, and deal with those battles. They are going to be battles, because there's sometimes a political agenda. That's okay. But if the leadership of the most serious is absent from that or doesn't lean into that, the bottom, as in those in a different position, will not come and share because they feel that it will be dead on arrival. They will not be comfortable to come and share. Nothing's going to happen. We've escalated two or three things. So that's just examples that I have had in my leadership journey.

Peter: Would this also be the advice you would give to other cities looking to embark on digital transformation?

Lawrence: Absolutely. You know, there's nothing like the lessons learned and the scars to make you educated. There's plenty of that. Absolutely. Whether you're a city of — of course, it's more complex on the governance when you're a city of millions. Don't get me wrong. It's more complex within democracy because everybody has an opinion. But that's what I would advise, and I've seen it successful. Again, I've lived in many places. As I said, many countries. The leadership trail and the culture, what are you trying to build? At least, if it's not successful, you can pinpoint why. Let's not waste our time on trying to do something if it's not breaking these barriers, that we don't have the authority to change. Accept it, and then document it to say this is the reasons why we're not going to change. You often have cities that say we want innovation, or we want certain aspects. Everybody has innovation in them. Innovation is thinking differently. It's culture, new ideas. Innovation is not just tech. If a process has been around since the '50s or '60s, chances are that process, or procedure, or regulation is not going to scale. It's not. The world is changing too fast. So I would definitely say it's an advice from my perspective of my experience, and you can then customize it to your city.

Peter: Great. Thank you very much, Lawrence Eta. Do you have any more questions, Erik, from your end?

Erik: Well, Lawrence, maybe as a wrap up, we've been talking a lot about your past. You have a fascinating past. I think the future is probably going to be equally fascinating. So can you share a little bit about what are you working on today? What does the future look like for you?

Lawrence: The future with one of the cities that we've worked on, we've just completed about a year ago a digital strategy that has been highly supported and endorsed. It's a very ambitious strategy. For me, I'm very passionate about integrated digital strategies. Sometimes you have the technology that is not integrated to the data. So really ensuring that cities build architecture and strategy, that's really good.

Right now, one of the areas that I'm really interested in is how do you— for cities, the foundation is something called the CD, the common data environment. It's a digital twin. The digital twin is very important. Because once you digitize and twin the city, you get a representation in 3D visualization that allows you to make decision making, especially when you are having return on investment. So the digital twin is a very exciting opportunity to really take that city and look at it in that 3D, explain to people, give people the touch and the feel when they can see it. So that's really interesting. A command center is very interesting or the heartbeat of the city. That's really, that's the control of everything. You deal with that also in health areas. You look at the pandemic. Imagine having a centralized command center where you can look at infections, disease, and you can anticipate. Then you're putting AI on top, and then let the machines do what they do. So that's very, very exciting. The collection of data through the modernization of drones, you know. I know that you're in Asia. I'm fascinated with what's happening over in Asia, where you actually see drones being used to deliver packaging to the citizens. So imagine now I order prescription. I order medicine. I order pharmacy. Do I now have to come to you? Let the drone drop it in a central sort of area whereby everybody can go and collect.

So there are many use cases of applications. I'm very excited on the data, on the aspects of twinning the city. I've talked about quantum computing. Quantum computing is going to be really big for R&D. Imagine having a fast computer, that they integrate all city data and say, "This is the new economy in the next 20 or 30 years that you want to think of." It will lead to education. It will lead into new sectors. So there's so much to be done. But those are some of the areas, Erik, that I would say that make me excited about the future. And also, as well, as providing thought leadership. Part of this forum and have been on this podcast is sharing the thought leadership, the globe, and also working with various stakeholders to sort of advise them about this is the experience, but this is where the path is going forward. That's some of the things that I'm excited for the future.

Erik: Yeah, fantastic. Thank you, Lawrence. I was listening to a presentation from a team from McKinsey a few days ago. They were doing this research on past 20 years, on what industries created a lot of value. Then the next 20 years, what are the industries that are positioned? What really struck me was, the past 20 years, it was kind of pure digital, like e-commerce, social media, these pure digital industries. But the ones in the next 20 are some of the ones you just mentioned that are physical. They are digital integrated into drones, into vehicles, into city hardware. I think, for a lot of people, this is going to be much more tangible, right? It's integrating the digital into the physical world that we're living in. I mean, this is called the IoT Spotlight Podcast so, of course, I'm very excited about this next generation of digitalization. Lawrence, I really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us. Thank you.

Peter: Thank you very much.

Lawrence: Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Erik. Thank you for your time. It was a great conversation. Thank you to your audience. I hope they got some information and can take it and utilize it in their journeys.

Peter: Thank you.