I should point out, as it was pointed out to me, that in fact the City Broker would probably be a non-profit NGO running the broker piece. The broker piece would encompass both IoT and Cloud system integration. Offering support for workload transition and IoT integration. An NGO (non-government organization) with direct ties to the City or regional, state or national government. An NGO would be able to bridge the commercial issues that the city or other traditional governments would struggle with. At the same time the city could provide the security team and would oversee the NGO consuming the “profits” as tax revenue
That said, the NGO would have to have complete autonomy from the CITY and from all the CLOUD SERVICE PROVIDERS. It would have to be able to, on its service catalog produce pure performance numbers for cloud migration tools, cloud service providers, IoT device integration and IoT device information transfer rates. Those numbers would need to be based on more than simply loading and unloading information from the CSP’s and IoT devices. You would need to evaluate the security, maturity and type of information being pushed around. Given that one cloud preforms faster, and the other cloud is significantly cheaper for the same amount of information, which is better? That would depend on the type of initial requirement. So the link is to my Cloud Operations book, Operating Beyond your borders. It introduces the concept of a GovOps Tree. Where you manage governance, operations, security and cloud infrastructure as an entity.
· If you goal is cutting costs, then the cloud that operate cheaper is the better initial option.
· If your goal is increasing performance than pay a little more and get faster performance in the cloud that offers performance at a higher price.
All of this offered in the City Broker marketplace. An NGO would operate in a cost recovery mode, so there would be revenue generated that the city or government would consume as tax revenue. The tax revenue for the NGO City Broker and IoT broker would allow the government to reduce taxes.
Getting companies to sign up there has to be value for them. The first value for consuming companies would be increased security. Look, you can’t make a solution uncheckable. That isn’t possible because frankly the easiest thing to hack in any system is the human being. But what you can do is reduce the risk of hacks. That will open the door for companies to have additional security around the systems they operate. It allows home users at least a little security. Given the reality of hacks, it also allows for a central response to hacks. The NGO would coordinate the connection with the ISP’s and pass through the security fee to the government entity.
The connections here are pretty easily defined:
1. Building “black box home security”
2. Deploying Solar Energy Transactive system regional wide
3. Connections with Cloud Service Providers
4. Managed IoT Gateway
5. Connection with Office supply companies
6. Connection with software providers
7. Connection with Hardware providers
The connections are pretty straight forward and would require relationships that involve centralized buying. Working with governments around the world for some reason that isn’t as easy as it should be. The reality of most central governments I’ve worked with is decentralized buying. Leaving as it were tax payers money on the table for the software companies to keep. The same is true of hardware and ultimately of relationships with Cloud Service Providers. So step on, companies and government would sign up for cloud services provided through the NGO. Now in order of revenue the system would be in a different order. Starting with a formalized relationship with the local power provider (Solar). That entity would agree to deploy solar panels on City Buildings. That would include city garages and buildings like fire stations and police stations and sub stations. The more buildings deployed the greater the power production. Since we are talking Transactive energy the reality is produce as much as you can during the daylight hours. That energy will be shared with non-city buildings (if it is more than the amount consumed – the goal is get to production greater than consumption on the hottest and coldest days of the year then all other days will easily overproduce). That Transactive energy supplied would be consumed at a lower power rate, with the power company taking the majority but the city receiving revenue for the produced power.
By the way side benefit of this solar/wind power generation system? Reduced CO2 throughout the city. Less Co2 produced benefits everyone.
More to come…