major project_final version

7/26/2019 Major Project_final Version

1/32

Competitiveness of Tier-1 Indian Cities

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the

Degree of

Master of Business Administration

By

Pavel Rudra

(Entry Number: 2013SMT6711)

Under the guidance of

Prof. M P Gupta

Department of Management Studies

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi

New Delhi, May 2015


2/32

1 | P a g e

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the major project titled Competitiveness of tier-1 Indian Cities is

a bona fide record of the work carriedout byMr.Pavel Rudraunder my guidance and

supervision towards partial fulfilment of the requirement for Major Project for awarding

the degree of Master of Business Administration, at Department of ManagementStudies,

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.

This work has been duly completed and has not been submitted anywhere else for the award

of any degree or diploma.

Material, wherever has been borrowed has been duly acknowledged.

Date: Prof. M P Gupta

Place: New Delhi Department of Management Studies



3/32

2 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The successful completion of graduation research project facilitates the beginning of a never

ending learning experience. The project Competitiveness of Tier-1 Indian Cities aims to

find the competitiveness among the Tier-I cities in India.

So, with reverence, veneration and honour, I acknowledge all those whose guidance and

encouragement has helped in successful completion of the project.

I wish to thank my guide Prof. M P Guptafor giving me an opportunity to work on such a

topic of great relevance to the industry and to the work I shall be pursuing after completing

my Masters degree in business administration. I am grateful to him for all the advice,

encouragement and support he has given me during the work.

I also pay sincere gratitude to DMS, IIT Delhi faculties and staff members for their constant

help and cooperation throughout the academic explorations.

Date: Pavel Rudra

2013SMT6711

Place: New Delhi Department of Management Studies



4/32

3 | P a g e

Abstract

The city fulfilling its critical infrastructure and key resources and providing optimized

services to its citizens can be considered as a smart city. Govt. of India has nominated 100

cities to make them smart cities. These cities will have modern facilities for various aspectssuch as governance, health, administration, transportation, education, environment etc. To

find out the competitiveness of tier-1 Indian cities, we have implemented APP Framework

(Assets-Processes-Performances) proposed by Prof. Momaya. We have identified various

parameters required to evaluate the city competitiveness. Based on our selected parameters

we have collected secondary data for the year of 2011, 2012, and 2013.As a result we will be

explaining the 6 tier-1 Indian cities competitiveness analysis with respect to smart city

development.


5/32

4 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Abstract3

List of Figures..6

List of Tables7

Abbreviations8

Chapter 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................9

1.1City Competitiveness..9

1.1.1Objective.11

1.1.2 Scope..11

1.2Motivation..11

1.2.1GOI agenda on smart cities .....12

1.2.2 Criteria for identifying the smart cities . ..................12

1.2.3 Specific Targets...14

1.3 Build of the Report .....................................................................................................14

Chapter 2. Literature Study.......................................................................15

2.1 Literature Study on City Competitiveness.15

2.1.1 Compilation of key global cities.16

2.2 Indian running smart cities projects...17

2.3 Comparison between Dholera, GIFT City and Naya Raipur.19

Chapter 3. Smart Village..20

3.1Smart Village...20

3.2 Case Study: Pochampally Village................................................21

3.3Case Study: Smart Village Application in Australia...22

3.4 Case Study: Smart Village Application in Ireland .22

Chapter 4. Methodology .................................................................................... ......23


6/32

5 | P a g e

4.1 APP Framework for Competitiveness.23

4.2 Problem........24

4.3 Selected indicators....24

Chapter 5. Results and Discussions26

5.1 Results...26

5.2 Discussions ............................29

5.3 Recommendations.29

5.4 Implications for Research...............................................................................................29

5.5 Implications for Practice ........................................................................................29

5.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................29

References ..................................................................................................... .31


7/32

6 | P a g e

List of Figures

Figure 2.1Dholera SIR .................................................................................................. 17

Figure 2.2GIFT City...................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2.3Naya Raipur .................................................................................................. 18

Figure 3.1 Smart Village Ecosystem .............................................................................. 20Figure 3.2 Governance Model ....................................................................................... 21

Figure 3.3 Smart Village Pochampally Ecosystem......................................................... 22

Figure 5.1 City Competitiveness graph .......................................................................... 28


8/32

7 | P a g e

List of Tables

Table 1.1Dimensions of a smart city.............................................................................. 9Table 1.2 Nominated smart cities in India ..13

Table 2.1 Literature study on City Competitiveness...15Table 2.2 Smart tech and applications in city ecosystem ...15

Table 2.3 Leading cities in 2013.16Table 2.4 Comparison of the 3 projects..19

Table 5.1 Normal Score of the tier-1 Indian cities..26Table 5.2 Average and standard deviation .27

Table 5.3 Standardized Score .27


9/32

8 | P a g e

Abbreviations

GIFT Gujarat International Finance Tec-City

IoT Internet of Things

DMIC Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor

SIR Special Investment Region

BRTS Bus Rapid Transit System

APP Assets Processes Performances

FDI-Foreign Direct Investment


10/32

9 | P a g e

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 City Competitiveness

Competitiveness refers to a citys ability to create employment opportunities, attract

investments, experts, professionals and people. The ease of being able to do business and the

quality of life it offers determines its competitiveness. The set of factors policies,

institutions, strategies and processes determines the level of sustainable productivity of a city.

Smart City: Definitions

Various authors have given different views and definitions for smart cities. Some of them are

given below:

A Smart City is a well performing city built on the smart combination of

endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens.

Giffinger, et.al (2007: 11). It can also be defined as a a city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its

critical infrastructures, including roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, subways, airports,

seaports, communications, water, power, even major buildings, can better optimize its

resources, plan its preventive maintenance activities, and monitor security aspects

while maximizing services to its citizens. Hall, R. E. (2000).

A city equipped with basic infrastructure to give a decent quality of life, a clean and

sustainable environment through application of smart solutions.

Smart City Dimensions

Basicallya smart city has 6 dimensions as given in table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Dimensions of a smart city

Smart Economy Smart People Smart Governance

(Social and Human Capital) (Participation)

Entrepreneurship Level of qualification Participation in decisionmaking

Productivity Affinity to lifelong learning Transparent governance

Economic image and trademarks Flexibility Public and socialservices

International embeddedness Creativity Political StrategiesAbility to transform Cosmopolitanism/Open-

mindedness

Perspectives

Flexibility of labour market Social and ethnic plurality

Participation in public life

Smart Mobility Smart Environment Smart Living


11/32

10 | P a g e

(Transport and ICT) (Natural Resources) (Quality of Life)

Local accessibility Attractivity of naturalcondition

Cultural Facilities

International accessibility Pollution Health ConditionsAvailability of ICT infrastructure Environmental Protection Individual Safety

Sustainable, innovative and safe

transport systems

Sustainable Resource

Management

Housing Quality

Educational Facilities

Touristic attractivity

Social cohesion

Before the term smart city, the concept of cyber cities, digital cities and intelligent cities

were there. Smart city is evolutionary to those terms as given in the box (A New Spatiality of

Cities).

(Source: Hans and Nicos, 2011, Smart Cities and the Future Internet)

How a smart city works?

Basic infrastructure

Assured water and electricity supply, sanitation and solid waste management, efficient urban

mobility and public transport, robust IT connectivity, e-governance and citizen participation

etc.

Smart Solutions

Public information, grievance redressal, electronic service delivery, citizens participation,

waste to energy & fuel conversion, waste to compost transformation, 100% waste water

treatment, smart meters & management, monitoring of water quality, renewable source of

energy etc.


12/32

11 | P a g e

Smart Cities Council India has been formed

It is part of the US-based Smart Cities Council, which is a consortium of smart city

practitioners and experts, with a 100-plus member and advisor organizations operating in

over 140 countries.

Area-based development

o

Retrofitting 500 acres: Planning in an existing built-up area in a municipal ward,

preparing plan with citizen participation (example: Connaught Place in Delhi).

o

Greenfield 250 acres: Introduce smart solutions in a vacant area using innovative

planning (example: land pooling/land reconstitution in Outer Delhi, GIFT city in

Gujarat).

o

Redevelopement 50 acres:Replacement of existing built-up area and preparing a

new layout plan with enhanced infrastructure by way of mixed land use (example:

Kidwai Nagar in Delhi).

1.1.1 Objective

The objective of this report is to find out the competitiveness of Indian tier-1 cities based on

selected city parameters with reference of smart city dimensions.

1.1.2 Scope

Based on our findings, we will be analyzing the current situation of Indian cities and will

impart. Accordingly we have constructed graphs denoting the competitiveness of tier-1 cities.Barring Bangalore we had obtained results which more or less tally with analysis carried out

along similar lines in other studies. In the future, we would look forward to find out how the

parameters collected can be more foolproof in the sense that we can obtain values that would

give us more reliable results. Once that is done, we intend to carry out the competitiveness of

Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities as well. As required, we will be making some modifications

regarding the parameters considered.

1.2 Motivation

Challenges faced by cities and the need for smarter approaches are given below:

The urban infrastructure has grown piecemeal and rising urban population is puttingpressure on housing and transport.

Cities have a key role in improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions,while promoting energy resilience in terms of security of supply and price.

The scale of the challenges is forcing cities to rethink their strategies and to innovatein order to maintain service levels.


13/32

12 | P a g e

Now due to the above challenges the idea of smart cities is being given a big thrust. In order

to find out how suitable a city is for transforming into a smart city, we need to find the

competitiveness of the cities. It is to be noted that for our present scope we have considered

only the Tier -1 Indian cities (Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad).

Subsequently we plan to cover the tier 2 and tier 3 cities in our study as mentioned before.

1.2.1 GOI agenda on smart cities

The agenda of the Modi government is linked to the economic vision of creatingcentres of investment for private capital.

In the Election Manifesto of the BJP, the section of urban policy was titled UrbanAreas High Growth Centres with an explanatory note which states that citiesshould no longer remain a reflection of poverty and bottlenecks. Rather they should

become symbols of efficiency, speed and scale.

These aims are to be achieved by the formation of Smart Cities.

The manifesto hence promised that 100 new cities; enabled with the latest intechnology and infrastructure would be built.

In the Union Budget of 2014-15, Finance Minister Arun Jaitely announced that Rs. 70billion will be provided to develop 100 Smart Cities.

In order to allow foreign investors to have a larger say in this field, the entryrequirements for FDI in terms of minimum built up area and capital conditions werealso reduced.

To begin with, 20 cities would be selected after the state governments come forwardwith the names of the cities that they want to nominate. The city challengecompetition would be conducted by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

For each of these 20 cities, Rs 100 crores would be provided per year for five years.

In the next two years 40 cities would be selected.

A Special Purpose Vehicle will be created for each city to implement Smart Cityaction plan.

1.2.2 Criteria for identifying the smart cities

The criteria are listed below:

i. 9cities with a population of at least 4 million people.ii. 44cities in the population range of 1-4 million people

iii. 17 cities (state/ UT capitals) even if they have a population of less than a million.iv. 10cities of tourist and religious importancev. 20cities in the population range of 0.5-1 million.

For criteria (i) we can say that all the metro cities like Delhi, Mumbai etc. have been

considered.

For criteria (ii) we can say that cities like Indore have been considered where urban

development projects are going on with regards to various smart city aspects such as

streamlining of traffic, smart parking etc.

For category (iii) we can see that capital cities like Bhopal have been considered.


14/32

13 | P a g e

For category (iv) places of tourism and religious importance have been considered such as

Gaya which is a sacred place for the Buddhists.

For category (v), all the other cities have been considered like Chittoor.

Also what is worth mentioning is the fact that in all the cities, the minimum criteria has been

satisfied .It has been ensured that they have the bare minimum in terms of having the rightinfrastructure at the place.

The basic criteria for selection of a city/municipal area

Implementation of e-governance & online grievance redressal mechanism.

Publication of e-newsletter.

Putting all government expenditure before public.

At least 5% increase in coverage of lavatories since 2011 as a part of Swachh BharatAbhiyan.

Track record of paying to employees.

Track record of urban reforms and citizen participation being introduced.

Nominated smart cities in India

Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India has nominated 100 cities to make them smart

cities as given in table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Nominated Smart Cities in India

Tier-1 Tier -2 Tier-3

Delhi Allahabad Nashik Gulbarga BiharSharif

Kolkata Ahmedabad Patna Burhanpur Bhagalpur

Mumbai Amritsar Pune Gwalior Panipat

Chennai Aurangabad Ranchi Gandhinagar Tinsukia

Hyderabad Bhiwandi Salem Junagarh AmbalaBangalore Bhopal Rajkot Bhavnagar Tangla

Bhubaneshwar Surat Jangipur ObalguriBikaner Thiruvananthpuram Durgapur Goalpara

Patiala Tiruchirapalli Habra Rourkela

Coimbatore Haldia SambalpurCuttack Bidar Balasore

Dehradun Bijapur Shimla

Dhanbad Badami HaridwarFaridabad Kollam Roorkee

Guntur Kottayam Gangtok

Madurai Pattadakal Pelling

Nagpur Ernakulam YuksamLudhiana Thrisur Bishnupur

Lucknow Mahakuta ChandelKota Tiruvalla


15/32

14 | P a g e

Kochi Udaipur

Kanpur MuzafarpurJodhpur Ajmer

Jamshdepur Bharatpur

Jalandhar Faizabad

Jabalpur Jhansi

Jaipur ChittoorIndore Nalgonda

Guwahati KarimnagarGwalior Karnool

Tirunelveli Gaya

1.2.3 Specific Targets

Specific targets are listed below:

India is drawing on the development of smart cities at the global level.

Narendra Modis vision Digital India has a plan to build 100 smart cities across thenation.

Cities in the future will be built based on availability of optical fiber networks andnext-generation infrastructure.

Digital India envisages making India a leader in digitally delivering services in thesectors of health, education and banking.

Modi announced an investment of $1.2 billion in smart cities with more fundingcoming from private sectors and abroad.

The programme is expected to build new centres as well as improve on the existingones.

The smart cities mission would promote adoption of smart solutions for efficient use

of available resources, providing a clean and safe environment etc. There will be substantial focus on adequate and clean water supply, sanitation etc.

Citizens participation would be enhanced in prioritizing and planning urbaninterventions.

1.3 Build of the report

The report starts with the introduction of the project where the scope and the case scenarios

which are considered are mentioned.

In the second chapter review of the literature is presented along with the problem which we

have considered as our project work.

In the third chapter we have covered the concept of smart village.

The rest of the report is about the analysis (chapter 4) and inferences (chapter 5).

Three case scenarios have been considered which have some similarities with smart cities.

References are given at the end.


16/32

15 | P a g e

Chapter 2 Literature study

2.1 Literature Studies on City Competitiveness

From the previous studies on city competitiveness we have found that most of the authors

have used Porters diamond model to evaluate the city competitiveness. The summary is

given in table 2.1

Table 2.1Literature Studies on City Competitiveness

Paper 2013, IndianCityCompetitiveReport

2014, Measuring& analysis ofurbanCompetitiveness

2006, leadingcities of theworld andcompetitiveadvantages

Measuring ofcompetitiveness ofAustralian cities2012

2012, specifics ofmeasuring theurbancompetiveness

2012,benchmarking ofworld cities

Method

used

PortersDiamondModel,WeightModel, PCA

Porters DiamondModel

PortersDiamondModel,questionnaire

--------- Porters citymodel,Lithuanian urbancompetitiveindex, mixedmethod

GPCI-Japan selforganizing maps

Target of

study

50 cities ofIndia

31 provincialChinese capitals

31 Europeancities, 12 NorthAmericancities, 16 Asiancities, 9 LatinAmericancities, 5African cities,5 Middle Eastcities

18 Australian cities Lithuania n cities,Kansas city as acase study

Worlds major cities

Indicators

for data

analysis

12 75 34 3 factors, 19indicators

3 components, 7groups, 22factors, 30

indicators

6 functions, 21 groups,69 indicators

Uniqueness

of the study

Individualcity graphscovering allthe 12indicators

Major functionoriented zones,GIS basedanalysis

City profilesbased onclusters

Separate graphs foreach indicator,recommendationson urban policy andgovernance

Explanations ofeconometric, non-econometric(qualitative) andmixed method ofcompetitiveness

Hierarchical position ofcities, patterns anddynamics of world cities

One of the previous studies indicates the use of smart technology and describes the

applications in city ecosystem with respect to smart cities as given in table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Smart tech & applications in city ecosystem

Smart Tech Applications

SCOPE: Smart-city Cloud-based OpenPlatform and Ecosystem

Transportation and mobility services, Energyand environmental services etc.

Internet of Things Running of day-day city operations, citydevelopment strategies etc.

Geodesign Land based planning, urban planning


17/32

16 | P a g e

improvement, etc.

FIREBALL Community building, smart cities connectednetwork etc.

Streetline Analytics, Smart City sensing etc.

Source: wikipedia

2.1.1 Compilation of key global cities

Global cities index for existing smart cities is given in table 2.3

Table 2.3 Leading Cities in 2013

AT Kearney

Cities Global Cities Index

New York 1

London 2

Paris 3

Tokyo 4

Hong Kong 5

Seoul 8

Toronto 16

San Francisco 17

Amsterdam 26Source: AT Kearney , Global Cities Index 2013

New York. New York scored higher than most other cities in all the major the rankings. New

York partnered with IBM in 2009 to launch the IBM Business Analytics Solution Center to

address the growing demand for the complex capabilities needed to build smarter cities.

London. London is well-recognized for some of its sustainability innovations and its robust

transit system. London has a partnership with O2 to which provides the largest free Wi-Fi

network in Europe.

Paris: Paris scores well in several categories like innovation, green city, and digital

governance. Paris was already rated highly for its successful bike sharing program, Velib.

Tokyo: Tokyo scores well in the innovation and digital city categories. Tokyo is also focusedon promoting smart mobility solutions.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong does well in key areas such as digital governance ranking. Hong

Kong is experimenting with RFID technology in its airport, as well as across the agriculture

supply chain.


18/32

17 | P a g e

Seoul: Seoul had done significant work in the financial sector. For example, 4 major banks

have signed up to an energy saving app. Also it has done innovative work in the field of

tourism. For example, iTour Seoul provides integrated tour services with public

transportation.

Toronto: IBM recently launched a Business Analytics Solutions Center in Toronto. Toronto

is also an active member of the Clinton 40 (C40) megacities, which seek to transform into

low-carbon economy.

San Francisco: has done great work particularly in the area of citizen participation. For

example, it is quite active in fostering the usage of Open Data. Also with respect to traffic

some interesting aspects are there. For example Wireless sensors charge parking spaces with

respect to demand and help drivers find convenient place.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam has done great work particularly in the areas of education. Forexample crowd judging system rates Amsterdam schools on parents and student input. In the

areas of finance and economics we can say that Amsterdam is highly competitive as its low

corporate taxes and income taxes on foreign workers attract individuals and companies.

2.2 Indian running smart cities projects

Dholera SIR

Dholerais a town in Gujarat, India. It is an ancient port-city in Gulf of Khambhat, 30 km.

from Dhandhuka village of Ahmedabad district. One of the original six temples built

by Swaminarayan is located here. Dholera would be developed into a mega city by 2025,which would be 6 times the size of Shanghai. Dholera SIR is a major project under

the DMIC Project with an aim to make it a global manufacturing hub supported by world

class infrastructure.

Project goals in next five years are:

To double the employment potential

Triple industrial output

Figure 2.1 Dholera SIR


19/32

18 | P a g e

GIFT City

Gujarat International Finance Tec-Cityor GIFTis an under-construction central business

district in Gujarat. It will be built on 886 acres (3.59 km2) of land. Its main purpose is to

provide high quality physical infrastructure (electricity, water, gas, district cooling, roads,

telecoms and broadband), so that finance and tech firms can relocate their operations therefrom Mumbai, Bangalore, Gurgaon etc. where infrastructure is either inadequate or very

expensive.

Figure 2.3 GIFT City

Naya Raipur

Naya Raipuror New Raipuris the new capital of Chhattisgarh.

Naya Raipur is located between National Highways NH-6 and NH-43, it is 17 km away in the

south-east direction from Raipur; Swami Vivekananda Airport separates the old and new

cities. Naya Raipur is serving as the administrative capital of the State and also catering to the

infrastructural needs of industry and trade in the region. Naya Raipur is surrounded

by Raipur,Arang, Mahasamund, Rajim and Abhanpur.

Figure 2.4Naya Raipur


20/32

19 | P a g e

2.3 Comparison between Dholera, GIFT City and Naya Raipur

Table 2.4 Comparison of the 3 projects

Dholera GIFT City Naya Raipur

The construction is

underway.

The construction is also

under way.

The construction is complete.

It would be mainly acommercial city.

It would also be commercialcity.

It has been developed foradministrative purposes aswell.

By and large it would be agreen smart city model.

It would also be a greensmart city model.

It is a green smart city model.

Sports facilities are providedfor certain disciplines likegolf.

Sports facilities are absent. Sports facilities are there likeinternational cricket stadium.

Educational facilities are notpresent per se.

Educational facilities areabsent.

Educational scope is there asmany institutions have beenset up.


21/32

20 | P a g e

Chapter 3 Smart Village

3.1 Smart Village

Village performance depends on hard infrastructure (physical capital), and also on the

availability and quality of knowledge, communication & social infrastructure (intellectual

capital and social capital).A smart village has investments made in human and social capitalin addition to physical capital.

Also the Indian government is sincerely progressing with the idea of Adarsh Gram Yojna.

The plan aims to cover 2,500 villages by 2019 to focus on the all-round development of

villages, including economic, social, cultural growth and development.

Also under MNREGA there is a scope for asset management system using GIS, GPS &

Remote Sensing. The idea of NOFN i.e National Optical Fibre Network is also being

aggressively pursued.

Figure 3.1 Smart Village Ecosystem


22/32

21 | P a g e

Figure 3.2 Governance Model

3.2 Case Study: Pochampally Village

Pochampally Village

Pochampally does more than $22 Million annual business in yarn sales, purchase of

handloom products etc.

The marketing is done through the cooperative society and APCO, the master weavers

and the business houses.

Pochampally weavers association sell their products online throughpochampally.com.


23/32

22 | P a g e

Figure 3.3 Smart Village Pochampally Ecosystem

3.3 Case Study: Smart Village application in Australia

An NSW distributor Ausgrid has undertaken to build Australias 1st Smart Village. They

would be helping 1000 households to reduce their utility bills and carbon impact. The

households would be connected to a smart grid featuring more information about energy

consumption. They can use real time data of their water and electricity usage, use them

judiciously and can then benchmark with their neighbors.

3.4 Case Study: Smart Village application in Ireland

Suicide prevention app

With the help of this app, the suicide rates in the villages are expected to fall significantly.

This app will use Google maps to pull together local information to provide easy access to

helplines and websites. The app will repeal local offices and services to users i.e a call to any

helpline is just a click away.


24/32

23 | P a g e

Chapter 4 Methodology

4.1 APP Framework for Competitiveness

APP Framework consists of Competitive Assets, Competitive Processes and Competitive

Performance.

Competitive Assets

Factors which are often considered key sources of Competitiveness.

It contain factor costs, human resources, industry infrastructure, demand conditions

etc.

Competitive Processes

Factors which transforms assets into long term competitive performance

Consist of strategic mgmt., implementation, HR development, technological mgmt.,

etc.

Competitive Performance

Effectiveness and efficiency in satisfying the needs

Encompasses productivity, quality etc.

The three components of the basic concept can be adapted as three facets of competitiveness:

competitive assets, competitive processes and competitive performance. Each facet is

aggregation of several factors of competitiveness, the real elements. The factors can be

defined and measured in terms of criteria of competitiveness. Quantifying a multifacetedabstract concept such as competitiveness is very difficult. However, it is possible to break

down competitiveness into many distinct criteria that can be quantified independently. These

criteria are the basic building blocks of the competitiveness model.

Assets include factors which are often considered key sources of competitiveness. Traditional

economic theory attributes competitiveness to three basic assets: labor, capital, and natural

resources. Three key components of Porter's diamond (Porter, 1990) factor conditions,

demand conditions, and related and supporting industriesare considered parts of the assets.

Assets are dormant factors unless they are transformed by competitive processes. The

processes that ensure long term competitive performance are depicted as strategicmanagement practice. Strategic management practices at the industry level can be defined as

harmonious interaction among key stakeholders in creating and upgrading the assets for

sustainable performance. The concepts of firm strategies, structure, and rivalry in Porter's

diamond are considered parts of competitive processes. Radical improvements in the industry

productivity may come from innovative actions at the industry level, rather than unrelated

optimization or automation at the site level. Assets and performance are mostly based on past

statistical data, processes have more futuristic orientation. Hence, effective processes are


25/32

24 | P a g e

more likely to improve future performance and competitiveness. Thinking from an action and

result perspective, effective actions are prerequisite for successful results competitiveness is

primarily shaped by actions, not results. Actions are better reflected in processes than

performance.

The last but not the least important component of the competitiveness framework is

performance. Many consider performance, on cost or profit basis, as the sole facet of

competitiveness. The performance of an industry can be evaluated by its effectiveness and

efficiency in satisfying the needs of its customers and stakeholders. Financial criteria of cost

and profit alone are not sufficient.

When the APP Framework was proposed by Prof. Momaya, it was initially used for the

competitiveness of the economy. But thereafter, it was found to have implications for cities as

well. We can clearly note that factors like productivity, quality etc. have major ramifications

for cities as well.

4.2 Problem

Though we have previous studies carried out to find out the competitiveness of Indian cities,

they are not based explicitly on the smart city dimensions. So we have tried to address this

issue by considering the smart city dimensions.

Once the parameters are identified, data finding posed major problems as data or reliable data

was not available on many aspects.We have looked for extensive secondary data to measure a

citys competitiveness.

For the parameters finally considered, we collected data from 2011 to 2013 wherever

possible. The idea was that the greater is the time span considered; more might be the

reliability of the results. For calculating the results we used mainly the concept of standard

score.

4.3 Selected indicators

Indicators UnitsNumber of internet users Million

GDP per Capita $/yr

Growth rate of GDP %/yr

Number of World/historical Heritages [in100 Km]

Number

average rent [1 BHK] INR

Number of Colleges and Universities permillion persons

Number


26/32

25 | P a g e

number of hospitals beds per thousandpersons

Number

number of doctors per thousand persons Number

*Number of accidents per 100 lane miles Number

*Number of Total Traffic Crashes Number

*Livability Position Number

*Crime per 1000 residents Number

*Infant mortality rate Number of newborns dying for every 10,000live births

*Denotes negative indicators for which low value is effective.


27/32

26 | P a g e

Chapter 5 Results and Discussions

5.1 Results

Based on APP framework we have calculated the normal score for city competitiveness as

given in table 5.1

Table 5.1 Normal score of the tier-1 Indian cities

Normal

Score

Indicators Chennai Delhi Kolkata Mumbai Bangalore Hyderabad

Number ofinternet users

5.58 12.15 6.27 16.4 4.7 4.7

GDP per Capita 7300 3666 2500 4561 2265 1269

Growth rate ofGDP

0.061 0.1618 0.115 0.153 0.23 0.242

Number ofWorld/historicalHeritages [in 100Km]

0 3 0 4 0 3

average rent [1BHK]

5780 8000 5900 10000 6000 7500

Number ofColleges andUniversities permillion persons

21 28 39 19 17 21

number of

hospitals beds perthousand persons

2.1 4.113 6.1 2.3 2.7 1.5

number ofdoctors perthousand persons

2.3 2.53125 2.4 1.7222 1.84 1.76

Number ofaccidents per 100lane miles

9705 1800 4302 6784 5230 2409

Number of TotalTraffic Crashes

1401 1800 2103 2746 5230 2409

LivabilityPosition

2 5 6 1 4 3

Crime per 1000residents

3.6 3.8333 1.173 1.862 1.93 1.35

Infant mortalityrate

1.5 3 4.1 2.6 3.8 4.3


28/32

27 | P a g e

In the next step we have calculated the average and standard deviation from all 3 years data

for all the selected indicators as shown in table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Average and standard deviation

APP Framework

Indicators Avg Standard DeviationNumber of internet users 8.3 4.43

GDP per Capita 3593.5 1959.73

Growth rate of GDP 0.16 0.062

Number of World/historical Heritages [in100 Km]

1.67 1.69

average rent [1 BHK] 7197 1512

Number of Colleges and Universities per

million persons

24.17 7.45

number of hospitals beds per thousandpersons

3.13 1.548

number of doctors per thousand persons 1.67 0.533

Number of accidents per 100 lane miles 5038.3 2670.96

Number of Total Traffic Crashes 2614.8 1244.85

Livability Position 3.4 1.7

Crime per 1000 residents 2.09 1.06

Infant mortality rate 3.21 0.94

In the last stage, we have normalized the data according to APP framework and found the

total score for all the 6 cities. The total score is used to determine the competitiveness among

all 6 cities as given in table 5.3

Table 5.3 Standardized score

Indicators Chennai Delhi Kolkata Mumbai Bangalore Hyderabad

Number of

internet users

0.614 0.87 -0.46 1.83 -0.81 -0.81

GDP per Capita 1.89 0.04 -0.56 0.5 -0.68 -1.19

Growth rate ofGDP

-1.6 0.03 -0.73 -0.11 1.13 1.32

Number ofWorld/historicalHeritages [in

-0.99 0.79 -0.99 1.38 -0.99 0.79


29/32

28 | P a g e

100 Km]

average rent [1BHK]

-0.94 0.53 -0.86 1.85 -0.79 0.2

Number ofColleges and

Universities permillion persons

-0.5 0.44 1.92 -0.77 -1.03 -0.5

number ofhospitals beds

per thousandpersons

-0.67 0.64 1.92 -0.54 -0.28 -1.05

number ofdoctors perthousand

persons

1.18 1.61 1.37 0.098 0.32 0.17

Number of

accidents per100 lane miles

-1.75 1.12 0.28 -0.65 -0.07 0.99

Number ofTotal TrafficCrashes

0.97 0.65 0.41 -0.11 -2.1 0.166

LivabilityPosition

0.88 -0.88 -1.48 1.47 -0.3 0.3

Crime per 1000residents

-1.42 -1.64 0.87 0.22 0.15 0.67

infant mortality

rate

1.72 0.21 -0.92 0.63 0.61 -1.12

Total -0.616 4.41 0.77 5.798 -6.06 -0.064

Based on the total competitiveness score we have plotted the city competitiveness graph as

shown in figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 City competitiveness graph


30/32

29 | P a g e

5.2 Discussions

Data for all the parameters have been obtained from various governmental as well as non-

governmental websites. For Delhi, central government websites has been quite useful. In

general crime data has been obtained from the city polices website. We have used the data

from 2011-2013 for about 13 parameters.

Mumbai ranks 1stin the competitiveness profile. Delhi comes 2nd. Kolkata is also ranked on

the positive side of the competitiveness. Chennai ranks better than the Bangalore and

Hyderabad. So we find that the four original metros performing better than the new ones.

Probably we can infer that since the original 4 metros had social and economic frameworks in

place before Bangalore and Hyderabad, they are on the higher side of competitiveness. In the

coming decades, as the infrastructure catches up in Bangalore and Hyderabad, we can expect

the gap to close down surely.

With respect to Chennai, we can say that it has fallen behind Mumbai, Delhi etc. So for

removing some shortcomings they have decided to come up with the scheme-Chennai Mega

City Development Mission. Rs 500 crore for the same has been allocated already by the

state government.

With respects to Mumbai, we can say that the results are not at all surprising as a lot of

projects are going on. Like for example, Bandra Kurla complex project would become live

by 2017 with features like free high speed internet for 30 mins, smart parking lots with

electric cars etc.

5.3 Recommendations

When we constructed graphs based on the data obtained, we got results similar to other

studies done on the city competitiveness. This shows that the parameters which we haveshortlisted for the tier I Indian cities have been by and large satisfactory. They can be thought

of as a starting point for carrying out competitiveness study of tier -2 and tier 3 cities as well.

5.4 Implications for Research

With the availability of city data we can include more city parameters to evaluate the city

competitiveness. The problem might be more in case of Tier-2 and Tier 3 cities. So it is quite

possible that then we might have to consider somewhat different parameters than what we

considered for the Tier-1 cities keeping in mind the ground realities. The lessons could be

suitably applied for Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities as well.

5.5 Implications for Practice

Based on our selected criteria and parameters, Bangalore is showing some discrepancy. It

might be possible that the obtained results could have changed for exhaustive selection of city

indicators. As a part of our future study, we are trying to find out how we can bring more

satisfactory results. Also from the framework used, we would extend our work for the Tier-2

and Tier-3 cities as well.


31/32

30 | P a g e

5.6 Conclusions

City competitiveness is a major driver for the development of smart cities. The indicators

used in APP Framework can be used as city performance for tier-2 and tier-3 cities. A lot of

challenges have been found to determine the city indicators and competitiveness in the

context of smart cities. The competitiveness score maps out the strengths and weaknesses of

cities which should be improved to match the benchmark standards of smart cities. The

implementation of effective strategies and actions in urban development ensures the vision of

developing 100 smart cities in India.


32/32

References

Arribas-Bel, D., et al. Benchmarking of world cities through Self-Organizing Maps. J.

Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.019

Bruneckiene J., Cincikaite R., Kilijoniene A., (2012). "The Specifics of Measurement

the Urban Competitiveness at the National and International Level", InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics, 23(3), 256-270.

Chourabi, H. etal (2012). Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework,

HICSS Proceedings, 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Page

2289-2297.

Forbes.com

Giffinger, R. (2007). Smart cities Ranking of European medium sized cities, Final

report, October.

Harrison, C., Donnelly, I. A. (2011). A theory of smart cities, in Proceedings of the

55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS.

Harry Grosveld, (2006). The Leading Cities of the World and their Competitive

Advantages: The Perception of Citymakers, GD Voorwerk (4 pag.) 25-Oct.

India City Competitiveness Report 2013.

Measuring the Competitiveness of Australian Cities, 2012, Report

Momaya. Evaluating International Competitiveness at the Industry Level.

Nam, T., Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions oftechnology, people, and institutions, Proceedings of the 12th Annual International

Digital Government Research. ACM New York, NY, USA. Pages 282-291.

Novotn, R., Kuchta, R., Kadlec, J. (2014). Smart City Concept, Applications and

Services, J Telecommun Syst Manage 3:117. doi:10.4172/2167-0919.1000117.

Qingyun et al (2014). Measuring and Analysis of Urban Competitiveness of Chinese

Provincial Capitals in 2010 under the Constraints of Major Function-Oriented Zoning

Utilizing Spatial Analysis, Sustainability

2014, 6, 3374-3399;

doi:10.3390/su6063374

Rural Connect, November 2014, Vol 2.

Saxena, R. Asset Management System using GIS, GPS and Remote Sensing .

Viswanadham, N (2014). Design of Smart Villages.

major project_final version

Documents