Journal of Infrastructure Systems.

Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;

posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

Civil Infrastructure Decision Making as a Chaotic Socio-Technical System: The Role of

Information Systems in Engaging Stakeholders and Democratizing Innovation

By Tamer E. El-Diraby1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT:

t
ip
The web is morphing into a socioeconomic fact of life. The advancement of semantic web and

d cr
the increased penetration of social web are empowering people to harness their collective

intelligence to create, collaborate and trade in knowledge. Starting from this observation, a

te s
di nu
scenario for community-based, knowledge-intensive environment for development and

management of civil infrastructure is presented. The proposed scenario was inspired by similar
ye a
trends in other industries and analysis of recent cases where the web influenced civil
op M

infrastructure development and planning. The proposed scenario embraces open, bottom-up

decision making processes where communities are empowered to develop, share and test ideas
C ted

for infrastructure projects. Engineers and public officials are responsible for supporting the self-

organizing emergence of these, expectedly, chaotic ideas. Putting the development process on
ot p

the edge of chaos supports innovation and does not mean randomness. Consequently, it should
N ce

be embraced by all. Accordingly, our analysis tools have to focus more towards analysis of
Ac

networks of people and their ideas; support autonomous evolutionary approaches that can collate

chaotic ideas; provide communities with semantic-enabled analysis tools to support the

generation of ideas; encourage the evolution of infrastructure Apps; and provide platforms for

their dynamic linkage.

1
Associate Prof. & Director, Ctr. for Civil Informatics, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada.
tamer@ecf.utoronto.ca.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

INTRODUCTION

The web is no longer simply a medium for people to exchange text. Thanks to social media

(Web 2.0), it is morphing into a new socioeconomic space where e-citizen, e-democracy and

crowdsourcing are becoming not only cultural paradigms, but also business drivers. Web 3.0 (the

semantic web) is promising to integrate meaning, text mining, and lexical analysis into web
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

transactions. Beyond commenting and sharing media, the upcoming Web 4.0 (some call it

t
ip
intelligent web) aims to foster the realization of the knowledge society, where people harness

d cr
“collective intelligence” to achieve not only social goals, but more importantly, co-develop

te s
knowledge products (Apps or analysis tools) that can be sold in the global marketplace (Hendler

di nu
and Berners-Lee 2010). In such connected, knowledge-savvy society, a future where

communities really lead decision making in urban infrastructure is not far-fetched. Empowered
ye a
by Apps and interactive authoring tools, communities will be able to develop project ideas
op M

(technical and non-technical). They will also be able to analyze ideas by others and collaborate
C ted

to bridge gaps and collate ideas. In such situation, the roles (and value-added) of public officials

and engineers shift from developing/presenting project ideas to communities into a realm where

they work and develop tools for enabling and facilitating the self-organization of citizens’ own
ot p
N ce

ideas.

This paper presents a vision for the future of infrastructure development and decision making in
Ac

light of emerging socioeconomic and technical forces that are shaping our society—mainly the

increasing desire for sustainability, globalization, e-society, and the knowledge economy. The

objective of this rather hypothetical (and certainly fallible) scenario is not to predict the future.

Rather, the aim is to stimulate a discussion about such future, with specific emphasis on the role

of engineers in the evolving knowledge economy.

Metaphorically, in the typical mode of operation of infrastructure, the customer (the general

public) delegates decision powers to public officials. Public officials retain engineers to provide

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

professional technical services. The introduction of environmental review and community

engagement (CE) legislations in the 1970s was supposed to bring some bottom-up input (views

from the community) to the planning and decision making processes. However, CE processes

typically exemplified a “decide, announce, defend” mentality (Beierle 1999). Lately, the lack of

suitable understanding of the needs of the web-native “stakeholders” contrasts with social trends
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and the very essence of sustainable development (where social needs are at the centre).

t
ip
Consequently, increasing community opposition to projects have been documented in many

d cr
cases with impacts on total project costs and duration.

te s
One way that cities are trying to catch up is through the use of social media tools for CE, such as

di nu
crowdsourcing. For example, SeeClickFix (a facebook-like site) is a new application that enables

users in many cities to report issues with infrastructure (Nash 2009). CBC (the Canadain
ye a
op M

Broadcasting Corporation) used a virtual game along with an online news story to let readers

generate and study funding options for the mushrooming infrastructure deficit (CBC 2011).
C ted

As interesting as these “reactive” applications may be, knowledge-empowered communities are

starting to develop more proactive applications. It is hypothesized that, like other issues of life,
ot p

the public will want to be the direct source of all ideas—technical and non-technical. They will
N ce

want public officials and engineers to use their professional knowledge in technology and
Ac

business to help them analyze and collate their own ideas, resolve conflicts, and professionally

produce their ideas into a viable project. As a case in point, in 2004, the Mayor of Paris

announced renovation plans for the Les Halles Garden. A local residents' association objected

due to the inadequate level of residents’ involvement. As a counter-effort they bid the design job

to users of Second Life—a virtual reality/parallel world web site, where people create avatars

(virtual-doubles) of themselves. As an incentive, the winning project was to receive 275,000

lindens (the e-currency of Second Life). Virtual teams from across the world worked together to

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

develop a new design for the facility. The winning design was developed by a French group with

“global” virtual help from Canada, China, and Germany (see L’association ACCOMPLIR 2010).

THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE: A PERSPECTIVE

Beyond the simple (and sometimes, flashy) use of Apps, these developments are indicatives of a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

more subtle changes in the very essence of how community interacts with civil infrastructure

t
ip
systems. It is hypothesized that communities are poised to demand a greater role in starting and

d cr
configuring project features (technical and non technical) in a true bottom-up approach. Such

drastic evolution of the modus operandi of infrastructure is but a new phase of a longer evolution

te s
di nu
that has been taking shape over the last century. It is argued that, over the last century,

infrastructure evolved over three phases: service, asset and industry. Traditionally, infrastructure
ye a
systems were viewed as public services provided by the government for its citizens to assure
op M

public health and to support economic activities. In developed countries and by the late 1970s,

maintenance of existing (sometimes ailing) urban infrastructure took over construction of new
C ted

ones as the main task in the AEC (Architecture, Engineering, Construction) domain.

Infrastructure was recognized as a national “asset” that needs to be managed well to preserve its
ot p

function. Quickly thereafter and with the opening of global markets and the increasing
N ce

acceptance of deregulation, features of a full-fledged industry are maturing in the domain. Of

Ac

course, not all communities have reached the “industrial” phase. Even within the same

jurisdiction, different sectors of infrastructure have not “evolved” equally—with

telecommunication and power sector typically leading the way in general.

The evolution of infrastructure from a “service artifact” to a “national asset” and then into an

“industrial-like commodity” has had significant impacts on three fundamental dimensions:

engineering, management, and policy making (see Figure 1). In the “service” phase, engineering

work focused on the design aspects of facilities (structural integrity, and public safety). Design

work, typically concentrated on a single project, considered technical issues mainly, and

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

emphasized only direct costs. Value engineering and later constructability analysis were issues

that engineers considered, again within a single project scope. During the “asset” phase, the role

of engineering evolved to study issues such as structural deterioration, rehabilitation mechanisms

and life cycle analysis and costing. The evolution of many public works departments in Australia

(such as The Hunter Water Board in New South Wales) represents a sample success story for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deliberate and sustainable evolution from the “service providing” to “asset management”

t
ip
mentality.

d cr
<insert Figure 1>

te s
Finally, in the “industry” phase, engineering work is starting to focus on issues such as

di nu
formalizing environmental and social analysis studies within multi-project scenarios in what can
ye a
be called holistic “urban engineering” analysis (using, for example, industrial symbiosis
op M

principles, city-level resource metabolism, urban energy usage, localized recycling systems). The

City of Malmö, Sweden is a case in point. The city enacted plans to assure that by 2020 it will be
C ted

climate neutral and by 2030 the whole municipality will run on 100% renewable energy. By

2015, all city buses will be fossil-free (Malmö, 2011).

ot p
N ce

On the management dimension, during the “service” phase, the focus was on fair contracting and

bidding systems; securing budgets for new construction, and cost optimization at the single
Ac

project level (using value engineering, for example). In the “asset” phase, focus shifted to issues

such as performance evaluation (from physical and service points of view), integrated decision

making, and long-term budgeting. In the “industry” phase, the managerial dimension witnessed

the emergence of global conglomerates in the management of infrastructure assets.

Adoption of global, manufacturing-like industrial patterns can be observed in the transformation

of the Chinese Railway Engineering company to an international conglomerate, the spin-off of a

private construction company by the Finnish road authority, and the formation of a quasi-

consulting firm by Dutch municipalities–advising cities in emerging economies on sustainable

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

planning and efficient governance. In the Hunter Water Board case, around 100 of their

employees worked for a subsidiary that provided service to Hunter Water and earned external

income from other utilities by providing a range of consulting and operating services (GAO

2004).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Public policies also evolved as the industry matured. Initially, the focus was on design codes,

t
contracting practices, and environmental assessment. In the “asset” phase, the focus shifted to

ip
accounting and valuation of public assets along with a push for full cost pricing (through realistic

d cr
user fees) and investigation of alternative finance schema (public private partnerships). This was

te s
very clear in the privatization of many water and wastewater facilities (in France and the UK, for

di nu
example). Finally, in the “industry” phase, the focus shifted towards enhancing the governance

model of public and privatized infrastructure systems. The evolution of the British governing
ye a
op M

bodies of water entities is a case in point. Initially, there was a limited structure. Currently, a

multi-board elaborate system controls asset performance, pricing and finance, and environmental
C ted

stewardship.

The Finnish road authority’s self-imposed reengineering is also a case in point. Fundamentally,
ot p

the road authority incubated a smart, viable, knowledge-savvy industry in road construction,
N ce

operation and maintenance as well as traffic management. This was done through two
Ac

fundamental means: experimenting with advanced procurement and project delivery systems that

pushed local industry to re-invent itself; and bold move to establish risk-based partnerships with

local industry that fostered innovation and collaboration in knowledge generation and sharing.

The authority then spun off its highly-competitive construction department into a separate

company to propel change and compete locally and internationally. It, then, reinvented itself to

focus on becoming a powerhouse of knowledge in planning, decision making and operations to

“provide better customer services” (FINNRA 2006).

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE

Four major socio-economic drivers are gearing the evolution of infrastructure beyond an

industry—these are (see Figure 1):

x Sustainability: the true essence of sustainability is to blend the project (the brick and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mortar) into its social and environmental fabric. This has effectively added a set of new

t
technical considerations to project design (mainly environmental issues and

ip
consequences). It also introduced some non-technical and subjective issues to project
design and construction practices—especially as it relates to estimating and

d cr
accommodating community needs (for more discussion see, Shalaby et al. 2005).

te s
x e-society: this is a reference to the extensive use of information technology in e-business

di nu
and e-government in order to achieve higher levels of efficiency, deliver information to users in
timely manner, and to empower citizens to participate in government and business activities. e-
ye a
society is based on the premise of ubiquitous availability, access and use of information.
op M

Fostering communication between people (through digital media and peer to peer systems) can
create social networks, promote collaboration between citizens, and improve the distribution of
knowledge (Castells 2005).
C ted

x Globalization: the breakage of trade barriers and infrastructure deregulation have

encouraged multi-national companies to assume responsibility for developing and
ot p

managing projects (including urban infrastructure systems) using private funds almost all
N ce

over the world. This not only required companies to adapt design work to local technical
standards but also mandated greater emphasis (re-orientation towards) the analysis of
financial and political risks, and deeper understanding/accommodation of social norms.
Ac

x Knowledge economy: global access to markets and talent along with advancement in
information technology and the evolution of more agile (and virtual) organizational
structures have allowed companies to trade in knowledge. A knowledge product is a
piece of knowledge that can be commercialized in the form of a sophisticated/advanced
product, a software, or a service. It is based (but not limited to) the results of extensive
research and development or innovative reconfiguration/delivery of services. the basic
features of producers of such products (knowledge organizations) include agility and the
consistent formalization (in most cases, codification) of intellectual capabilities combined
with efforts to integrate improvements in every stage of the production. The knowledge

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

economy refers to development, trade and usage (supply chains) of knowledge-intensive

products and services, which accelerate the pace of technological and efficiency gains but
at the same time are characterized with an equally rapid obsolescence rate (Powell and
Snellman 2004).

It is hypothesized that interaction and maturity of these four drivers along with the entrenchment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of social media in the socio-economic fabric of modern societies are poised to create a new era in

t
ip
the evolution of urban infrastructure that shifts it from the realm of professional practices

d cr
(engineering and business) to a socio-technical realm. A socio-technical system is a reference to

the interaction between people and the technology they use. It advocates the study and role of

te s
di nu
social networks in innovating and using technical systems. Unlike top-down management

approaches, these systems tend to involve/encourage a bottom-up participation, team autonomy and
ye a
discretionary behavior, and self-regulation (Geels 2004; Kain 2003).
op M

This does not merely mean a greater role for social factors in the design and management of
C ted

infrastructure. Rather, with the increased level of knowledge and connectivity of citizens, it is

expected that they can contribute to the design of new project at a quasi-professional level or at

least challenge the designs/suggestions of engineers with compelling arguments. Indeed, they
ot p
N ce

may be able to come up with new more innovative ideas on their own. It is important to notice

that many of the bold technical “ideas” for boosting sustainable cities originated from within a
Ac

social context (the sustainability-savvy community). Van Herzle (2004) found that inclusion of

non-expert knowledge was beneficial to the planning process given that the diversity of

perspectives (especially of those who are outside of the professional bubble) can (re)discover

creative solutions. Several studies (Lakhani et al. 2009; Von Hipple 2005; Lakhani and Panetta

2007) have found evidence that engaging non-experts in scientific problem solving and product

design (called citizen science), often resulted in superior solutions. Further, such solutions are,

by default, context-sensitive (Corburn 2003).

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

As infrastructure moves closer to the realm of social systems with active engagement and

innovation from the users, four features are evident in the new era of (as shown in the

background of Figure 1):

x Changes to decision makers: the first feature is a significant and proactive role of citizens
in the decision making process.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
x Changes to decision criteria: it is obvious that safety and direct or even life cycle cost are

ip
no longer the main criteria upon which decisions are made in the new era. Every idea (or

d cr
part of a project) has to be evaluated against a wide array of subjective and social-savvy
criteria to test ts contribution to the triple bottom lines of local sustainability.

te s
x Changes to decision contents: the very definition of an infrastructure project is changing.

di nu
Currently, it is defined/viewed through a professional prism. We are poised to not only
see an increase in the number of possible solutions (design options) but also marked
ye a
differences in the nature and contents of these solution ideas—as diversified as its
op M

stakeholders. It is expected that these ideas can include drastic changes to business and
engineering norms. For example, the new transportation system in Malmö (with its rather
C ted

cold weather) emphasis bicycling. In Toronto, where the law mandates a minimum
number of parking spots for any new building, a new high-rise is being built without any
because all residents committed to using public transit, bicycling and ride sharing in all
ot p

their transportation
N ce

x Complexity: the interactions within of each of the above items and between them are not
only complex but also dynamic and evolutionary in nature (possibility chaotic), which
Ac

adds to the challenges of decision making.

EDGE OF CHAOS: FROM SERVING SOCIAL SYSTEMS TO BEING PART OF IT

The new incarnation of infrastructure decision making (as hypothesized here) is essentially

evolutionary, innovative and chaotic. The word chaos does not necessarily means random,

unpredictable or unintelligent. To the contrary, it refers to complex systems that beneath a thin

crust of randomness include and are built on an interesting (patterns of) order. Self-organizing

natural systems are some of the best examples of chaotic behaviour. On the surface, ants in a

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

colony do not portray formal order in their behaviour. Yet, the result of their work is an orderly

and efficient sustainable, physical and social system.

Non-linearity and feedback loop: Chaos typically refers to a system with a kind of order without

periodicity. Formally, the theory of chaos refers to the qualitative study of unstable aperiodic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

behaviour in deterministic nonlinear dynamical system. This system has very influential

t
feedback loops from the environment (or from within the system itself) that help in the evolution

ip
of the system itself. This can be observed in typical decision making in societies (both traditional

d cr
and web-based), whether these societies are professional or not. Chaotic systems can be seen as

te s
dynamic, evolutionary networks, where nodes in the network share influence and feedback

di nu
(Kellert 1993).
ye a
Divergence-Convergence and Sensitivity of Initial Conditions: The uniqueness of each
op M

community situation has been seen as a major reason for adopting context-sensitive design.

Differences in the decision making environment can have major impacts on the design exercise
C ted

or the outcome of the project evaluation process. This mimics the “butterfly effect” typically

associated with chaotic systems, in which a wing flap by a butterfly in one end of the world can
ot p

be linked to the generation of a typhoon or hurricane somewhere else on the globe. Of course,
N ce

this catchy example is meant to draw attention to the idea rather than actually asserting it. In
Ac

essence, the butterfly effect is meant to emphasis the bifurcation that takes place in chaotic

systems. It refers to the splitting or diversion of two almost identical or synchronous entities

(processes, situations, conditions) due to sensitivities of the initial conditions of the two entities

(for more, see Thietart and Forgues 1995). To illustrate, the re-design of a street in two commercial

areas in the same suburbia are almost identical exercises. However, the final outcome of these

two exercises could be completely different. In one exercise, some initial changes in the

composition of the community, the topology, the design team, the budget or the presence of a

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

single activist at a single meeting can lead this exercise to follow different routes from an almost

exactly similar situation.

Self organization and innovation: Irrespective of non-linearity and the constant bifurcation,

chaotic systems self-organize. Without an overarching order or a plan, entities within a chaotic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

system re-calculate, adapt and re-invent their behaviour and actions in a dynamic manner to

t
reach equilibrium. Perturbation of chaotic systems creates order (at the macro level) from the

ip
seemingly disordered behaviour of its members (at the micro level). One can view the

d cr
development of infrastructure designs in an open knowledge-enabled e-society context as an ad

te s
hoc virtual organization. Within this organization, each member would contribute ideas and

di nu
interact with others in a completely independent and, possibly, un-ordered manner. Yet, this

organization can “evolve” and/or “generate” a collective design after a period/incident of

ye a
op M

bifurcation.

In fact, the imbalance (chaos) associated with the conflicting (disordered) ideas is the
C ted

fundamental source of innovation in social systems. The "off-balance" created by new ideas

lends itself to regrouping and re-evaluating by the adaptive chaotic system to make needed
ot p

adjustments and regain equilibrium. The co-existence of chaos punctuated equilibrium and self-
N ce

awareness and self-adaptation allows knowledge organizations to open the gates for innovation
Ac

and, at the same time, harness that in an orderly fashion (see Anderson 1999). The .com boom

showed that stagnant organizations are poised to die in the knowledge economy. The .com bust,

also showed that organizations that cannot self-organize their open (disorderly generated)

innovations will not survive. The existence (or oscillation) between disorder and order (or what

is called edge of chaos) is what sustains an organization in the knowledge economy where it,

first, support idea generation and then channel that into meaningful outcomes.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

DECISION-MAKING IN THE FUTURE: INNOVATION THROUGH COLLECTIVE

SELF-ORGANIZATION

It is envisioned that infrastructure projects will be scoped and designed through open social

portals, where people will participate with their ideas and wishes for any new project. As shown

in Figure 2, networks of people (P) and ideas (I) will be formed. At the surface, these are social
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
networks (S1) that link people to others or people to ideas: who is linked to which idea, who has

ip
similar ideas to who, and which ideas share supporters. To add depth to these linkages,

d cr
folksonomies and ontologies can be used to create a semantic network (S2) on top of S1. While

te s
ontology is a formal (typically top-down) semantic model of knowledge, folksonomy is a

di nu
bottom-up (sometimes ad hoc) set of related semantic terms and representations of concepts

generated in almost ad hoc fashion by a group of people (see Kartin 2007). Text mining can be
ye a
used to study similarities and matches between ideas through measuring what is sometimes
op M

called semantic distances. Ideas will be linked not based on the people who developed them but
C ted

based on their semantic contents. Consequently, ideas can be clustered and common ideas can be

discovered (shown by the circular button in Figure 2). Adding semantics and meaning to the idea
ot p

networks has several advantages. Ideas of similar contents form previous or other projects
N ce

(shown as ovals in Figure 2) can be added to this network to inform community of related ideas.

Relevant tools (applications) can be suggested. These can help in analyzing ideas or showing
Ac

relevant legal and other constraints that may have impact on the ideas being considered.

Semantic representation (profiling) of people can detect synergies and discover/foster the

creation of advocacy groups that are not necessarily linked to each other directly (in the social

network). Lead innovators of these groups can also be identified (shown with the square button

in Figure 2) for possible inclusion in focus groups or negotiations (von Hippel 1986).

<insert Figure 2>

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

Figure 3 shows a view of how the public, “their” public officials, and consulting engineers will

interact to weave a cohesive innovative solution from chaotic input. People will be invited to

access the project portal to add ideas, which are acceptably chaotic (1). Public agencies will join

the brainstorming with some ideas of their own (2). Keen on reaching a coherent “ordered”

solution without hindering the evolution of innovation, at the right time, they can provide
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

feedback on ideas, discuss impacts, and explain (not impose) and even help overcome

t
ip
constraints. For-profit and Non-government organization can also join the portal to advocate

d cr
ideas. Mediating engineering firms that can support coordinated flow and management of ideas

te s
will be retained to facilitate the flow of ideas and support community innovation (3).

di nu
All participants will communicate through an interactive portal. Their ideas and discussions

along with their social networks will be observed and analyzed through S1 and S2 as explained
ye a
op M

above (4). The portal will provide communities with software (S3) to submit/draft ideas, change

some of the attributes of existing options and study the impacts of any changes on a variety of
C ted

decision attributes (CO2 emissions, average travel time, costs, project duration). It will also use

process management systems to create ad hoc linkage between different players as needed (to
ot p

help them collaborate, team up, or resolve problems).

N ce

S3 will be developed as a PaaS (Platform as a service), which is part of the cloud computing
Ac

paradigm. Cloud computing is a technology and business model for providing computational

services on-demand through online access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources

that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal effort on behalf of the user (Mell and

Grance 2011). It basically means that business can outsource many of the IT Department tasks to

well-established fully-staffed third parties. This includes outsourcing the hardware needed for

data warehousing (called infrastructure as a service, IaaS) and also outsourcing the debugging

and upgrading of software (called Software as a service, SaaS). Effectively, cloud computing

means that users (or businesses) can focus on sharing/managing their core competencies (ideas)

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

with limited worries about managing IT architectures or programming software systems. They

can be of great help to municipalities as they struggle with the increasing data volumes, high

turnover in personnel, and the constant changes to software. Advanced forms of cloud services

allow end users to combine a variety of software and Apps to create new Apps (called Platform

as a service, PaaS).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
To this end, we need to benchmark the successful work on BIM (Building Information Models)

ip
into the infrastructure domain. However, we should not aim for just an IIM (infrastructure

d cr
information Model). Rather, we should learn from the lessons of BIM and move towards

te s
advanced knowledge management tools. This includes (6) the use of Cloud computing tools to

di nu
shield users from programming issues; social network analysis tools to detect communities and

collate teams and ideas; semantic systems to facilitate interoperability and provide
ye a
op M

textual/linguistics analysis means. This platform for managing the data, people and processes of

infrastructure analysis will hereinafter be referred to as IIM+3 (standing for infrastructure

C ted

information models that are equipped with these three technologies). Through iterative

consideration of the chaotic ideas and analysis of their merit, an innovative good-enough
ot p

(agreeable and not necessarily optimal) will emerge (7). Finally, engineers and public officials
N ce

will have to work on distilling lessons learned from each project back into IIM+3 (8).
Ac

<insert figure 3>

Empowered with SOA-enabled systems, engineers will coordinate several facets of the chaotic

systems:

S1: Understand and manage the inclusion of community (at the edge of chaos): the objective

here is to provide real-time monitoring and support to the “social” side of the evolving networks

of ideas and people. This includes tracking the profiles of people and ideas, measuring network

attributes, testing and comparing the evolving networks to historical ones or similar ones in other

jurisdictions, and analyzing evolving patterns (of ideas and community teams).

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

S2: Distil ideas and support decision making (foster self-organization): the objective here is to

support the self organization of ideas by infusing meaning and some order on these ideas. These

ideas should be linked to abstract knowledge (represented in the ontology) to help cluster ideas

and people—for example, collating and/or linking similar ideas, providing feedback and

educated analysis of common questions, facilitating the augmentation of ideas, distilling

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

common themes, and benchmarking evolving ideas with similar ideas from other projects.

t
ip
S3: Support the seamless operation of the IIM+3 (broker knowledge): the main role of engineers

d cr
is to use these tools for suggesting analysis resources, customizing generic (off the shelf)

te s
analysis tools to the needs of the project at hand and the existing networks, and troubleshooting

di nu
tool integration problems. Further, this task should also include conducting additional needed

analyses (that were not addressed by the community), and supporting the analysis by keeping
ye a
op M

and showing macro statistics of major indicators.

Post project analysis (Update the knowledge): the role of engineers is to work with experts to
C ted

learn from project networks and update existing ontologies, and develop advanced tools for the

management of “networked” ideas and (formal) means to foster community innovation.

ot p
N ce

PUBLIC AGENCIES: KNOWLEDGE AS A NATIONAL ASSET

Essentially, the envisioned decision making process portrays elements of complex networks
Ac

behaviour (Taylor and Bernstein 2009). Beyond searching for solution mechanisms, the true

need is to understand the dynamics of innovation that will take place in such networks (Taylor

and Levitt 2007). Approaches such as the stigmergy collaboration provide explanation about

how ad hoc online groups work together (Elliott 2006). Understanding the way these ad hoc

networks function will revamp the decision making process, help clarify the true needs/opinions

of the community and, hence, allow public decision makers to empower community to innovate.

Still, such new process will/can support finding an optimal solution (in this case, a consensus

amongst all participants or at least a design that satisfy most of them). In short, the role of public

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

agencies is not to create these “Apps”. In fact they should avoid that. In contrast, the focus

should be to create economics (market conditions) to develop these “Apps” based on the

ingenuity of researchers, professionals, software developers, and more importantly, knowledge

society at large. The role of public agencies is no longer to findthe best solution but to furnish

and enable a process to empower communities to discover it through democratizing innovation

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(von Hippel 2005).

t
ip
In this view, they will be dedicated to acquiring and promoting knowledge-based systems. On

d cr
the technical level, instead of micro-managing the technical/engineering details of designs,

te s
public agencies should focus on maintaining a knowledge management platform (IIM+3) to

di nu
assure that society is the innovator. On the business level, they can adopt business measures that

promote and reward knowledge generation and sale by private enterprises; establishing and
ye a
op M

tracking performance measures of the state of infrastructure knowledge as a national asset (its

generation, usage, levels of trade, costs, benefits, outreach, quality, coverage, access, usability).
C ted

In fact, the central function of government agencies (like the Department of Transportation, or

the Electricity Board) is to be transferred into the central bankers of infrastructure knowledge
ot p

industry. In other words, adopt business-like means to buy knowledge services from private
N ce

enterprises and in doing so, entice them to invest in and trade in knowledge products. At the
Ac

same time, public agencies should watch the vital statistics and trends of such knowledge

enterprises and enact policies that promote more competency, competiveness and resiliency in

such industry. Elements of such metaphor have been seen in the evolution of the Finnish Road

authority. The Singapore Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is another example in

transferring public agencies into knowledge custodians. BCA adopted three tools/strategies to

create a market (a demand and supply conditions) for knowledge. First, the authority has

invested in a system for collecting constructability ideas that is based on partnering with

contractors. This was coupled with a training and communication programs to support the

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

implementation of new idea and an annual award for excellence and innovation. Second, this

was coupled with extensive investments in e-services. e-services were not just limited to online

business and e-bidding (to expedite transactions and handle data mismatches) but were

intelligently designed to boost the collection, use, and promotion of knowledge through a BIM-

based automated permitting system with integrated advice on best practices and means to meet
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

code requirements. Finally, BCA changed its contract award systems to incorporate not only past

t
ip
performance but also excellence in research/innovation by contractors.

d cr
SUMMARY

te s
di nu
Globalization, deregulation and the evolving knowledge economy along with the calls for

sustainable systems, the push for new urbanism, and the increasing interest in context-sensitive
ye a
designs are pushing for changing the current decision making system in civil infrastructure.
op M

It is argued that infrastructure is, finally, being transferred from a technical/business project into
C ted

a socio-technical project that is part of the evolving knowledge economy and e-society. Civil

infrastructure projects will be managed by ad hoc virtual organizations where the customers are
ot p

the key innovators, public officials are the supporters of innovation (by explaining and, when
N ce

possible, breaking constraints), and engineers coordinate and manage idea/people networks.
Ac

Researchers, professionals and public officials have to adopt new business models to add value

in this new vision. How can we (researchers, decision makers and industrial stakeholders),

support a reverse marketing system in infrastructure design and management. In other words,

how can we help communities come up, evaluate and promote their own socio-technical

“random” ideas, on the one hand, and then drive innovative order from these ideas on the other?

How can we establish trust and open exchange of ideas and needs between community on one

side and public agencies and industry on the other side? How can we broker knowledge and its

flow between stakeholders?

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research work has been supported through a grant from NSERC: Natural Science and

Engineering Research Council of Canada.

REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
Anderson, P. (1999). “Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science”, Organization

ip
Science, Vol. 10 (3).

d cr
Castells, M. (2005). “The Network Society: from Knowledge to Policy”, in Castells, M. and

te s
Cardoso, G. (eds) The Network Society From Knowledge to Policy, Center for Transatlantic

di nu
Relations, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins

University
ye a
Corburn, J. (2003). “Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making:
op M

Improving Urban Planning for Communities at Risk”, J. of Planning Education and

C ted

Research, Vol. 22, No. 4.

Elliott, M. (2006). “Stigmergic Collaboration: The Evolution of Group Work”, J. of Media and

Culture, Vol. 9(2).

ot p
N ce

FINNRA. (2006). “Finnra’s Procurement 2010-Road Management Procurement Strategy”,

www.tiehallinto.fi <accessed July 2006>.

Ac

GAO-General Accounting Office. (2004). “Water infrastructure: comprehensive asset

management has potential to help utilities identify needs and plan future investments”, Report

#GAO-04-461, General Accounting Office, Washington D.C.

Geels, F. W. (2004). “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems Insights

about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory”, Research Policy, Vol.

33.

Goethals, F. (2009). “The unified business model framework”, report #CNRS-LEM (UMR 8179),

IÉSEG School of Management, Lille, France.

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

Hendler, J. and Berners-Lee, J. (2010). “From the Semantic Web to social machines: A research

challenge for AI on the World Wide Web”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 174 (2).

Kain, J. (2003). “Sociotechnical Knowledge. An Operationalised Approach to Localised

Infrastructure Planning and Sustainable Urban Development”, PhD thesis, Department of

Built Environment and Sustainable Development, Chalmers University of Technology.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Katrin W. (2007). “Folksonomies and ontologies: two new players in indexing and knowledge

t
ip
representation”, Online Information Worksop.

d cr
Kellert, S. H. (1993). “In the wake of chaos: Unpredictable order in dynamical systems”,

te s
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

di nu
L’association ACCOMPLIR (2010). http://www.accomplir.asso.fr/ <accessed July 12, 2010>.

Lai, R., Weill, P., and Malone, T. (2006). “Do Business Models Matter?”, Research report, MIT
ye a
Sloan School of Management <http://seeit.mit.edu/publications/dobmsmatter7.pdf>
op M

Lakhani, K. R., L. B. Jeppesen, P. A. Lohse, and J. A. Panetta (2007). “The Value of Openness
C ted

in Scientific Problem Solving”, Working Paper No. 07-050, Harvard Business School.

Lakhani, K. R., and J. A. Panetta. (2007). “The Principles of Distributed Innovation”,

Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Vol. 2, No. 3.

ot p
N ce

Malmö. (2011). “Sustainable City Development”, http://www.malmo.se/sustainablecity

<accessed January 20, 2011>

Ac

Mell, P. and Grance, T. (2011). “The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing”, NIST Special

Publication 800-145

Powell, W., and Snellman, K. (2004). “The Knowledge Economy”, Annual Review of Sociology,

Vol. 30:199-220.

Sahely, H. R., Kennedy, C. A.; and Adams, B. J. (2005). “Developing sustainability criteria for

urban infrastructure systems”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 (1).

Taylor, J., and Levitt, R. (2007). “Innovation alignmnt and project network dynamics: an

integrative model for change”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 (3).

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

Taylor, J., and Bernstein, P. (2009). “Paradigm trajectories of building information modelling

practices in project networks”, J. of Management in Engineering, Vol. ASCE, 25 (2).

Thietart, R. A. Forgues, B. (1995). “Chaos Theory and Organization”, Organization Science,

Vol. 6 (1).

von Hippel, E. (2005), “Democratizing Innovation”, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Van Herzele, A. (2004). “Local Knowledge in Action: Valuing Nonprofessional Reasoning in

t
ip
the Planning Process”, J. of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 24, No. 2,

d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 )LJXUH&DSWLRQV/LVW

Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165

Figure 1: A Perspective on the Evolution of Infrastructure

Figure 2: Social-Semantic Networks of Ideas and People

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

t
Figure 3: Knowledge “brokerage” as a service in a Chaotic System

ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 )LJXUH

Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 )LJXUH

Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 )LJXUH

Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Submitted February 08, 2012; accepted April 20, 2013;
posted ahead of print April 23, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000165
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 05/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Infrastruct. Syst.