# Managing a Smart City Integrated Model through Smart Program Management
## 7 Retrospective Analysis  
The previous sections advocate the use of Smart program management as a reasonable approach for managing the complexity of smart projects. The research goal addressed in this paper is to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **Vertical Program** & **Horizontal Program** \\ \hline
**Program Life Cycle Management** & & \\ \hline Start: Definition of the projects that execute the program trying to & & \\ identify and maximize the potential reuse opportunities and & & x & x \\ interdependencies between what projects to include. & & \\ Planning: Definition of the scope and development of the program, & & \\ including all projects and all activities that occur during its execution. & & x \\ Execution: The work needed to achieve the objectives and the & & x \\ program benefits. & & \\ Control: Monitor progress, update program plans, manage change & & \\ and risk. & & x \\ Closure: This is a crucial phase for Smart program management. Other & & \\ than what is necessary to finalize all the activities of the program, & & \\ including all component projects, execution of the transition plan, & & \\ archiving, obtaining proposals, and reporting, an extra effort has to be & x & x \\ made in the direction of individuating any potential area of reuse in the & & \\ vertical and horizontal dimensions. This phase contributes to the & & \\ generation of extra values for the Smart city and future projects that will & & \\ benefit from the results and solutions developed in the past. & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Program life cycle management: vertical and horizontal dimensions. investigate the potential effectiveness and benefits of Smart program management in managing the interdependencies across the numerous projects of a Smart city. For this aim, we carried out a retrospective analysis on a total set of 378 projects belonging to nine different Italian Smart cities. The following steps were executed by a team of seven members: a PhD Student, four senior researchers, and two IT specialists from a private company. The research goal and questions were defined according to the Goal-Question-Metrics paradigm [25,50]. In the following, details of the retrospective analysis process are provided. * **Definition of the research goal and questions Research goal**: Analyze smart projects with the aim of characterizing them from a Smart program management point of view in the context of a Smart city. Research questions: RQ1: What is the transversality of the smart projects? RQ2: What is the technological depth of the smart projects? RQ3: How many potential interdependences exist between the projects? Metrics: M1--Projects' transversality (PT) Given Smart project i (SMi), PT(SMi) is equal to the number of different application domains that SMi spams/covers and PT(SMi)\(\in\)[1,2,3,4,5,6]; M2--Technological depth (TD) Given Smart project i (SMi), TD(SMi) is equal to the number of different technological layers that SMi crosses, and TD(SMi)\(\in\)[1,2,3,4]; M3--Project interdependencies (PI) Given two Smart Project i,j, PI(SMij) is equal to:
* 0--if there are no interdependencies between SMi and SMj
* 1--if interdependencies exist between SMi and SMj where an \"interdependency\" between SMi and SMj is any potential opportunity of reusing project requirements, functionalities, technologies used, or artifacts/deliverables produced between SMi and SMj. PT and TD are objective metrics and in the absence of information, no subjective assumptions were made, while PI was evaluated subjectively based on expert judgment. Therefore, in order to identify the interdependency each expert used a correlation matrix to define the existence or not of interdependence (an example is given in Section 8.3) and of a technical report related to the data: project requirements, functionalities, technologies used, or artifacts/deliverables produced between SMi and SMj.