Internet of Things: Communities Deploy Projects by Combining Federal Support with Other Funds and Expertise
Published: 2017-07-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Communities are increasingly deploying IoT devices generally with a goal of improving livability, management, service delivery, or competitiveness. GAO was asked to examine federal support for IoT and the use of IoT in communities. This report describes: (1) the kinds of efforts that selected federal agencies have undertaken to support IoT in communities and (2) how selected communities are using federal funds to deploy IoT projects.
GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials from 11 federal agencies identified as having a key role in supporting IoT in communities, including agencies that support research or community IoT efforts or that have direct authority over IoT issues. GAO interviewed a non-generalizeable sample of representatives from multiple stakeholder groups in four communities, selected to include a range of community sizes and locations and communities with projects that used federal support. GAO also reviewed relevant literature since 2013 and discussed federal efforts and community challenges with 11 stakeholders from academia and the private sector, selected to reflect a range of perspectives on IoT issues.
GAO requested comments on a draft of this product from 11 federal agencies. Five agencies provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Six agencies did not provide comments.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The internet of things (IoT) generally refers to the technologies and devices that allow for the network connection and interaction of a wide array of devices, or “things.” Federal agencies that GAO reviewed are undertaking two kinds of efforts that support IoT in communities:
Broad federal research and oversight of IoT-related technologies and issues: For example, 8 of the 11 agencies GAO reviewed are involved in broad research efforts, often on communication systems—both wired and wireless network systems. In addition, nine agencies have oversight efforts that include providing IoT-related guidance, often on data security and privacy.
More direct efforts to support communities, including funding community IoT projects (see figure) and fostering collaboration among the agencies and communities: For example, DOT recently awarded $40 million in federal funds to a community for a suite of “smart” projects related to improving surface transportation performance, and EPA awarded $40,000 each to two communities to develop strategies for deploying air quality sensors and managing the data collected from them. To foster such collaboration, in July 2016, the White House formed an interagency task force that has developed a draft Smart Cities and Communities Federal Strategic Plan . A final plan will be released in summer of 2017, according to federal officials.
All four of the communities that GAO reviewed are using federal funds in combination with other resources, both financial and non-financial, to plan and deploy IoT projects. For example, one community used the $40 million DOT award to leverage, from community partners, more than $100 million in additional direct and in-kind contributions, such as research or equipment contributions. Communities discussed four main challenges to deploying IoT, including community sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, and public safety) that are siloed and proprietary systems that are not interoperable with one another.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Internet of Things (IoT) generally refers to the technologies and  devices that allow for the network connection and interaction of a wide  array of devices, or “things,” throughout such places as buildings,  vehicles, transportation infrastructure, or homes. IoT devices, or “smart”  devices, are increasingly being used to communicate and process  information to an extent that was not possible before. For example, a  “smart” thermostat may allow a homeowner not only to remotely adjust  the home’s temperature, but also gather data on motion, temperature,  and light, and analyze those data to automate the thermostat to respond  to changes in the home’s environment and use. Recent advancements in  IoT-related technologies, such as the decreasing cost and size of  electronics and the expansion of connectivity (e.g., broadband networks  and Wi-Fi) have allowed not only individuals and businesses, but also  governments and communities, to use connected objects to gather and  communicate new types and quantities of information.
As a result of these advances, communities—both at home and abroad— are increasingly deploying projects with IoT devices, generally with a goal  of improving livability, management, service delivery, or competitiveness.  These projects can be targeted to specific community goals. For example,  “smart” traffic lights may collect and evaluate real-time traffic information  to update traffic signals’ timing to reflect current traffic conditions, with the  goal of improving traffic flow by easing congestion and reducing vehicles’  emissions. IoT-enabled garbage cans can signal waste removal teams  when cans are full, streamlining the routes that garbage trucks take and  reducing wear and tear on roads due to unnecessary trips by these heavy  trucks.
Researchers and industry stakeholders have noted that integrating  technologies and projects so that they work in concert with one another is  key to realizing the full potential of IoT applications. The goals of different  sectors of the community—such as energy efficiency, mobility for  underserved populations, or improved public health—are often  interconnected in such a way that integrating IoT projects and systems  may save resources and enable solutions that address multiple goals at  once. In the example above, the smart traffic lights that are deployed by  communities to improve traffic flow may also lead to reduced vehicle  emissions, targeting a secondary goal of improving air quality and public  health.
The U.S. government has shown increased interest in supporting IoT in  communities, in part to harness the economic potential; help address  anticipated challenges, such as risks to privacy or security; and promote  replicability—that is, make it easier for projects in one community to be  deployed in other communities. Over the past 22 months, the White  House announced more than $240 million in federal investments for  research and technology to support making communities “smarter.” And  on January 12, 2017, the former administration issued for public comment  a draft federal strategic plan for smart cities and communities that  provides a high-level framework to guide and coordinate federal efforts  supporting IoT in communities. The European Union (EU) and some  foreign governments also have made investments in supporting IoT  projects in communities. For example, the EU, in 2015, funded three  large-scale pilot projects with the aim of identifying and deploying  integrated community solutions—that is, projects or technologies that aim  to meet community goals.
You asked us to examine federal support for IoT and the impact of IoT on  communities. In this report we describe the following:  1.  The kinds of efforts selected federal agencies have undertaken to  support IoT in communities, such as cities or counties.  2.  How selected communities are using federal funds to deploy IoT  projects, including any challenges they face in integrating those  projects.
To identify the kinds of efforts that selected federal agencies have  undertaken to support IoT in communities, we reviewed documents and  interviewed officials from 11 selected federal agencies that we identified  as having a key role in providing such support, including those that  support research or community IoT efforts, oversee privacy or security  protections and threats, or have direct authority over IoT issues. The 11  selected agencies include the following: the Departments of Commerce  (Commerce), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS),  Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and Transportation (DOT), as  well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal  Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC),  National Science Foundation (NSF), and Office of Science and  Technology Policy (OSTP). We collected and synthesized information on  current or recent major efforts these agencies identified as supporting the  application of IoT in communities. The efforts discussed in this report are  not an exhaustive list of such federal efforts.
To identify how selected communities are using federal funds to deploy  IoT projects and any challenges they face in integrating those projects,  we conducted semi-structured interviews by telephone or in person with  representatives from multiple stakeholders groups in four communities  that are using federal efforts to implement IoT projects—Chattanooga,  Tennessee; Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; and Portland, Oregon. We  selected these four communities to include a range of city sizes and  locations and communities with projects that used federal support and  involved multiple community sectors (e.g., energy, transportation, public  safety), as well as experience in successfully and unsuccessfully seeking  federal funds. The experiences of the selected communities are not  generalizeable to those of all U.S. communities; however, we believe that  the information provides a balanced and informed perspective on the  topics discussed.
We also reviewed information on the European Commission’s efforts  supporting IoT in communities and selected European communities’  experiences with deploying IoT projects. We reviewed available  documents from and conducted interviews by telephone or in person with  representatives from European Union (EU) to better understand how its  efforts align with the United States’ efforts, given the EU’s experience with  supporting IoT in communities. We selected the European Union and  select member states based on criteria that included the relative maturity  of efforts compared to the United States; similarity to U.S. governance  structure; and the availability of information about projects and  governmental support. Specifically, we interviewed multiple stakeholder  groups in three selected European communities—Eindhoven, The  Netherlands; Gothenburg, Sweden; and Stockholm, Sweden. We also  interviewed officials from the European Commission (Directorate-General  for Communications Networks, Content, and Technology) and Sweden’s  Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation.
In addition, we interviewed 11 representatives from industry associations,  consulting companies, academia, and industry vendors to obtain  perspectives on domestic and foreign efforts to support IoT in  communities and any challenges faced by communities in using these  efforts. We selected these representatives, based on our review of  background material and recommendations from others, concerning their  expertise and involvement in IoT efforts. We also reviewed literature from  the last 4 years in peer-reviewed journals, trade publications, and  conferences, among other professional resources, to identify federal and  international efforts related to IoT in communities, as well as any analyses  of communities’ projects.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 to July 2017  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: IoT has no generally accepted, all-inclusive definition. Instead, IoT is  generally described as a concept referring to how connected devices  interact and process information. The devices themselves are generally  not computers, but have embedded components that connect to a  network. We define IoT for the purposes of our report as the concept of  connecting and interacting with a wide array of objects through a  network. An IoT-enabled object is often referred to as a “smart” or a  “connected” device, which allows that object to communicate and  potentially process information and thereby provide capabilities and  functionality beyond what that object would normally provide. For  example, connected vehicles—vehicles that “talk” to infrastructure and  other vehicles—provide the capability to identify threats and hazards on  the roadway and allow drivers to receive notifications and alerts of  dangerous situations, potentially reducing the number of accidents.
IoT devices are used in a variety of settings, such as the home (e.g.,  smart appliances), manufacturing (e.g., predictive maintenance), or a  health care setting (e.g., remote patient monitoring). In this report, we  focus on the application of IoT within a community setting—often referred  to as a “smart city” or “smart community”—with the aim to generally  improve the livability, management, or service delivery of that community.  For example, a community may deploy streetlights with embedded  sensors that detect sound or motion and that are programmed to switch  on and off or raise dimmed lighting levels when vehicles or pedestrians  pass. By managing the level of streetlight use, communities seek to  improve energy efficiency and costs, as well as reduce maintenance  costs by reducing service trips to replace burned-out lights. Figure 1  illustrates other examples of how IoT technologies may be used in a  community. More indirectly, these technologies can drive economic  growth by generating demand for new products, new companies, and  new skilled jobs, according to literature and industry experts.
While the idea of connecting objects is not new, recent advancements in  technologies that support IoT—such as the decreasing cost and size of  electronics and the expansion of connectivity (e.g., broadband networks  and Wi-Fi), are driving a proliferation in the number and types of uses of  connected devices. One projection puts the future number of IoT devices  (excluding computers, mobile phones, and tablets) at over 10 billion in  2020. This would represent an increase of more than 200 percent  between 2015 and 2020, at which point the number of connected things  would outpace the number of computers, tablets, and smartphones  currently connected.
There are also, however, hurdles that may impede widespread use of IoT  devices. Security and privacy risks can originate from unintentional  threats, such as equipment failures, or intentional threats, such as from  hackers. As noted in a Commerce green paper on IoT, published in  January 2017, while these risks are generally not unique to IoT,  ubiquitous connectivity and growth in IoT devices raise new challenges.  As new and more “things” become connected, they increase not only the  opportunities for security and privacy breaches, but also the scale and  scope of any resulting consequences. For example, in October 2016, a  cyberattack that involved the hacking of thousands of unsecured IoT  devices interrupted Internet access to a number of major websites across  the United States for hours. These hurdles demonstrate the need for  strategies to respond to concerns about safety and increased risks to  privacy and security. We have reviewed and continue to review some of  these issues; for example, we recently issued a report that discusses the  specific implications of IoT technologies, including safety, security, and  privacy issues.
IoT projects are also complex, crosscutting, and require expertise to  design and deploy. IoT projects involve the deployment of rapidly  evolving technologies and also often collect and store vast amounts of  data that must be analyzed before they can be used to develop  community solutions. For example, as we have previously reported,  when local transportation departments deploy IoT-enabled sensors on  traffic lights to monitor and collect data on traffic flow to help manage  congestion, they may need assistance in developing the system  requirements; collecting, analyzing, and protecting the vast amounts of  data collected; and identifying interdependent goals for the community,  such as improving air quality. As such, the local transportation  department may hire consultants to help with procurement and  deployment of a system; purchase the system from a vendor; partner with  academia for support in data analysis and innovative solutions;  collaborate with other local-government departments to identify  interdependent goals; and collaborate with other entities, such as transit  operators or regional planning departments, to leverage outcomes,  among other activities.
As noted earlier, researchers and industry stakeholders have noted that  successful integration of technologies and projects—including across  sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, or public safety)—is key to realizing  the full potential of IoT. That is, when systems are interoperable—or work  in concert with one another—they may support interdependent goals. For  example, sensors deployed in community infrastructure to report on traffic  conditions or environmental conditions such as air quality can also, if  equipped with audio or visual capability, provide real-time traffic  information to public-safety or emergency-response persons, to help  determine the fastest route to an emergency. Government departments  that work with each other to build integrated systems can help optimize  resource expenditures and maximize services to community residents.  One research institute estimated in 2015 that IoT applications in cities  could have a global economic impact between $930 billion to $1.6 trillion  per year in 2025, with systems that are interoperable enabling more than  40 percent of that value.
No single federal agency addresses all aspects of IoT. We identified at  least 11 federal agencies that have a key role in supporting IoT in  communities, either because they support research or communities,  oversee privacy or security protections and threats, or have direct  authority over IoT issues. The 11 key federal agencies that we identified  include Departments of Commerce (Commerce), Energy (DOE), Health  and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ),  Transportation (DOT), as well as the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Trade  Commission (FTC), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Office of  Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). See appendix I for more  information on selected agencies’ missions and examples of relevant  support for communities’ IoT applications.
The EU also has made investments in supporting IoT projects in  communities. For example, in 2013 the EU adopted a research and  innovation framework program for 2014 to 2020 (Horizon 2020) that  includes cross-cutting focus areas in both:  IoT, which aims to enable the emergence of an IoT environment that  is supported by open (i.e., publicly available) technologies and  platforms, and  “Smart cities and communities,” which aims to bring together cities,  industry, and citizens to demonstrate solutions and business models  that can be scaled up and replicated.
These focus areas are supported by bi-annual funding strategies. The  European Commission, similarly to the U.S. government, is divided into  departments and executive agencies that have varied responsibilities. For  example, the European Commission has departments for Energy; Mobility  and Transport; and Communications Networks, Content, and Technology  that each have responsibility in carrying out the European Commission’s  policies related to the respective industry sector that the departmental  entity oversees. With support from the EU, as well as local initiatives,  European communities are increasing investments in IoT projects, and  according to literature we reviewed and some U.S. and European industry  experts we interviewed, some of those communities are generally  recognized as having more advanced and mature IoT projects than  communities in the United States.
section_title: In Addition to Broad IoT Research and Oversight, Federal Agencies More Directly Support Communities by Funding IoT Projects and Fostering Collaboration
subsections: section_title: Broad Federal IoT Research and Oversight Provide Underlying Support for IoT in Communities
subsections: section_title: Research
paragraphs: Many of the federal agencies we reviewed are conducting or funding  broad research in IoT-related technologies. As communities increasingly  deploy IoT devices, they are more dependent on the underlying  communications systems—both wired and wireless network systems— that enable those devices to communicate with each other and with other  systems. And with wireless systems likely playing an increased role in  supporting IoT, demand for access to spectrum—a limited resource  already in high-demand—will also rapidly increase. Recognizing the  increasing demand for connectivity and spectrum access, 8 of the 11  federal agencies are conducting or funding research on communication systems and the related impacts of those systems—such as privacy,  security, and demand for spectrum access—that could subsequently  support communities’ IoT projects. For example:
NSF awarded 19 universities over $8 million over 3 years beginning in  2016, through its US Ignite program, for fundamental research in  networking technologies to further both the capabilities and  understanding of high-speed networking infrastructure to meet the  demands of future applications, including community applications.  NSF also awarded in 2016 more than $6 million over 2 years for  exploratory research in connecting networked computing systems with  physical devices through NSF’s EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory  Research (EAGER) funding mechanism.
Commerce’s National Telecommunications & Information  Administration (NTIA) has a research lab that is developing an IoT  testbed for testing the potential of interference posed by new IoT- related spectrum use to existing spectrum users in a dense  environment, such as a city. The growth in wireless communications  has increased the potential for harmful interference—an action that  interrupts or obstructs communication service—when two systems  use the same or adjacent spectrum frequencies in the same  geographic area. NTIA officials also told us that this lab is also  supporting DOT’s efforts to investigate the potential interference of  unlicensed wireless devices operating in the licensed spectrum for  dedicated short-range communications (DSRC)—the wireless  technology that, according to DOT, is expected to be used in a  connected vehicle environment.
FTC’s Office of Technology Research and Investigation researches  and evaluates the impact of IoT technologies on consumers, including  issues related to privacy and security. In addition, in January 2017,  the FTC announced a prize competition that challenges the public to  develop a tool that consumers can deploy to guard against security  vulnerabilities in IoT devices. And while the challenge is not directed  to communities, FTC staff noted that it is possible that some of the  proposed submissions could help address security issues related to  IoT devices in communities.
In late 2016, DOJ formed a threat analysis team to study the potential  national-security threats posed by IoT devices as part of a broader  effort to assess the next -generation of cyber threats. According to  DOJ officials, the team has focused on how IoT devices may be  exploited by terrorists or others to cause loss of life or disrupt the  nation’s increasing reliance on IoT technologies, which included  surveying other federal agency efforts and non-government experts  on this issue. DOJ hopes in the future to support an interagency  approach to this issue.
In addition to networked communications systems, federal agencies are  conducting or funding broad technical research on IoT devices that  support communities, such as sensors and intelligent transportation  systems technologies, as described in the examples below.
DHS awarded three $100,000 small business innovation research  contracts in January 2016 for research and development of modular  (i.e., composed of standardized units), low-cost, integrated, IoT- enabled flood inundation sensors. These sensors would (1) monitor  flood-prone areas in real-time across large geographic areas and (2)  allow emergency responders to predict, detect, and react to flood  conditions, among other things. All three awardees received follow-on  awards to test and evaluate the sensors in the field, beginning in April  2017. The final phase of the awards involves commercialization of the  sensors, and while not funding commercialization directly, DHS plans,  among other things, to help bridge relationships between the  awardees (sensor developers) and potential buyers (such as first  responders).
EPA’s Office of Research and Development formally coordinates with  two universities on research related to management and analysis of  data collected through sensor networks. This research has included  collaborating to develop a freely available data-hosting and  visualization tool, as well as analyzing high-resolution air pollution  emissions data.
DOE established the Grid Modernization Initiative to support  modernization, including ensuring the resiliency and security, of the  nation’s electricity grid—commonly referred to as a smart grid.  Under this initiative, DOE not only makes funding available but also  supports research projects related to IoT technologies, such as  sensors, which, according to the initiative’s multi-year program plan,  are necessary to assess the health of the grid in real time, predict its  behavior, and respond to events effectively. According to DOE  officials, the initiative’s projects are in their first year, so no reported  results are available, but a peer review panel was held in April 2017 to  provide lessons learned and share best practices. DOE officials also  told us that they anticipate the initiative to continue through at least  2018.
NSF, through its Smart and Connected Communities program,  anticipates awarding about $18.5 million in grants under a 2016  program. This program solicits projects that support interdisciplinary  research activities to improve understanding of smart and connected  communities and enable sustainable change to enhance community  functioning. Also, in 2015, NSF’s $3 million grant awarded through its  Major Research Instrumentation program supported the development  of a new tool for a project known as the Array of Things. The project’s  goal is to install a sensor platform in the City of Chicago that collects  data on a variety of community factors, including air quality and traffic,  and makes these data publicly available to encourage innovative  community solutions from third parties.
Finally, DOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office  conducts a variety of research and demonstration projects that,  according to its current strategic plan, includes the testing of ideas  that might be developed into intelligent transportation systems  technologies and subsequently deployed to advance transportation.
section_title: Oversight
paragraphs: The federal government is also engaged in overseeing IoT-related issues.  In doing so, all but two of the federal agencies we reviewed are  developing and distributing IoT-related guidelines, seeking input on and  making policy recommendations, and convening or participating on  working groups that support the development of voluntary consensus  standards. As communities continue to deploy IoT devices and analyze  the increasing amount of resulting data, federal policies and guidance can  help them better understand the benefits of using IoT-related  technologies, and help them address the challenges. Notably, Commerce  issued a paper in January 2017 that, among other things, sought input on  the role of the federal government in fostering IoT and related policy  recommendations. The paper also discusses both benefits, such as  improvements in safety and efficiency for consumers and governments,  and challenges of IoT, including risks to security and privacy. Other  examples include:
Safety: DOT issued an Automated Vehicles Policy in September 2016  in order to speed the delivery of an initial regulatory framework and  best practices to guide the safe design and deployment of automated  vehicles.
Security: In October 2016, through public meetings, NTIA convened a  multi-stakeholder process on IoT security upgradability and patching  with a goal of fostering a marketplace that offers devices and systems  that support security upgrades through increased consumer  awareness and understanding, among other things. And, in November  2016, DHS issued a set of industry-neutral, non-binding principles to  provide stakeholders with suggested practices that help to account for  security and other challenges as stakeholders develop, implement, or  use IoT devices.
Privacy: FTC staff issued a report in January 2015 that both  summarized a 2013 staff-hosted workshop discussion on benefits and  risks of IoT and provided an update on post-workshop developments,  including a report on data privacy issued by the President’s Council of  Advisors on Science and Technology.,  The report also included  the FTC staff’s recommendations on privacy and security, which  continued to recommend that Congress enact broad-based privacy  legislation. Also, HHS published a report in July 2016 that highlighted  what it referred to as gaps in regulation, as well as confusion among  consumers on privacy of health data collected by entities not  regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act  (HIPAA).,  Interoperability: Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and  Technology (NIST) participates in international standards-setting  organizations. NIST has convened an international public working  group to help develop a consensus framework to enable interoperable  community IoT solutions and plans to publish a draft consensus  framework in late 2017. This effort (and others at NIST) provides the  technical basis for NIST contributions to work in international  standards-setting organizations. DHS contracted with an international  consortium of more than 500 companies, government agencies, and  universities to demonstrate how proprietary systems, specifically  sensors used by first responders, could be made interoperable using  open standards—that is, standards that are publicly available and  maintained by a collaborative and consensus-driven process.
section_title: Selected Federal Agencies Directly Support Communities by Funding IoT Projects
paragraphs: In addition to broad research and oversight of IoT issues, we identified  three federal agencies (Commerce, DOT, and EPA) that are more directly  supporting communities through expanded funding for community IoT  projects. In December 2015, DOT launched a two-phase prize  competition, the Smart City Challenge, which, to date, included the  largest single award amount ($50 million) made available by the federal  government to support IoT in communities. According to DOT, it had  unprecedented community interest, attracting 78 mid-sized cities to apply  for the first phase. According to DOT, it was one of the first times, if not  the first, that federal funds were made available to explicitly encourage  communities to integrate systems across sectors to achieve  interdependent goals. As of April 2017, the challenge winner— Columbus, Ohio—is still finalizing its project schedule and details. DOT  officials noted that it is challenging to identify measurements that define  success and ensure that the projects provide adequate data to inform any  evaluation, but that DOT officials are working with Columbus  representatives and an independent evaluator to develop a strategy to do  so. DOT officials also noted that they provided seven finalist communities  $100,000 each and that some communities have used that money to  revise their original proposals and bid on other available federal funds.
Two other federal agencies also recently announced funding for  deployment of community IoT projects.
In August 2016, EPA launched prize competition—called the Smart  City Air Challenge—for the purpose of learning how communities  would deploy hundreds of air quality sensors, manage high volumes  of data, and make the data public. EPA awarded $40,000 each to  Baltimore, Maryland, and Lafayette, Louisiana, to develop innovative  strategies for deploying sensor platforms and managing the data  collected from 300 sensors, as well as sharing lessons learned with  other communities. According to EPA officials, as of April 2017, the  communities are testing and deploying the sensors and will meet  quarterly throughout 2017 with EPA officials to share knowledge and  will participate in webinars with other communities to share best  practices. EPA will evaluate the projects at the end of 2017 to  determine whether it will award a second round of funding of $10,000  each.
Commerce’s NIST awarded, in September 2016, a total of $350,000  to four communities to collaborate and deploy replicable smart  solutions to address community issues. These grants include such  projects as using Wi-Fi-enabled sensors to alert first responders to  emergencies in a senior community and developing computer models  to predict urban flood events. In September 2017, the awardees are  expected to submit final reports that include evaluation of the projects  against specific criteria including evidence of effective use of existing  standards for interoperability across systems and clear and  quantifiable performance goals with measurement capabilities  incorporated into the system design. NIST officials noted that  communities may find it challenging to meet these criteria during a 1- year, small-scale project but noted that regular bi-weekly meetings  and continuing interaction between NIST and the communities is  intended to help.
DOT also provides funds through other federal grant programs that do not  specifically target IoT, but can still be used to support IoT projects. For  example, DOT published a guide for communities that identifies existing  funding programs or initiatives, such as its Advanced Transportation and  Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) initiative  and DOT’s Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery  (TIGER) grant program that could be used towards funding IoT projects,  according to the DOT guide. The guide provides examples of IoT  technologies that meet eligibility criteria under these programs, such as  the ability of sensor-based infrastructure as an eligible technology for  maintenance and monitoring under the ATCMTD Initiative. DOT officials  reported that DOT announced for fiscal year 2016, nine ATCMTD and  TIGER grants supporting IoT projects, such as a project in the city and  county of Denver, Colorado that includes deploying technologies to  support its connected freight program with a goal of reducing freight  congestion.
Some federal agencies are also working to maximize those federal funds  by encouraging or requiring grant recipients to leverage private funds. For  example, both DOT’s Smart City Challenge and EPA’s Smart City Air  Challenge strongly encouraged communities to leverage funding from the  private sector and others. DOT officials told us that Columbus, Ohio, the  winner of the DOT Smart City Challenge, was able to leverage an  additional $350 million or more from community partners beyond DOT’s  $40 million contribution. The EPA challenge solicitation specifically noted  that the two community awards of $40,000 each were intended to be  seed money for communities to leverage other resources.
Furthermore, federal agencies are promoting project replicability, so that  solutions in one community can be more easily deployed in other  communities. Due to the complexity of IoT projects and communities’  limited resources, two representatives from industry and academia  highlighted that communities are hesitant to be the first adopters of these  projects without models or leading practices to follow. In recognizing this  hesitance, some federal agencies are promoting the design of projects  that are replicable to other communities. Most notably, NIST launched its  Global City Teams Challenge (GCTC) program—a collaborative platform  for the development of “smart cities”—to encourage collaboration and the  development of technology standards. In doing so, NIST recognized that  IoT projects tend to be isolated and customized—that is, not interoperable  with other projects or replicable to other communities. According to NIST,  many custom-designed systems are not cost effective, and the growth of  the smart cities market is also hindered by deployments that are  customized. And, with standards-based solutions—or replicable  projects—communities can build on each other’s work and make their  solutions available to other communities that may lack resources. For  example, the multi-stakeholder team that is deploying the sensor and  computer research platform, called the Array of Things, in the City of  Chicago first began as a partnership between the City of Chicago,  University of Chicago, and Argonne National Laboratory. This partnership  participated in the GCTC program and also received an NSF research  instrumentation grant, as discussed above. The team has had inquiries  from nearly 90 cities around the world, and is preparing to deploy the IoT  technology in an initial set of pilot cities, including Seattle, Washington,  and Amsterdam, the Netherlands. $3.1 million award through NSF’s major  research instrumentation program and  more than $1 million from DOE’s Argonne  National Laboratory.
Project description: Chicago’s Array of  Things project plans to install hundreds of  interactive, modular sensor boxes across  the city to collect real-time data on the  city’s environment, infrastructure, and  activity for research and public use,  essentially measuring factors that impact  livability such as climate, air quality and  noise. The project also reserves space for  additional sensors in support of future  data collection in other areas and industry  sectors.
Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, the owner and operator  of the region’s smart grid, staff from DOE’s Oak Ridge National Lab  use their expertise to test new technologies and develop new  analyses, among other things, to help EPB to use its electricity data to  improve its operations.
DHS officials also told us that while in the past they have not provided in- kind support, they are currently drafting a contract in which they will be  providing in-kind support, including drones and some open-source  software, to a quasi-governmental organization that works to advance  community IoT projects.
section_title: Federal Government Also Supports Communities’ IoT Projects by Fostering Interagency and Community Collaboration
subsections: section_title: Interagency Collaboration
paragraphs: Issues related to IoT in communities cut across multiple sectors and  government agencies—that is, no single government agency addresses  all aspects of IoT or communities’ IoT efforts. And similar to other cross- cutting federal efforts, achieving meaningful results requires collaborative  efforts of multiple programs and agencies spread across the federal  government and often more than one sector or level of government. Both  Congress and the executive branch have recognized the need for  improved collaboration across the federal government. We also have  previously reported that agencies face challenges when attempting to  work collaboratively and that the agencies can enhance and sustain their  collaborative efforts by engaging in such practices as establishing  mutually reinforcing or joint strategies designed to help achieve a  common outcome and identifying and addressing needs by leveraging  resources to support common outcomes.
To promote government-wide collaboration in supporting deployment of  IoT in communities, the White House created an interagency Smart Cities  and Communities task force in July 2016—co-chaired by representatives  from DOT, NIST, and NSF—that is coordinated through the Networking  and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD)  program. Twenty-two federal departments and agencies have  participated on the task force as of January 2017 with initial efforts  focused on developing (1) a federal strategic plan and (2) a resource  guide for communities. On January 12, 2017, the task force released for  public comment a draft federal strategic plan that offers a high-level  framework to guide and coordinate smart community-related federal  initiatives, with an emphasis on local government and stakeholder  engagement. The draft plan highlighted five goals motivating the  strategy, including accelerating innovation and infrastructure improvement  and facilitating cross-sector collaboration and bridging existing silos. It  also identified four strategic priorities and next steps that include  promoting interagency collaboration and developing a road map for  specific federal actions to execute the strategic priorities. According to  federal officials who are chairing the efforts, the public comments will help  inform a revised federal strategic plan, which, as of April 2017, is  anticipated for publication in the summer of 2017. According to these  officials, following the completion of the strategic plan, the task force will  be dissolved, and the NITRD program’s standing Cyber-Physical Systems  interagency working group will identify and coordinate any additional  action that is needed to support these efforts, such as any activities  related to the execution of the federal strategic plan. The task force’s  second effort included the launching of an interactive website resource  guide in March 2017 that describes federally funded research and  development programs in smart cities and communities. According to  the task-force, the guide aims to facilitate collaboration and coordination  among task force member agencies, academia, industry, local cities and  communities, and other government entities. These officials noted that  the guide will be reviewed and updated annually, and that they are using  aggregate data on use and search patterns to evaluate the effectiveness  and usability of the guide.
At the same time, individual federal agencies are formally and informally  collaborating at a program level on specific agency projects or efforts  related to community IoT projects. Federal agency officials told us that  this collaboration helps bridge issues that cut across agencies, as well as  leverage expertise. For example, in 2016, DOT and DOE signed a  memorandum of understanding (MOU) that recognizes their departments’  mutual interest in realizing the economic, environmental, and national  security benefits achieved by the growing use of smart transportation  technologies. The MOU formally states their intention to coordinate  actions to leverage DOE’s traditional focus and expertise in transportation  energy technology systems and DOT’s traditional focus and expertise in  transportation safety technology systems to accelerate the analysis and  application of “smart” transportation systems. Under this MOU, and as  mentioned above, DOE supports a national lab expert, as part of a  technologist-in-cities pilot program, in Columbus, Ohio, who serves as a  complement to DOT’s Smart City effort and focuses on energy-related  components of the planned projects. In addition, according to NTIA  officials, its research lab also coordinates with DOT’s Intelligent  Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, including investigating the  potential interference of unlicensed wireless devices operating in the  licensed spectrum for DSRC—the wireless technology that, according to  DOT, is expected to be used in a connected vehicle environment.
section_title: Community Collaboration
paragraphs: Some federal agencies have undertaken efforts to support collaboration  at the community level, across local governments, academia, and the  private sector. NIST’s GCTC program, as discussed earlier, enables local  governments, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions,  technologists, and private corporations from all over the world to form  project teams, or “action clusters,” to work on community IoT projects and  facilitate interoperability, according to NIST officials. And since the  GCTC program launched in September 2014, GCTC has recruited and  supported over 160 project teams, with participation from over 150 cities  and 400 companies or organizations from urban and rural communities  across the United States and their counterparts in other countries. The  White House also has supported collaboration at the community level  through promotion of the MetroLab Network—a networking consortium of  city-university partnerships that seeks to bring interested cities and  universities together to share expertise and lessons learned across  municipalities. According to a 2016 MetroLab Network report, the  membership consists of more than 35 partnerships and has developed a  library of more than 120 research, development, and deployment projects  that are currently under way across its membership. The library resource,  as well as knowledge-sharing and networking events convened as part of  the consortium, enables collaboration with, and the sharing of lessons  from communities that have deployed innovative community solutions.  For example, according to an official from the Portland Bureau of  Planning and Sustainability, a meeting at a MetroLabs event resulted in a  partnership between Portland and a stakeholder leading Chicago’s Array  of Things project to share information and leverage resources in testing  sensors and a sensor platform for an air quality project.
section_title: European Union Efforts Are Generally Similar to the United States, Although in Some Cases More Formalized
subsections: section_title: Broad Research and Oversight
paragraphs: In the European Union (EU), the European Commission directs research  on IoT-related technologies and oversees IoT policy-related issues,  similar to the U.S. federal government.
Within the EU’s Horizon 2020’s 7-year research program, the  European Commission developed an initiative to support innovation,  which includes a specific focus area for IoT that is cross-cutting. The  focus area aims to enable an IoT environment that is supported by  technologies and technology platforms that are open (i.e., publicly  available). Funds for the 2016-2017 programs are to be used to  demonstrate scientific progress that enables advanced IoT  applications.
The EU also has taken legislative steps related to IoT oversight. For  example, the EU adopted the General Data Protection Regulation in  spring 2016, which, according to European Commission officials,  seeks to simplify protection for individuals’ data, including data from  IoT devices, by providing a single set of rules that apply to all EU  member states. It is scheduled to be implemented over the next 2  years. At the country level, according to community representatives in  Sweden with whom we spoke, policy makers are also investigating  potential regulatory changes. For example, in one instance, the  Swedish government created “policy labs” (also sometimes called a  “regulatory holiday,”) specifying some geographic locations or a  specific time frame that is free of regulation so that project partners  can test what policies are needed in that environment—such as a  connected vehicle environment—to make the solution successful.
section_title: Funding and Collaboration
paragraphs: The EU also directly supports IoT applications in communities through  direct funding. Sometimes it does so through formalized programs, such  as joint-departmental funding that is focused on “smart cities and  communities.”
Specifically, the Horizon 2020 research program includes a cross- cutting focus area on “smart cities and communities”—which aims, in  part, to bring together cities, industry, and citizens to demonstrate  community solutions and business models that can be scaled up and  replicated, and that lead to measurable benefits in energy and  resource efficiency, new markets, and new jobs. The supporting  funding program combines funds from multiple departments—the  European Commission’s departments on energy, transportation, and  communications technology—to support IoT projects in communities  that span these sectors. Under this program, the EU has funded three  different large-scale pilot projects since 2015 that focus on replicability  and support IoT projects. For each pilot project, three European cities  were selected as “lighthouse cities,” with up to five different follow-on  cities in which successful projects are to be replicated. The lighthouse  cities design and implement their smart projects, and when  successful, the follow-on cities begin deployment.
We also found examples where individual countries supported  community deployment of IoT projects and encouraged those  communities to leverage resources from private industry and others.  For example, according to community representatives in Sweden, the  Drive Sweden project—focused in part on local and national traffic  management and deployment of autonomous vehicles and fleets—is  jointly funded by three Swedish government agencies: the Swedish  Energy Agency, the Swedish Research Council, and Sweden’s  Innovation Agency. The project has to leverage private funds, as it is  part of a program supporting nationally funded projects that require  private industry cost-sharing.
European Commission departments and countries also collaborate in  administering programs for community IoT projects and support  collaboration among other stakeholders. For example, in 2012,  recognizing that IoT technologies span all sectors of the economy and  society, the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and  Communities (EIP-SCC) was launched. The partnership is a stakeholder  group that aims to significantly accelerate the deployment of smart city  solutions integrating technologies from energy, transportation, and  communications technology. The EIP-SCC is jointly administered by three  European Commission departments with jurisdiction over the energy,  transportation, and communications technology sectors. It has a  mechanism called a stakeholder platform that serves as a collaborative,  networking, and knowledge-sharing tool for communities, collecting and  analyzing input from all stakeholders. According to its agenda, it seeks to  provide bottom-up contributions, such as those from communities, to  ensure that EU policy on smart communities reflects the needs and  engagement of communities. Also, at the country level, Sweden  announced in June 2016 a formal program that supports collaboration  among government, private, and academic stakeholders to create  innovative solutions for specific societal challenges, one of which is  “smart cities.”
section_title: Selected Communities Use Federal Funds with Other Resources to Deploy IoT Projects but Face Various Challenges Integrating Projects
subsections: section_title: Communities Are Using Federal Funds in Conjunction with Other Funding and Expertise to Deploy IoT Projects
subsections: section_title: Financial Support
paragraphs: In planning and deploying IoT projects, all of the communities we  reviewed are using federal funds with other direct funding and in-kind  support. As described previously, grant recipients are sometimes required  by federal agencies to leverage private funds. For example, the  Chattanooga Electric Power Board leveraged more than $115 million in  nonfederal investment as part of its federal award of $111.6 million  through DOE’s smart grid investment grant program in 2010.  Chattanooga used these federal and nonfederal funds to expand its fiber  optic network to support communication of its smart grid equipment,  which includes smart meters for more than 170,000 energy utility  customers.
According to community representatives we interviewed, without a federal  cost-sharing requirement, federal funds alone may not be sufficient to  cover all project costs. For example, according to City of Columbus  representatives, it used its $50 million award from DOT’s Smart City  Challenge to leverage about an additional $90 million in support from  community partners. Some of the support has come in direct funding  while other support has been in-kind, such as research, programmatic  support, or equipment contributions. installed a fiber based gigabit internet  infrastructure to improve efficiency and  resiliency in its utility energy distribution  The project included installation of more  than 170,000 smart meters for utility  customers. Since this project was  completed, Chattanooga is making this  fiber infrastructure available to other  community stakeholders for other IoT  projects, including deploying a network of  air quality sensors to detect asthma- aggravating particulate matter and pollen  in metropolitan Chattanooga.  million in direct funds and in-kind  contributions, including a $10 million grant  from Vulcan, Inc.  projects: The Integrated Data Exchange  is an open data environment that will: (1)  contain data from many different sources;  (2) generate performance metrics for  program monitoring and evaluation; (3)  transparently serve the needs of public  agencies, researchers, and  entrepreneurs; and (4) provide practical  guidance and lessons learned to other  potential deployment sites.
Local government officials from two of the communities that we reviewed  discussed beginning to leverage value from public assets, making public  infrastructure available in exchange for financial support, such as in-kind  donations of technology equipment. For example, representatives from  two communities highlighted their use of community-based “technology  incubators.” In these cases, a technology incubator is generally an entity  that supports the collaboration of public, private, and oftentimes academic  partners and provides public assets—such as data, resources, and  infrastructure—to test technologies and develop innovative solutions to  community needs. For example, Chattanooga provides access to its fiber  network for use as a test bed to a variety of partners and a variety of  projects. One project involves deploying and connecting a network of air  quality sensors to detect asthma-aggravating particulate matter and  pollen in the community with a goal of providing real-time alerts to end  users, such as asthma patients, health institutions, and others affected by  elevated pollen levels. Representatives from three of the communities we  reviewed, as well as four other industry and academic stakeholders that  we spoke with, discussed that developing such business models where  local governments leverage value from public assets can help finance the  project, and in some cases help sustain the project after initial grant  funding runs out.
Highlights of Sweden’s technology  incubators  Sweden has 33 science parks, which are  described as a stimulating meeting place for  academia, research, the public sector, and  industry.  Stockholm Science Park:  Kista Science City (KSC) is operated by a not- for-profit foundation that includes public,  private, and academic organizations, for the  purpose of facilitating collaboration among  these stakeholders.  An open testbed—the Urban ICT Arena—will  serve as the testbed and co-creation arena for  developing, testing, and showcasing  community IoT solutions. For example, the  City of Stockholm will provide access to a  fiber optic network for industry and academics  to test community technology solutions,  including solutions for clean water and  efficient transportation.
Representatives from all three of the European communities that we  visited also reported having technology incubators where public, private,  and academic entities partner to test innovative community solutions.  While incubator-like entities can be found all over the world, Sweden has  33 formal technology incubators across the country, called Science  Parks, which are jointly funded by industry, universities, and the local  governments. These science parks facilitate collaboration among these  stakeholders to develop community solutions. Representatives from three  science parks that we met with in Gothenburg and Stockholm highlighted  the importance of collaboration of public, private, and academic entities— typically referred to as the “triple-helix” model—to the success of the  projects. For example, at a science park open testbed in Stockholm, the  local and regional government, an industry partner, among others, have  provided access to wired and wireless communications networks for other  entities to use in developing innovative community solutions, such as  improving water quality and transportation efficiency.
section_title: Non-financial Support
paragraphs: Representatives from communities we reviewed and industries we spoke  with discussed the importance of collaboration among public, private, and  academic entities to make the best use of the unique expertise that each  member group brings to the table.
Representatives from two communities discussed that local  governments can provide a policy framework and help ensure that the  solutions are based in the community’s needs, as opposed to driven  by the latest technology invention.
A Columbus representative discussed its “culture of collaboration” and  how private partners have brought invaluable resources to its DOT  Smart City Challenge projects, particularly expertise on technologies  and connections to other industry players for innovative ideas and  solutions.
Representatives from two of the communities we spoke with have  active “convener” organizations that bring public, private, and  academic stakeholders together on an on-going basis to discuss  collaborative opportunities to address community problems.
While representatives from all of the communities discussed the benefits  of collaboration, an industry representative also highlighted that  maintaining well-functioning partnerships takes time and resources.
Representatives from all three European communities also discussed the  value of collaboration for providing a variety of expertise, and in some  cases, independence. For example, in The Netherlands, a non-profit  organization oversees part of Eindhoven’s “smart city” projects.  Representatives from this organization highlighted this as advantageous  to providing government and commercial independence—that is, to best  balance the government’s oversight needs with private industry interests.  In Stockholm, a local government representative highlighted that the role  of some academics is to independently evaluate the IoT projects’  success, both in meeting environmental sustainability goals and  economic goals.
section_title: Several Factors May Hinder Communities in Integrating IoT Projects
paragraphs: Although integrated projects can help maximize the potential of IoT  applications, communities can face challenges in integrating projects. All  of the domestic communities we reviewed are planning or have deployed  discrete IoT projects—projects that, at least initially, generally focus on  addressing a singular issue, such as traffic congestion on a particular  corridor. Domestic and foreign community representatives that we spoke  with pointed to four main factors that can hinder the deployment of  integrated projects, and in some cases, offered perspectives on solutions  to these challenges.
subsections: section_title: Siloed Community Sectors
paragraphs: Siloed community sectors can make it challenging to integrate IoT  projects. A variety of representatives that we spoke with—representatives  from three of the domestic communities and two of the foreign  governments, as well as seven academic and industry representatives— highlighted that local government departments and federal grants tend to  be focused on one sector (e.g., transportation, energy, public safety) of a  community, inhibiting IoT project integration. An industry representative  who works with communities on IoT projects said that community projects  tend to be planned and deployed in isolation, in part because it is difficult  to leverage resources and benefits across the silos created by  government departments. A local government representative from a  domestic community noted that there is no sense of a single organization  at the federal level when pursuing grants and that while federal grants are  helpful, tracking opportunities and developing proposals are a lot of work,  and consumes both time and resources. Representatives from one  domestic community noted that collaboration between transportation,  energy, and environmental monitoring appears be most advanced, in part  because these industries have recognizable synergies.
Domestic and industry representatives that we spoke with offered  perspectives on how internal or external leadership and a federal strategy  could help overcome silos and promote integration.
Leadership: Representatives from a domestic community, as well as  four industry representatives, noted that an individual or department  within the local government could serve as a mechanism to bridge  silos. For example, an industry representative that works with  communities on IoT projects noted that some domestic communities  are using a Chief Information Officer or Chief Data Officer as a leader  who can help integrate projects across departments. And according to  local representatives from three domestic communities and two  industry representatives, entities that are external to the local  government, such as the community’s technology incubator or other  consortium, could help convene various stakeholders. For example, in  one domestic community, a consortium of public, private, and  academic entities helped identify how to leverage a past investment in  traffic sensors to expand the capacity to evaluate air quality.
Federal Strategy: While collaboration is helpful to integrating projects,  representatives from three communities, three industry and academic  representatives, and officials from two federal agencies noted that  some kind of federal strategy or guidelines could be helpful. For  example, a representative from one community noted the desire for a  federal vision or framework that organizes multiple industries and  agencies and supports strategies and resources for working together  to achieve common goals. As discussed above, through the White  House’s NITRD program, a task force that consists of 22 federal  agencies, recently issued a draft federal strategic plan that includes a  high-level framework to guide and coordinate smart community- related federal initiatives, with an emphasis on local government and  stakeholder engagement. Federal officials working on the task force  anticipate that the final plan, which will be informed by public  comments, will be published in summer 2017.
section_title: Proprietary Systems
paragraphs: Representatives from three of the domestic communities and one of the  foreign communities, as well as four industry stakeholders we  interviewed, identified challenges related to proprietary vendor systems in  deploying integrated projects. For example, while private industry can  provide communities with needed financial support and expertise,  representatives from two communities noted that private interests also  encourage the development of proprietary systems that are solely owned  by a vendor. Representatives from two communities also noted that  proprietary systems risk making the community dependent on one vendor  that could go out of business or raise maintenance costs. The use of  proprietary systems raises confidence that the components within a  system will work together, but challenges arise when communities seek to  integrate systems from different vendors, perhaps across sectors. We  also recently reported on similar challenges experienced by transit  providers, including difficulties changing vendors after an intelligent  transportation system has been deployed and getting vendors to work  with one another to integrate systems amid concerns about making  changes to those systems.
Representatives from all of the domestic and foreign communities we  reviewed, as well as four academic and industry stakeholders, said that  standards-based and open data platforms could help support integrated  projects and innovative solutions. Some federal agencies—such as NIST,  EPA, and DHS—are taking steps to address interoperability issues,  including promoting consensus-based standards that would encourage  proprietary systems to at least be designed to be interoperable. For  example, NIST recognized that IoT projects are generally based on  custom systems that are not interoperable, portable across cities, or cost- effective. Subsequently, NIST is helping convene an international public  working group to develop a consensus framework to enable smart city  solutions. Representatives from one foreign community told us that they  are working to create an “umbrella” platform to unify all of the diverse  systems developed by different projects with different business plans and  timelines. Representatives from all three of the foreign communities noted  that publicly funded projects often require that data collected be open— that is, available for others to use, including the public or other vendors.  Representatives from two of these communities, as well as  representatives from three of the domestic communities, noted that open  data allow third-party entities access to information they can use to  develop innovative solutions.
section_title: Resource Constraints
paragraphs: Communities with limited resources—both financial and staff expertise— can face challenges integrating IoT projects due, in part, to the complexity  and cross-cutting nature of these projects. As two academic  representatives who work to support community projects noted, it is less  resource-intensive for communities to deploy singular, discrete IoT  projects than to deploy integrated projects that require time and resources  to develop a holistic vision and business plan. Industry representatives  from two communities and three other industry representatives, however,  highlighted that leveraging value from public assets could help finance  communities’ IoT projects, as well as help financial sustainability. For  example, as discussed above, some communities are making public  infrastructure available in return for payment or in-kind donations of  technology equipment. Representatives from one of the foreign  communities discussed a government push to design projects that are  financially sustainable, in such a way that they would be financially viable  after grant funding runs out. U.S. federal efforts to support community  collaboration have helped communities share their lessons learned on  developing new business models, a process that also helps communities  invest their funds more efficiently and effectively, by reducing the  unknowns and subsequently the risk of investment.
These rapidly developing technologies often also require new and unique  expertise, particularly across sectors or disciplines, to deploy and  maintain. A local transportation department representative from one  community noted that his department’s responsibilities are no longer  confined to technical engineering skills but also involve expertise in  information technology and data management, which requires additional  training. Representatives from two domestic and three foreign  communities discussed efforts to create new staff positions or retrain staff  in existing positions. Representatives from a foreign community  discussed creating a chief digital officer whose responsibilities include  using data to improve efficiency for citizens and combining knowledge in  data analytics with public policy.
section_title: Evolving Technologies
paragraphs: Representatives from two domestic communities we reviewed highlighted  the fact that IoT-related technologies are constantly evolving, an evolution  that ultimately makes integrating projects even more challenging. And, as  we have reported in the past, integrating technologies often requires  multiple phases of testing, which requires time and resources, and  ultimately may require changes to the system or technology and re- testing. Communities with limited resources may prefer to focus on  discrete projects, rather than risk investment in integrated projects with  uncertain results. For example, representatives from two of the domestic  communities spoke about project integration as the “next step” after they  deploy the discrete projects. And representatives from two domestic  communities, as well as three other industry and academic  representatives, said that it is risky to develop a holistic, integrated project  when the specific technology is not proven to be effective or could be  completely different in 5 or 10 years. Selected federal efforts  seek to  help communities design replicable IoT projects and reduce the risk for  subsequent communities. These and other efforts, while under way, are  likely to take several years or longer to fully implement and measure  success.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this product from Commerce, DOE,  HHS, DHS, DOJ, DOT, EPA, FCC, FTC, NSF, and OSTP. Commerce,  DOE, FTC, NSF, and OSTP provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. HHS, DHS, DOJ, DOT, EPA, and FCC did  not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, relevant federal agencies, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or members of your staff have questions about this report, please  contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov or  Nabajyoti Barkakati at (202) 512-4499 or barkakatin@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Information on Selected Federal Agencies
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contacts named above, Susan Zimmerman (Assistant  Director), Gretchen Snoey (Analyst in Charge), Eli Albagli, Edward  Alexander, Jr., Ana Ivelisse Avilés, Brett Caloia, Joseph Cook, John de  Ferrari, Camilo Flores, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Christopher Murray, Amy  Rosewarne, and Andrew Stavisky made key contributions to this report.
Tommy Baril, Jennifer Beddor, Leia Dickerson, Karen Doran, Lawrance  Evans, Jr., Philip Farah, John Neumann, Malika Rice, Stephen Sanford,  and Sarah Veale also made contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Internet of Things: Enhanced Assessments and Guidance Are Needed to  Address Security Risks in DOD. GAO-17-514SU. Washington, D.C.: June  7, 2017.
Technology Assessment: Internet of Things: Status and implications of an  increasingly connected world. GAO-17-75. Washington, D.C.: May 15,  2017.
Health Care: Telehealth and Remote Patient Monitoring Use in Medicare  and Selected Federal Programs. GAO-17-365. Washington, D.C.: April  14, 2017.
Cybersecurity: Actions Needed to Strengthen U.S. Capabilities.  GAO-17-440T. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2017.
Data Analytics and Innovation: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges.  GAO-16-659SP. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2016.
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Urban and Rural Transit Providers  Reported Benefits but Face Deployment Challenges. GAO-16-638.  Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2016.
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Measures Needed to Assess Agencies’  Promotion of the Cybersecurity Framework. GAO-16-152. Washington,  D.C.: December 17, 2015.
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Technologies  Expected to Offer Benefits, but Deployment Challenges Exist.  GAO-15-775. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2015.
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Cybersecurity of the Nation’s Electricity  Grid Requires Continued Attention. GAO-16-174T. Washington, D.C.:  October 21, 2015.
Spectrum Management: FCC’s Use and Enforcement of Buildout  Requirements. GAO-14-236. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2014.
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies  Expected to Offer Safety Benefits, but Deployment Challenges Exist.  GAO-14-13. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2013.