evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Copenhagen City Data Exchange — A Cautionary Tale in Municipal Data Marketplaces

Denmark · Copenhagen · See the Denmark profile · See the Copenhagen profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 99% 29/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Billed as the world's first city data marketplace, this Copenhagen-Hitachi platform launched in May 2016 with dozens of paid and open datasets, but was discontinued in 2018 after struggling to attract enough data providers and buyers to be financially self-sustaining.

~56
Datasets listed at launch (May 2016)
~24
Paid datasets (later)
100+
Openly published datasets (later)
2 years
Operating lifespan before discontinuation (2016-2018)
Copenhagen City Data Exchange — A Cautionary Tale in Municipal Data Marketplaces

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
City of Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark & Hitachi (Hitachi Vantara)
Period
2016–2018 (discontinued)
Region (NUTS)
DK011
Keywords
open data, data marketplace, digital infrastructure, public-private partnership

Context

In May 2016 the City of Copenhagen, the Capital Region of Denmark and Hitachi (via Hitachi Consulting/Hitachi Vantara) launched the City Data Exchange (CDE), promoted as the world's first data marketplace built specifically for cities.

Objectives

To let public bodies, utilities, universities and private firms buy, sell or freely publish datasets spanning energy, transport, environment and more, on the premise that pooling 'big data' would unlock new smart-city innovation.

Activities

Within days of launch the platform listed around 56 datasets, growing over time to a mix of roughly two dozen paid datasets alongside over a hundred openly published ones.

Results

The project was discontinued in 2018, after just two years of live operation, because it never attracted enough data providers and buyers to become commercially self-sustaining.

Conclusions

Reporting on the shutdown found three recurring problems: participants struggled to find the specific data they needed even with active matchmaking support; there were too few compelling proven use cases to convince new providers to join; and some data holders held back over privacy, public-perception and competitive concerns even though the shared data was anonymised and aggregated. Marius Sylvestersen, Copenhagen's Smart City Programme Director at the time, later summarised the core misjudgement: the project treated data-pooling itself as the goal ('big data thinking') rather than starting from a specific civic problem the city needed to solve.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Three-way public-private partnership (municipality, regional government, multinational tech vendor Hitachi) building a data-marketplace platform; explicit budget figure not stated in sources.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Live from May 2016 to discontinuation in 2018 — two years of operation.
Staffing & skills
City of Copenhagen, Capital Region of Denmark, Hitachi (Hitachi Consulting/Hitachi Vantara), Marius Sylvestersen — Copenhagen Smart City Programme Director

Conditions for success

  • Sufficient compelling proven use cases to attract data providers and buyers
  • Starting from a specific civic problem rather than pooling data as an end in itself

Common failure modes

  • Never attracted enough data providers and buyers to be commercially self-sustaining
  • Participants struggled to find the specific data they needed even with matchmaking support
  • Too few compelling proven use cases to convince new providers to join
  • Some data holders withheld data over privacy/public-perception/competitive concerns despite anonymisation
  • Treated data-pooling itself as the goal ('big data thinking') instead of solving a specific civic problem, per the programme director's own retrospective

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Digital Europe Programme

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful