Sonja Sophia Schröter
As an innovation manager at degewo netzwerk GmbH, Sonja Sophia Schröter focuses on new solutions for the housing industry, particularly in the areas of neighborhood development and charging infrastructure. degewo neighborhoods can be found throughout Berlin, with a large portion located in the eastern part of the city. With more than 83,000 apartments, the municipal housing company provides affordable housing for around 150,000 Berliners. Sonja Sophia Schröter was also closely involved in the design and implementation of the smart_up Challenge 2025. For the first time, degewo specifically sought out cooperation partners in its innovation competition to test different approaches to neighborhood charging infrastructure at four pilot sites. The winning solutions are currently being implemented and tested in degewo buildings. Successful solutions can then be rolled out to other locations in cooperation with the companies. Sonja Sophia Schröter discusses the competition in more detail in an interview with Smart City Berlin.
Ms. Schröter, what current challenges do you face as an innovation manager at a municipal housing company?
There are many pressing issues—but one, in my view, is mentioned far too rarely, even though it plays a decisive role behind the scenes: the procurement of new technologies. In the public sector, with its formal requirements, this is significantly more challenging than in the private sector. Technologies aren’t finished products—they develop and continue to evolve, sometimes in entirely different directions. In public procurement, the focus tends to be on the opposite: standardization, comparability, and predictability. It’s a real balancing act—and it’s precisely this challenge that we specifically addressed with the smart_up Challenge.
The smart_up Challenge 2025 was degewo’s fourth innovation competition overall. This time, there was a clearly defined focus on “charging infrastructure.” Why?
Up until now, our competitions were deliberately designed as open calls—we cast a wide net in search of ideas and technologies for the housing sector. That got us in many ideas, but it also showed us that when legal and technical reviews take place only after the competition, innovative concepts often fail before they even reach the pilot phase. That’s why we changed our approach this time—from solution-oriented to problem- based. The charging infrastructure solution we wanted for our neighborhoods simply wasn’t available on the market—so we specifically sought it out. It’s a clearly defined focus area, a real need without a satisfactory market solution, and a field where we already know the legal framework.
What else was different about this year’s competition?
We weren’t just looking for new, innovative solutions on the market—the competition itself was also a challenge for us. The question we asked ourselves was: How can we improve our public procurement of innovative products? Our previous innovation competitions focused on implementing pilot projects. But after that comes a step where the private and municipal housing sectors differ. In the private sector, the process is: hold a competition, test, buy. For us, it’s: hold a competition, test with the winner—and then put the product out to a public tender anyway. This means: I’m holding a competition about the competition. Test environment, contracts, internal reviews— everything starts over from scratch, plus there’s a break in the business relationship. To avoid this extra step, we decided this time to implement the innovation competition using the relatively new procurement model of an innovation partnership. The advantage of this partnership is that it combines the pilot and cooperation phases into a single, continuous process. The downside is the enormous effort required for preparation and implementation—for us as well as for the participants.
Innovation competitions and procurement are an interesting area of tension. How was the competition received?
Innovation competitions and procurement are a culture clash: Traditional innovation competitions thrive on a deliberately relaxed atmosphere. A traditional procurement process tends to represent the opposite. In my experience, a call for proposals therefore rarely sparks enthusiasm among bidders. It was clear to us from the outset: It makes a crucial difference whether the first impression a competition leaves on bidders is that of an anonymous procurement platform with forms and deadlines—or whether, in that initial contact, they encounter people, a vision, and a clear message. In other words, even though we must conduct public procurement, we do not have to overwhelm potential partners with bureaucracy from the very first interaction.
What does that mean in practice?
We took the bidders’ perspective into account right from the design phase, conveyed a clear vision, and demonstrated personality rather than merely pointing out pitfalls. Our approach and tone were crucial in this regard. We sought out bidders and potential partners as equals. When it came to innovative providers, we were competing not only with other municipal actors but also with the private sector—and that’s how we’re compared. The response has confirmed our approach: When providers recognize that a project team with its own vision is behind the initiative, they’re significantly more likely to invest the effort required for a public bidding process.
How quickly are the projects now moving into implementation?
We’re pleased to have found four different winning companies with whom we can test and further develop solutions at four different pilot sites in Berlin. So we’re right in the middle of the transition from the competition phase to practical implementation. Implementation planning is already underway.
What was the biggest challenge for degewo in announcing and conducting the competition?
As I mentioned earlier: We wanted to design this innovation competition to be problem- oriented. And that essentially turned the logic of a traditional procurement process on its head. A traditional procurement process says: “Dear market, I’ll describe exactly the product I want—who has the lowest price?” Our approach was: “Dear market, are you working on something new that we could develop further together? Here’s my problem, here’s my budget—show me the best product I can get for it.” We translated this into a model-neutral call for proposals with a budget framework. We didn’t specify a particular product but allowed for a product portfolio. The requirement to identify the same comparable criteria across all variants made implementation very challenging for us. But that’s precisely why, in the end, we ended up with a field of bidders as diverse as our neighborhoods.
What are the most important lessons you’ve taken away from the 2025 competition?
I’d like to highlight two points here. The first one: Flexibility isn’t a given in public procurement—in fact, it has to be earned through hard work. Even though we planned ahead extensively, it became clear in many areas that we needed more leeway—not only for technological developments but also for changes within the organization itself. The second one: Networks are crucial for innovators. I first became aware of the innovation partnership as a form of procurement through the Expert Group on Municipal Innovation Management (KIM) of Berlin Partner’s Smart City Unit. Without this cross- industry and cross-sector knowledge transfer, we would not have dared to undertake a competition in this form.
In conclusion: “Berlin is smart because ...”
... this city brings innovators together.
