Content uploaded by Thomas J. Lampoltshammer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas J. Lampoltshammer on Oct 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=titd20
Download by: [77.119.128.109] Date: 20 October 2017, At: 02:46
Information Technology for Development
ISSN: 0268-1102 (Print) 1554-0170 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/titd20
Increasing collaboration and participation in smart
city governance: a cross-case analysis of smart city
initiatives
Gabriela Viale Pereira, Maria Alexandra Cunha, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer,
Peter Parycek & Maurício Gregianin Testa
To cite this article: Gabriela Viale Pereira, Maria Alexandra Cunha, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer,
Peter Parycek & Maurício Gregianin Testa (2017) Increasing collaboration and participation in
smart city governance: a cross-case analysis of smart city initiatives, Information Technology for
Development, 23:3, 526-553, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1353946
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1353946
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 19 Jul 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 780
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Increasing collaboration and participation in smart city
governance: a cross-case analysis of smart city initiatives
Gabriela Viale Pereira
a,b
, Maria Alexandra Cunha
b
, Thomas J. Lampoltshammer
a
,
Peter Parycek
a
and Maurício Gregianin Testa
c
a
Department for E-Governance and Administration, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria;
b
Center for
Research on Public Administration and Government, Fundação Getulio Vargas, São Paulo, Brazil;
c
Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
ABSTRACT
This study addresses the concept of smart governance in the context
of smart cities, with a focus on analyzing the phenomenon of smart
collaboration. Relying on the existing collaboration and participation
concepts in the smart city domain, an empirical analysis was
undertaken of how ICT can promote collaborative governance
and increase the participation and engagement in government.
The multiple case studies focus on three cities in Brazil that run
municipal operations centers in an effort to “become smarter”:Rio
de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, and Belo Horizonte. Interviews with
directors, managers, and technicians shed light on the contribution
that ICT makes in promoting an environment of collaboration in
the government. The findings have revealed that ICT has an
important role in supporting information sharing and integration
between government agencies and external stakeholders, including
citizens, especially in developing countries.
KEYWORDS
Smart city; smart governance;
information sharing; center
of operations; collaborative
governance
1. Introduction
Creating an environment of collaboration can be considered one of the main differences
between electronic government and smart governance concepts. Governance can be
defined as interaction and collaboration between different stakeholders in decision-
making processes (Alonso & Lippez-De Castro, 2016). As noted by Scholl and Scholl
(2014), smart interaction with stakeholders is a broader field of interest in smart govern-
ance research that has emanated from traditional electronic government research.
Generally, the main goal of e-government is to optimize services in the urban space,
which goes hand-in-hand with actions that are taken to improve the quality of life. In
addition to this traditional understanding, Castelnovo, Misuraca, and Savoldelli (2015)
emphasize the importance of using ICT-based approaches to achieve a qualitative
improvement in the relationship between citizens and their government. Further, they
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Gabriela Viale Pereira gabriela.viale-pereira@donau-uni.ac.at Department for E-Governance and
Administration, Danube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500 Krems a. d. Donau, Austria
Xusen Cheng is the accepting Associate Editor for this article.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT, 2017
VOL. 23, NO. 3, 526–553
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1353946
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
stress the utilization of ICT-enabled networks to host electronic public services as a means
of establishing contact with the government. However, the communication aspect is not
the only one that must be considered. Going one step further, Albino, Berardi, and Dange-
lico (2015, p. 10) state: “[…] smart governance means various stakeholders are engaged in
decision-making and public services.”In return, when put into the context of smart city
initiatives, governance takes a key position. This is particularly true when engaging citizens
in these initiatives and for keeping the associated decision-making processes transparent
(Albino et al., 2015; Castelnovo et al., 2015). To increase the total number of participants,
ICT-based solutions such as social media can help spread the word, collect feedback, and
thus support decision-making based on the public’s needs (Castelnovo et al., 2015).
Regarding the previously described background, this paper addresses the concept of
smart governance in the context of smart cities, with a focus on analyzing the phenom-
enon of smart collaboration. According to Alonso and Lippez-De Castro (2016), the contri-
bution of ICT in providing information and increasing the engagement of citizens has not
been completely described. Thus, this paper examines the role of ICT in smart city initiat-
ives within municipal operations centers. On a high level of abstraction, this paper aims to
answer the following question: How can ICT promote collaborative governance and
increase participation and engagement in smart city initiatives?
From the viewpoint of municipal operations centers, the following have specifically been
analyzed: (i) the role of ICT in supporting collaborative governance, (ii) the elements of colla-
borative governance, and (iii) how participation and engagement can be increased through
ICT-based solutions. Despite the importance given in the literature to collaboration and ICT-
enabled collaboration, there is still a gap in how ICT can leverage collaborative governance in
smart cities or, in other words, ICT-enabled collaborative governance.
To explore how the phenomenon of smart collaboration occurs, an exploratory study
was conducted based on multiple case studies. This particular research method was
chosen due to its key characteristic of holistic investigation, which allows the understand-
ing of the complex and ubiquitous interactions among organizations, technologies, and
people (Dubé & Paré, 2003).
Municipal operations centers have emerged in Brazil as a way to mitigate the conse-
quences of rapid urbanization without a specific treatment of quality of life issues and
citizen well-being while struggling with the growth of urban problems. In this sense,
the empirical setting of this research is determined by the municipal operations centers
in Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, and Belo Horizonte. These centers require the interaction
of various actors and are a prime location for observing collaboration and participation
phenomena.
This paper focuses on three cities in Brazil that run municipal operations centers in an
effort to “become smarter”: The Centre of Operations Rio (COR) in Rio de Janeiro, the Inte-
grated Centre of Command (CEIC) in Porto Alegre, and the Centre of Operations at Belo
Horizonte (COP-BH) in Belo Horizonte. These cities have been recognized as smart cities
and represent the three most relevant municipal operation centers in Brazil. The cities
vary largely in terms of population, demographics, economy, and location, which allows
interesting differences to be addressed.
The findings revealed that ICT has an important role in supporting information sharing
and integration between government agencies and external stakeholders, including
citizens.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 527
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of
collaborative governance, ICT-enabled governance, and collaboration and participation as
a way to analyze smart city initiatives. Section 3 describes the data collection method and
distinct case studies. Section 4 reports the findings from data analysis, followed by a dis-
cussion in Section 5. Finally, the paper closes with the conclusion.
2. Literature review
The concept of a smart city can be considered a utopia and derives from the overlapping
assemblage of studies in urbanism and the wave of ICT for development (Allwinkle &
Cruickshank, 2011; Bolívar & Meijer, 2016; Hollands, 2008; McFarlane, 2011). In the field
of ICT, a rapid development of hardware, software, and networks has been experienced
and, combined with a cost reduction, has made ICT for development available for most
cities around the world (Pérez-González & Díaz-Díaz, 2015). The different and often comp-
lementary perspectives of a smart city encompass an efficient, technologically advanced,
sustainable, and socially inclusive city (Vanolo, 2014).
In the context of smart cities, smart governance is a key issue. Smart governance means
that various stakeholders are engaged in decision-making and public services (Albino
et al., 2015); it also means that new technologies –that is, social media, the internet,
open data, citizen sensors, and serious games –are used to strengthen the collaboration
between citizens and urban governments (Federici, Braccini, & Sæbø, 2015). From this per-
spective, one important element of governance is collaboration both across departments
and with communities and making operations and services truly citizen-centric (Bătăgan,
2011). For some authors, the development of ICT promises to transform urban governance
into “smart governance”because ICT enables city governments to carry out their tasks
more effectively and efficiently (Hoon Lee, Phaal, & Lee, 2013; Inayatullah, 2011; Winters,
2011). Moreover, ICT supports relationships among citizens and other organizations and
presents new opportunities, particularly for governments, to promote new forms of com-
munication, consultation, and dialogue between public organizations and citizens (Feder-
ici et al., 2015).
Gil-Garcia, Pardo, and Nam (2015) present a comprehensive view of the components
and elements of a smart city. This view comprises four dimensions: (1) technology and
data, (2) government, (3) society, and (4) physical environment. Technology is seen as a
dimension that extends across the others and aids in enhancing and interconnecting
them. Considering the question that motivated this work, the technology and data dimen-
sion was analyzed, along with governance, engagement, and collaboration, as one of the
three components of the “Society”dimension. Immersed in the specific context of munici-
pal operation centers, the focus was on collaborative governance and the role of ICT in
enabling collaborative governance, participation, and engagement.
2.1. Collaborative governance
From the ideal-typical perspective with the focus on governance, smart cities are defined
as cities with smart collaboration (Meijer & Bolívar, 2016). Governments around the world
are facing complex problems, and solving them requires government agencies, non-profit
and private organizations to work together (Pardo, Gil-Garcia,& Luna-Reyes, 2010).
528 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Collaboration can be defined as “a process or a set of activities in which two or more
agents work together to achieve shared goals”(Chun, Luna-Reyes, & Sandoval-Almazán,
2012). Several aspects of collaboration have been studied, such as team collaboration
(Cheng, Yin, Azadegan, & Kolfschoten, 2016) and collaborative learning (Cheng, Fu, &
Druckenmiller, 2016). In the context of government, Harrison et al. (2012) define collabor-
ation as the sharing of responsibility and authority for decisions on operations, policies or
actions of government for more than one set of stakeholders. Collaboration can occur at
different levels and can be inter-organizational, cross-sectorial, or through the govern-
ment-citizen relationship (Nam & Pardo, 2014). Internal collaboration, which can be
characterized as inter-departmental or inter-institutional (between public organizations),
can be defined as collaborative governance. Thus, it can easily be affirmed that ICT
plays an important role in facilitating inter-organizational collaboration (Chun et al.,
2012) and that governments around the world have prioritized the enhancement of col-
laboration and integration across government departments (Alhusban, 2015). External col-
laboration includes the involvement of governmental and non-governmental parties, such
as companies, non-profit organizations, civic groups, or individual citizens.
Considering the organizational changes, smart city initiatives aim to increase the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of public administration as well as aspects that promote smart
governance to encourage greater collaboration between stakeholders (Chourabi et al.,
2012) and improve the provision of information and services (Angelopoulos, Kitsios,
Kofakis, & Papadopoulos, 2010). Other benefits related to collaborative government are
better information sharing by agencies, higher resource utilization, and more engaged
policy-making (Estevez, Ojo, & Janowski, 2010). Information sharing optimizes and
reduces the impediments to improving government performance and promotes situation
awareness that supports well-informed, collaborative decision-making, and joint actions
(Chun et al., 2012). A collaborative government can apply collective intelligence for inno-
vative solutions to problems; it can also provide shared governance that ultimately fosters
the trust and confidence of citizens in governments (Chun et al., 2012). This collaborative
environment is one of the distinct characteristics between smart governance and e-gov-
ernment (Scholl & Scholl, 2014).
For Gil-Garcia, Helbig, and Ojo (2014), technology can be a core component of changes
and innovation in government, but in other cases, this is only a minor aspect. Other
elements of smart governance include coordination between economic and social
policy, improvement in intra-governmental coordination, decentralization, increased par-
ticipation, and renewal of organizational structures. From the literature, six defining
elements that cover the various aspects of smart governance have already been identified
(Bolívar & Meijer, 2016): (1) the use of ICT (e.g. Giffinger et al., 2007); (2) external collabor-
ation and participation (e.g. Bătăgan, 2011); (3) internal coordination in order to achieve
collective goals through collaboration (e.g. Willke, 2007); (4) decision-making processes
(e.g. Barrionuevo, Berrone, & Ricart, 2012); (5) administration and the ability of government
agencies to interact with the public online in the delivery of services and in fulfilling their
predesignated mandates (e.g. Odendaal, 2003); and (6) outcomes, for example, Caragliu,
Del Bo, and Nijkamp (2011) note that the overall aim of smart governance could be to
achieve the social inclusion of urban residents in public services. Bolívar and Meijer
(2016) also stress that most papers in smart governance present a combination of these
various defining elements.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 529
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
2.2. ICT-enabled governance
Data, information, and ICT are crucial components of a smart city. In a smart city initiative,
data management capacity, information processing, and information sharing through ICT
are key aspects for promoting partnerships and inter-organizational communications in
cities in both developed and emerging economies (Odendaal, 2003). Gil-Garcia et al.
(2015) note three perspectives that are useful in defining urban smartness in terms of
data and information: (1) a smart city is instrumented with data from physical and
virtual sensors (Chen, 2013); (2) a smart city has an enterprise computing platform that
integrates real-time, real-world data and is responsible for sharing information among
city services; and (3) a smart city uses analytics to make better operational decisions. In
addition, some authors stress the importance of data and information to improving the
decision-making processes of public policies (Charalabidis, Koussouris, Lampathaki, & Mis-
uraca, 2012).
Technology comprises a broad variety of elements that are used to support data and
information sharing among urban governments, governmental agencies and depart-
ments, citizens and all of the stakeholders involved in a smart urban initiative. Broadband
and wireless infrastructure, interconnecting computer networks, ubiquitous systems,
virtual technologies, and service-oriented architecture are some of these elements (Antho-
poulos & Fitsilis, 2009; Gil-Garcia et al., 2015).
In a broader vision, electronic governance encompasses the strategic use of ICT to
support governance processes, including the relationships between government and
citizens and other stakeholders (Estevez & Janowski, 2013). In a more specific definition,
ICT-enabled city governance consists of the use of ICT to simplify and improve the
internal administrative operations of government, facilitate public service interaction
between government and all stakeholders, enable citizen participation, and ensure
inclusiveness and equal opportunities (Castelnovo et al., 2015). Focusing on improving
the quality and effectiveness of policies and governance models, Charalabidis et al.
(2012) define ICT for governance and policy modeling as an umbrella term indicating
the use of technologies that interact to achieve the target of participative, evidence-
based governance and the related organizational and social processes associated
with them.
The exchange of data and information between government agencies and between
governments and social actors makes interoperability a bigger issue in smart cities. The
context is the combination of the use of technologies that are traditionally used by gov-
ernments and new technologies –social media, the internet, open data, big data analytics
tools, citizen sensors, IoT, and games. Interoperability defines the necessary condition for
cooperation by exchanging information and communication between organizations.
Moreover, measurement processes, performance evaluation, and improvement are
expected (Maheshwari & Janssen, 2014). Nam and Pardo (2014) defined some metrics
for a smart government initiative evaluation in pursuit of an effective, efficient, transpar-
ent, and more collaborative management. The same can be assessed both in operations
management within public organizations and in their interaction with the public, stake-
holders, and other non-governmental actors.
To perform the role of moderators of collective decision-making processes, govern-
ments should be able to establish platforms for policy intelligence in which all
530 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
stakeholders can contribute to the policy directions, thereby improving governance and
policy-making processes. However, what is still missing is the definition and realization
of new ICT-enabled governance models, where the balance of power and the roles and
responsibilities of governments, societal actors, and the population will have to adapt
to these challenging new possibilities (Misuraca, Broster, & Centeno, 2012).
2.3. Participation and engagement
Harrison et al. (2012) define participation as the intensity of direct involvement of other
parties in decision-making regarding governmental actions. In this definition, it is impor-
tant to observe the way in which forums are organized, aiming to facilitate communication
among government, citizens, companies, stakeholders, and concerned groups that face a
specific decision or issue (Renn, Webler, & Wiedemann, 1995). One can include public con-
sultations, public meetings, focus groups, surveys, citizen counsels or committees, refer-
enda, initiatives and businesses, among other models.
There is a growing interest, both in academic research and in governmental practice,
regarding the new forms of relations between the state and citizens enhanced by ICT,
especially in public participation or decision-making with citizens’participation (Cunha,
Coelho, & Pozzebon, 2013). ICT-based applications can be used to raise public engage-
ment in public debates about societal needs (Castelnovo et al., 2015). Citizen-centric
e-governance is considered a new mechanism for the government to use ICT to
enhance citizen engagement with political discourse and decision-making, influencing
meaningful change in public policy and governance (Chatfield, Reddick, & Brajawidagda,
2015; Reddick, Chatfield, & Jaramillo, 2015). In general, ICT-based tools can mediate,
extend, and transform participation in democratic and consultative societal processes
(Sæbø, Rose, & Flak, 2008). These processes involve the use of ICT in political, civil, and
administrative spheres of governance (Grönlund & Horan, 2005).
Some governments have proven the potential of ICT to generate value through co-
creation and citizen participation (Díaz-Díaz & Pérez-González, 2016). The focal point of
applying ICT-based tools for participation is the citizen, and therefore its main purpose
is to increase the abilities of citizens to participate in governance, including the processes
of providing public services at various stages in the production chain (Pérez-González &
Díaz-Díaz, 2015), that is, planning, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation
(Grönlund, 2001; Sæbø et al., 2008). Beyond the public services delivery, smart city
initiatives usually have inter-sectorial relationships and encourage citizen participation
(Alawadhi et al., 2012). Further, the goal is to enable them to have a genuine impact on
public policies (Aström, Karlsson, Linde, & Pirannejad, 2012; Pozzebon, Cunha, & Coelho,
2016). In particular, to create responsive governance, social media can have a key role
when adopted by the public sector. According to Bekkers, Edwards, and de Kool (2013),
social media monitoring can facilitate more responsiveness in policy-making and co-
production with citizens, but it can also facilitate governance processes in which
citizens participate and public organizations take their ideas and suggestions into account.
There is strong evidence that social media helps the government empower citizens and
expand democracy, especially in more open local governments (Bonsón, Royo, & Ratkai,
2015). Citizen engagement relies on connecting government with citizens through ICT
and combining ideals of citizen-centricity and community empowerment in values
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 531
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
such as responsiveness, consultation, collaboration, and participation (Rose, Persson, &
Heeager, 2015). Furthermore, citizen engagement allows two-way communication and
enables collaboration and participation, thereby increasing the quality of the relationship
between citizens and governments (Gil-Garcia, Zhang, & Puron-Cid, 2016). Citizens tend to
engage more when they see that governments are open to interacting and integrating
their point of view when formulating decisions and when they have access to useful,
relevant, and a complete set of information from the government (Bonsón et al., 2015;
Mellouli, Luna-Reyes, & Zhang, 2014).
As suggested by Nam and Pardo (2014), transparency can be a tool to make govern-
ment smarter. Harrison et al. (2012) define transparency as the access to data or infor-
mation on governmental operations, assisting in areas such as responsiveness or
influence over government. Considering the internal and external views of smart govern-
ment, transparency can be seen both in information sharing and in the integration among
government organizations, apart from the accessibility of information and decision-
making processes related to the provision, monitoring, and delivery of services (Nam &
Pardo, 2014).
Table 1 summarizes the concepts presented in the literature review, including their
descriptions and references.
3. Method
As stated by Yin (1994), most studies require the analysis of multiple cases, following the
logic of literal replication or theoretical replication for case selection. To select case studies
in this paper, the logic of literal replication was used, where the conditions of cases led to a
prediction of similar results (Yin, 1994). The authors chose the cross-case analysis of mul-
tiple cases in which they are not shown separately, seeking more general results (Yin,
2009). Following the matrix of case study types proposed by Yin (2009), this research is
characterized as a holistic study of multiple cases in which each case study presents a
different context (three different cases so three different contexts). Furthermore, the
cases are analyzed by a single unit of analysis (holistic study), which is defined in this
study as the role of ICT in municipal operations centers.
The first two cases, Rio de Janeiro and Porto Alegre, were selected because the cities
won the World Smart City
1
award in 2013 and 2014, respectively. To maximize the
results addressing the totality of municipal operations centers in Brazil, the Belo Horizonte
case was also included based on the criteria of typical cases (Yin, 2009).
Primary data were collected through 32 individual and 3 group interviews (2 individ-
uals each) across the three cases between the second half of 2014 and the first half of
2015, resulting in a total of 37 respondents. One supervisor was interviewed twice, as
listed in Table 2. The selected individuals are included in different functional teams at
different levels and with different professional backgrounds to obtain a wider range
of perspectives on the case. Thus, due to the specifics of the cases, the sample includes
representatives of senior management, such as directors and coordinators of the
centers; administrative managers and administrative staff, such as advisors and man-
agers of centers, technology analysts and other technical and administrative staff; and
operating managers and service operators, especially agents of other agencies allocated
in the center.
532 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
To select the participants, we approached an initial point of contact who was the com-
munication advisor of the centers or secretaries for assistance. Thus, the selection of the
sample followed the snowball technique, where the interviewees could indicate
Table 1. Adopted concepts, descriptions, and authors.
Concept Description Authors
Collaborative
governance
Collaborative governance
Inter-departmental collaboration or between public organizations for
problem-solving. In a broader definition, it involves sharing of
responsibility and authority between urban governments and/or
governmental departments, citizens, private sector, and
stakeholders working together in problem-solving and decision-
making.
Meijer and Bolívar (2016)
Bătăgan (2011)
Inayatullah (2011)
Winters (2011)
Hoon Lee et al. (2013)
Pardo et al. (2010)
Chun et al. (2012)
Scholl and Scholl (2014)
Chourabi et al. (2012)
Angelopoulos et al.
(2010)
Estevez et al. (2010)
Governance elements
The use of ICT; external collaboration and participation; internal
coordination in order to achieve collective goals through
collaboration; decision-making process; e-administration; and
outcomes.
Bolívar and Meijer (2016)
Giffinger et al. (2007)
Bătăgan (2011)
Willke (2007)
Barrionuevo et al. (2012)
Odendaal (2003)
Caragliu et al. (2011)
Gil-Garcia et al. (2014)
ICT-enabled
governance
ICT and other technologies
Comprises a broad variety of elements such as broadband and
wireless infrastructure, interconnecting computer networks,
ubiquitous systems, virtual technologies, and service-oriented
architectures.
Gil-Garcia et al. (2015)
Anthopoulos and Fitsilis
(2009)
Data and information
A city instrumented with data from physical and virtual sensors; a
platform integrating real-time, real-world data and responsible for
sharing information among city services; analytics to better
operational decisions. Data and information being used to improve
the decision-making processes of public policies.
Gil-Garcia et al. (2015)
Chen (2013)
Charalabidis et al. (2012)
Harrison et al. (2010)
Participation and
engagement
Participation
Intensity of the direct involvement of other parties in decision-
making regarding governmental actions.
Harrison et al. (2010)
Cunha et al. (2013)
Castelnovo et al. (2015)
Chatfield et al. (2015)
Reddick et al. (2015)
Sæbø et al. (2008)
Grönlund and Horan
(2005)
Díaz-Díaz and Pérez-
González (2016)
Pérez-González and
Díaz-Díaz (2015)
Grönlund (2001)
Aström et al. (2012)
Pozzebon et al. (2016)
Collaboration and engagement
Connecting government with citizens through ICT, combining ideals
of citizen-centricity and community empowerment in values such
as responsiveness, consultation, collaboration, and participation;
allows two-way communication and enables collaboration and
participation, increasing the quality of the relationship between
citizens and governments.
Rose et al. (2015)
Gil-Garcia et al. (2016)
Bonsón et al. (2015)
Mellouli et al. (2014)
Transparency
Access to data or information on governmental operations, assisting
in areas such as responsiveness or influence over the government.
Nam and Pardo (2014)
Harrison et al. (2012)
Source: Authors.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 533
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
someone to participate in the next meeting. The convergence of responses was used to
define the end of the data collection in each case. Table 2 presents a detailed list of
respondents.
To increase the qualitative research credibility and validity, this study adopted data tri-
angulation of data, which involved verifying facts from multiple data sources (Cho & Trent,
2006), interviews with different people and different locations, and document analyses.
The interviews occurred at the individuals’work sites, and each session lasted approxi-
mately one hour. Each interview was recorded digitally to facilitate the process of tran-
scription and analysis of data, preserving the anonymity of participants who authorized
the recordings. Moreover, during the interviews, notes were made, and documents
were collected to supplement the data and assist in understanding the context in
which the interviews were conducted.
In addition to conducting semi-structured interviews, an interview protocol was used to
guide the data collection. The interviewers were free to build an appropriate conversation
interacting with each interviewee, considering their expertise and function. The protocol
was based on the literature review and on the pre-established questionnaire in the field of
smart cities (Alawadhi et al., 2012; AlAwadhi & Scholl, 2013; Chourabi et al., 2012; Nam &
Pardo, 2012; Gil-Garcia & Aldama-Nalda, 2013; Macadar & Lheureux-De-Freitas, 2013; Nam
& Pardo, 2013), featuring both open and topic-related questions. We also considered the
integrative framework of smart cities proposed by Gil-Garcia et al. (2015), which is an evol-
ution of the original model of the aforementioned questionnaire and has four dimensions
(1) technology and data, (2) government, (3) society, and (4) physical environment. Tech-
nology is seen as a component that extends across the others and helps enhance and
interconnect them. Considering the objectives of this study, we analyzed the technology
and data component along with the governance, engagement (participation), and collab-
oration components in the specific context of municipal operation centers.
Table 3 presents the selected questions that were used to guide the interviews and
address the objectives of the study.
The set of primary data proved to be rich and the content of the transcribed interviews
filled 558 pages (Times New Roman, 12 pt font, and 1.5 line spacing). In addition, further
highly relevant document sources (such as laws and norms, websites of the municipalities
and municipal operations centers, social networks and applications linked to the initiat-
ives, resilience reports officially published by the municipal governments of Rio de
Table 2. Profile of interviewees.
City Level Technique Number of interviews
Porto Alegre Senior management Individual interview 3 (2 with the same interviewee)
Porto Alegre Managers and administrative Individual interview 2
Porto Alegre Manager and operational Individual interview 6
Belo Horizonte Senior management Individual interview 3
Belo Horizonte Senior management Group interview 1 (2 interviewees)
Belo Horizonte Managers and administrative Individual interview 4
Belo Horizonte Managers and administrative Group interview 1 (2 interviewees)
Belo Horizonte Manager and operational Individual interview 7
Belo Horizonte Manager and operational Group interview 1 (2 interviewees)
Rio de Janeiro Senior management Individual interview 2
Rio de Janeiro Managers and administrative Individual interview 5
Source: Authors.
534 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Janeiro and Porto Alegre, and strategic planning, news and other documents) accessed
only during the data collection were incorporated to ensure a greater data triangulation
capability (Yin, 2009). This study had the evaluation of data collected from a theoretical
perspective as a general analytical strategy (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). The entire quali-
tative analysis process was performed using the QSR NVivo software.
The literature review provided an overview of collaborative governance, ICT-enabled
governance, and collaboration and participation as a lens for analyzing the smart city
initiatives, which in this study are the municipal operation centers. Although the codes
were generated from the data analysis, the main categories were defined based on the
literature review and a discussion of the empirical data.
Thus, the proposed dimensions, (1) Collaborative governance, (2) ICT-enabled govern-
ance, and (3) Participation and engagement, were analyzed across the three smart city
initiatives. Table 4 presents the dimensions and categories of analysis. These categories
feature 26 codes that were derived from the data through 225 codified parts.
4. Findings
In this section, the authors present evidence to answer the main research questions for the
three smart city initiatives, considering the ICT and governance dimensions that were
coded and analyzed. During the data analysis, the respondents were identified by
codes to ensure confidentiality. Representatives of Rio de Janeiro were identified by the
letter “R”followed by an identification number (e.g. seven respondents, or seven inter-
views, are represented by the following codes: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7). Similarly,
Table 3. Interview protocol.
Objectives Interview protocol
(i) The role of ICT supporting collaborative
governance
.How does this initiative make the city smarter?
.What were the motivation and the objectives in implementing
this initiative?
.How does this initiative differ from others that you have been
involved in?
.What is the role of ICT in this initiative?
(ii) Elements and mechanisms to support
collaborative governance
.What is the governance model of this initiative?
.In which way is this initiative governed and structured?
(iii) How participation and collaboration can be
increased through ICT-based solutions.
.In which way are other stakeholders, such as citizens and non-
governmental organizations involved in this initiative?
Source: Authors.
Table 4. Dimensions and categories of analysis.
Dimensions Categories
Collaborative governance Collaborative governance
Governance elements
ICT-enabled governance ICT and other technologies
Data and information
Participation and engagement Communication and participation
Collaboration and engagement
Transparency
Source: Authors.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 535
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
representatives of Porto Alegre were identified by the letter “P”and Belo Horizonte by the
letter “B.”
4.1. Collaborative governance
The governance model identified in the analyzed initiatives encompasses a hierarchical
structure with a collaborative/participative decision process. Depending on the context,
the decision-making is authoritative or shared. Table 5 presents the codes and evidences
for the identified collaborative governance elements.
Respondents from all three centers consider the organizational structure to be hierarch-
ical (P1, P3, P7, B2, R3), especially because the centers are directly connected to the
mayors’offices, which control all of the other municipal agencies. Internally, the
Table 5. Empirical evidences of collaborative governance.
Codes Quotes Evidences
1. Collaboration 8 “What is distinct about us is that all subjects are placed under the
knowledge of all members, regardless of hierarchy, for suggestions”
(B11).
“I think it is more collaborative. There are some issues that must be
decided by the director, but since I’m here, I am always asked about
my thoughts and what my Department could help with, we have had
this collaborative view, a win-win relationship, and how we can do
better, making a decision together and not in a dictatorial way”(P8).
“Each agency has its representative here, and everyone has a
collaborative role. It is not such a hierarchical thing, in that order has
to be met this way, but it is all discussed”(B4).
“Is there anyone who decides? Yes, and it has to be like this, but to
reach this decision, there is a collaborative process”(P7).
2. Hierarchical structure 6 “Although this hierarchical structure does exist, there has never been a
situation in which we had to use it because there is a sense of co-
operation, even between the higher levels”(P1).
3. Participatory decision-making 9 “No, we do not have a formalized structure of committees, but we have
a full participation of the whole management together with
technicians working in decision-making”(P3).
“Decision-making is done in a conjugate way. So, the decision is the
one that least affects (in a negative way) everyone”(R3).
“The Mayor answered a question once like this: I do make some
mistakes sometimes, but only in small things, because for the big
things I usually surround myself with a lot of people to give opinions”
(R3).
4. Flexibility and autonomy in
decision-making
3“An agency that has the ability to solve everything very fast is very
good for the citizens; this is a benefit of the centre, the de-
bureaucratization of things”(B5).
“The support from other institutions has been faster in a matter of
readiness, because it does not have much bureaucracy”(B10).
“The centre has flexibility and autonomy in decision-making regarding
the operation of the city”(R2).
“This dialogue between director and the mayor streamlines the process
in many ways”(B1).
5. Decision-making is authoritative and
the leader is imperative
3“The model is collaborative to some extent because there are some
decisions that have to be made by the leaders”(B11).
“The fact that you systematize processes, delegate authority, and invest
in technology does not exempt the competence and responsibility of
the decision maker”(R3).
“There are events of greater magnitude in that I’m going to call the
decision maker, and this is already stated in the protocol, things that
might have political implications”(R3).
Source: Research data.
536 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
organizational structure of the centers has well-defined management positions, such as
directors, managers, and operators. The majority of the respondents noted that although
there is a hierarchical structure, the decision-making process is very collaborative/partici-
patory (P1, P3, P6, P7, P8, P10, B3, B4, B11).
During the analysis of cases, some governance mechanisms could be identified, such as
the prioritization of processes through action frameworks and operating instructions, crisis
management, operating protocols, and operating briefings.
There are different forms for defining the prioritization of demands in the centers. Some
of them are the analysis of the impact on the city (B5, P1, P9) and the severity of the situ-
ation (R3). According to respondent P9, the situations that negatively impact the city
require an urgent response. Respondent B5 emphasizes the need to analyze the entire
situation, including the number of agents needed and the potential risk. Then, prioritizing
processes by its level of emergency state involves a trade-off between long- and short-
term achievements, mainly due to the characteristic of professionals working on initiatives
and seeking a balance between personal and professional satisfaction (R4).
One identified mechanism for supporting the prioritization of processes is the definition
of an action framework. For each situation, this framework includes the operational
impact, the impact on reputation, and the necessary communication actions (B13).
According to respondent B13, this framework was created to define the communication
plan for the situations, as presented in Table 6.
Operating instructions provide support in prioritizing processes based on the emer-
gency of the situation. According to respondent R3, “when you have multiple datasets
and you combine and interpret the data, you obtain information. When you have infor-
mation and combine it in a space-time matrix, you have the operating instruction,
which is what we work with.”
Among the identified governance mechanisms, the operating protocols are defined to
ensure autonomy for those who are responsible in the center in the absence of the mayor
or in situations where there are no risks or adverse effects (R3, P1, B1). The operating
Table 6. Action framework for prioritization of processes.
Action framework Low Medium Crisis
Operational
impact
Events that do not
significantly affect the lives
of citizens in the region
where it was recorded
Events that do not significantly
affect but do impact other
areas of the city.
Events that significantly affect
people’s lives and impact
other areas of the city
Impact on
reputation
Citizens post little or no
information about the
occurrence without any
demand or quote in the
press
Citizens post a reasonable
amount of information
without many complaints, few
demands or quotes in the
press
Citizens publish a lot of
information and make many
demands of the press
Communication
actions
Post on social media or the
center replies to the
demands that appear in the
press, only to the involved
institution
Align the central action with
other actions in which there
are other institutions involved,
publish on Twitter, Facebook,
post on the center website and
on the daily newsletters, notify
the press, make special news,
possibility of creating a hot
alert site and assess the need
for a spokesman of City Hall.
In a crisis situation, in addition
to aligning all agencies or
triggering the press, think of a
conference press that allows
people to understand the
integration and understand
how the center is involved in
the issue
Source: Research data.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 537
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
protocol is applied when there is no serious political implication and is, therefore, suitable
for most situations.
The operating protocolis not an integration cake recipe. It means that I can delegateauthority to
trigger the protocol. That is the goal. I do not need to involve the decision maker for all situations.
We only approach the mayor when our protocol has reached its limit. That is, we reach a position
where there are no favourable decisions anymore. When a situation has been faced before, the
protocol has a pre-consent given by secretaries and operational managers to the staff level so it
can act to instantly meet the demands and implement the protocol. (R3)
The situation or crisis room is a mechanism to operationalize coordination and colla-
borative decision-making processes. According to respondent P1, this room centralizes
the information to support decision-making. This information encompasses camera
images, georeferenced data, and information about the municipality’s infrastructure,
building structures, water supply, sewage system, and gas grid. By defining the area
where a problem occurs, it is possible to identify the entire infrastructure that will be
needed in the region. According to respondent B3, the crisis room brings the representa-
tives together and helps make a decision. This convergence of agencies in a shared
environment ensures that decision-making will occur in situations where it is required
and involve the center in a participatory and coordinated way, which is one of the main
advantages of the initiatives according to respondent P1.
Operating briefings are integrated to the crisis room and have the objective of bringing
the same level of information to everyone to make it available to the relevant people in the
whole situation and, in particular, to ensure that the resources are available to meet a
certain demand (B1). According to respondent R3, such coordination started to become
a reality through these operating briefings, in which “three times per day, every
agency’s representatives get together in a room to share information and define the
best strategy for solving the problems without interfering in each other’s work.”
Table 7 presents a summary of governance elements and their related mechanisms.
4.2. ICT-enabled governance
As suggested by Gil-Garcia et al. (2015), one of the main aspects to make a city smarter
is the use of data and information in the government. ICT contributes to creating
Table 7. Governance elements, mechanisms, and functions.
Governance elements Mechanisms Functions
Coordination Operational briefing Level the information between agencies
Creating combined strategies
Prioritizing processes Action framework Operational impact analysis, impact on image,
communication actions needed
Operational instruction Contextualizing information in time and space
Trade off analysis Balance long- and short-term projects
Shared decision-making processes Operation protocol Sets responsibility for each type of situation
in operational terms
Activated in situations where there is no
serious political implications
Autonomy in decision-making Operation protocol Promote agility for the processes
Increased flexibility
Collaborative decision-making processes Crisis room Operationalize collaboration and coordination
Source: Research data.
538 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
channels in which government can make the knowledge about government operations
accessible to people and can foster communication both between the government and
stakeholders and among government agencies (Alonso & Lippez-De Castro, 2016). We
have analyzed the impact of ICT on collaborative governance and participation by iden-
tifying the main elements regarding technology and data use in municipal operation
centers. Table 8 presents the codes and evidence for the identified ICT and data
elements.
In line with the literature, the results of the data analysis show that ICT has an important
role in both enabling information sharing and integration between government agencies
and the centers and being part of the initiatives infrastructure. According to respondent
R3, “the technology supports a pre-determined environment that has a clear organiz-
ational guideline. The role of technology is not organizing contexts, which is harmful
when there is no clear structure in which it will be applied.”According to respondent
P1, “the objective is that the information is available for whoever needs it and has the com-
petence to make better use of it.”
Information sharing through ICT is a key aspect for inter-organizational communication
(Gil-Garcia et al., 2015). Although incipient in some of the centers, using ICT to operationa-
lize information sharing is on the agenda of the municipal operation centers, as noted by
B13: “crossing information between agencies is one of the key aspects of a smart city […]
the idea is to integrate systems that will be supplied by everyone, and the databases of
each secretary will be available for the others.”The same is noted by respondent P6,
who states that “despite the advancement in monitoring technologies, geoprocessing
systems and automatic stations, what is missing is an integrated system and technologies
for supporting management.”
In Rio de Janeiro, which is in a more advanced stage of functioning, the integration of
systems occurs through the GeoPortal, which encompasses many information layers to
support decision-making. According to respondent R2, the GeoPortal “integrates the over-
lapping layers, processes, information, and data that are created through the centre, and
some of them support the decision-making processes.”One of the prerequisites for being
part of the center is technological compatibility.
Table 8. ITC-enabled governance dimension factors.
Codes (Factors) Quotes
ICT and other technologies
6. Adoption of new technologies 17
7. Data sharing and integration 14
8. Monitoring system 12
9. Integrator system 6
10. Lack of interoperability 14
11. Privacy and consistency of information 14
12. Budget constraints 11
13. Technological upgrade 3
Data and information
14. Geo-location-based data 9
15. Data-based decision-making and planning 9
16. Providing real-time data 7
17. Big data analytics 7
18. Data crossing 6
19. Integration and opening data 3
Source: Research data.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 539
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Regarding interoperability, respondent P3 believes that a smart city seeks innovation
and system integration. Although essential, this integration is still considered a challenge
because most of the technicians used to work with individual systems. Systems interoper-
ability is not a reality for the initiatives in Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte.
Susceptibility to error is a consequence of the lack of systems integration and automa-
tization. According to respondent B11, when it is implemented, it will “definitely increase
processes’efficiency and effectiveness.”The same is noted by respondent R2 concerning
integration updating that will lead to process optimization. The interoperability of systems
is seen as the main barrier for the centers, especially the need for personalized solutions
that address the reality and specificities of a city (R1).
The use of data and information to support decision-making is perceived by several
respondents as a main factor of the initiatives. The use of government data, for instance,
allows problems in the city (R1) to be anticipated and the indicators improved (R6). Among
the goals of the initiative in this sense is the generation of information for citizens and
ensuring that this information reaches them (R2).
According to respondent R5, a characteristic of a smart city is to ensure the best poss-
ible use of the available data. The main strands in data use in smart cities are the inte-
gration of data from the city, open data, ensuring an improvement in city enforcement,
and the use of historical data for new purposes. Thus, data analysis and data mining
were identified as relevant, as was the use of historical or real-time data.
In the context of democracy and public participation, disclosing data is perceived as a
mechanism to bring an individual out of society and a way to get him or her involved (P1).
According to respondent P1, “disclosing the data is very important because it brings the
possibility for the citizen to also contribute.”In Rio, data transparency is on the center’s
agenda (R2).
In terms of collaboration, one way to make citizens participate in processes is through
tools and applications that have enjoyed widespread use by the population. Waze is one
application that allows the individual to report a traffic situation and is considered by
respondent P1 to be “a very powerful channel”; an example is an accident that
someone has already seen or photographed. For the interviewee, this collaboration will
streamline service in terms of information (P1). By receiving information from the existing
applications, the government has access to a very important layer, that is, the perception
of citizens (R4).
Big data analytics in Rio de Janeiro is helping managers to identify the source of the
problems and guide the way they should act (R3, R6). A lack of interconnection
between agencies is perceived, especially in the intersection of information (R3, B13, R6,
P5). According to respondent P5, the idea is to have a multilayer map with information
from several agencies, all aggregated into a single platform. In the same line, respondent
R6 affirms that the problem of city halls is that each department has a set of data, which
alone and without contextualization does not generate relevant information. Someone
must, therefore, connect the data on the intersection of robbery occurrences and lighting
conditions in a region, as in the example mentioned by respondent R3. He says that the
agency responsible for lighting does not include this information in their priorities, even
though this information could help them focus on regions with more robberies.
Decision-making and the definition of preventive measures are also driven by the use of
big data analysis. According to respondent R3, big data analysis can generate
540 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
visualizations of city dynamics and allow governments to plan structuring works when the
issue is not manageable. One example can be found in situations of constant congestion
on certain routes, where a need is indicated to improve points by duplicating lanes or
inserting mobile public transport lines (R3). In the case of preventive measures, respon-
dent P1 states that data collection is already taking place and is always looking for histori-
cal data “because it always has to be based on data.”The example that the interviewee
presents is related to the mapping of flood points and possible prevention of them:
“Look, this point here flooded four times in 2008; in 2009, five times. Well, I already
know that it is a chronic problem at that point”(P1).
A second stage of intelligence, according to respondent R3, is the use of data mining to
assist in decision-making and the definition of action plans. Respondent R2 states that the
center “has a system that integrates all the layers, processes, and information generated
here. All the data generated here are via GeoPortal, and we use them for decision-
making; it helps us in making decisions.”An example is the use of data mining to
operate an emergency plan by mapping an area of risk that can be affected by an
explosion (R3). Respondent P5 reiterates the importance of geo-referencing, which infor-
mation to be shared between agencies, such as civil defense, the military brigade, and
ambulance service for an injury involving firearms. From these occurrences, the
mapping of incidents begins with analytical information, which helps achieve a greater
understanding of the city and improve interventions, “I understand the city, and I see
where I can intercede”(P5). Respondent P5 contextualizes, affirming as follows:
For example, we did some geo-referencing work at SAMU (ambulance service), where I can put
a filter for firearms, white weapon, or hypoglycaemia, and every time the ambulance arrives at
an address for hypoglycaemia, I can include a point on Google Maps. So, we create spots of
incidence of certain situations. I have a gunshot wound map, where a shooting takes place
in the city, a map of white weapons where stabbings take place, a map of hypoglycaemia,
etc. Through this map, I can intelligently enhance safety in the case of firearms and strengthen
the consultation of specialists, neurologists or the release of drugs for convulsion in the places
where the most convulsions are taking place. (P5)
Respondent R2 adds by stating that the center has a tool that mines data from social
networks. An example is the Twitter monitoring of identified urban problems. The poten-
tial of monitoring social networks is perceived by respondent B13 as a form of auxiliary
communication in the operation.
So, if someone inside Belo Horizonte (BH) posts the keywords “accident”or “flood,”we can pull
it through social networks. When we had the collapse of the viaduct last year, I did a search for
all the stories, all the news, everything that happened that day, and I discovered that three
minutes after the overpass fell, someone had posted on a social network that the viaduct
had fallen. We knew seven minutes after the overpass crash, so if we had a social network
monitoring, that would work, we’d know right away, we’d know much sooner than the
centre personnel. (B13)
Although it is currently seen as a weakness, the potential of using large volumes of data
to create indicators is noted by the center’s agents. According to respondent R2, “this is a
deficit point still here in COR, but we must create a fixed methodology so we can measure
the response time”(R2). Along the same line, respondent B13 believes that although
improvement results already exist, such as a decreased response time, one must say
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 541
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
look, we have a 30 percent reduction in response time; if we had an accident before, it took 5
hours to respond. Now, it’s taking two hours to answer, and that’s a great reduction when it
comes to saving lives. (B13)
Interviewee B13 believes that this is a way to get the population to understand what the
center does and what the population actually gains.
During the coding of the data, references to the various sources of data entry and infor-
mation in the centers were identified. According to respondent R2, the center has some
sources of information. The main sources of information that the center uses in terms
of operation range from core stakeholders to capturing data from applications, social net-
works, and private companies that are integrated with GeoPortal. Among the sources of
information are the population that informs about what occurs in the city, government
agents, journalists, state agencies, clusters of people of interest (e.g. sub-secretaries, sec-
retaries, groups of secretaries’advisers), and information from the agencies that work at
the center or that is captured online, such as from Waze and Twitter, and then integrated
into GeoPortal.
“Waze is an application that tells you the traffic conditions. We measure the traffic of car
routes and times of travel. This is information captured online”(R3). The center also obtains
information from the concessionaires and integrated agencies on where the ambulances
are for instance, and they receive information about where there is heavy traffic, where it is
flooded, where it is raining, and where an accident has occurred.
Thus, a geo-referencing system is one of the main sources of data that supports
decision-making and monitoring the city’s situation. GeoPortal is a geo-referencing
system that works through layers of information, such as ambulance position, day-care
centers, city hall assets, state assets, municipal guard positions, and siren radars (R3).
4.3. Participation and engagement
The first understanding that emerges from our analysis of the role of ICT in the initiatives is
that it allows real-time communication between government and citizens. We have ana-
lyzed the impact of ICT participation and engagement by identifying the main tools used
to increase the interaction among government and its constituents, how citizens are
engaged in the actions of the centers, how they contribute to decision-making process,
and how openness and transparency have been used to increase engagement. Table 9 pre-
sents the codes and evidence for the identified Participation and engagement factors.
Table 9. Participation and engagement dimension factors.
Codes (Factors) Quotations
Communication and participation
20. Interaction through media 19
21. Interaction through social media 15
22. Lack of channels for engaging with citizens 9
Collaboration and engagement
23. Inter-sectoral partnerships 10
24. Civic engagement 5
Transparency
25. Access to real-time information 3
26. Supervision of public services 3
Source: Research data.
542 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
According to respondent R3, it was assumed that talking to citizens is a key issue for
managers of the city. Thus, the center operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and main-
tains a strengthened relationship with external actors, such as journalists and citizens. “We
have created an information channel to ingrain in people the habit of consuming this
information”(R3). The information is open and uncensored and allows people to see
the image of the cameras or the discussions about what is occurring in the city. “The inter-
action occurs all the time”(R3). In this sense, it was noted that the centers are creating
information and communication channels in real time as a resource for citizens. Respon-
dent P4 corroborates this by stating that through joint actions between the agencies, the
center can trigger this information. “As a citizen, the more information I have on my tablet
or via radio, the better. This I think is a smart city, being able to know what to do in a par-
ticular situation”(P4).
Considering the context of a developing country, it has been noted that there are
specific situations that address the needs of vulnerable groups, as suggested by Janowski
(2015) in the stage of contextualization of electronic governance. To start interacting with
the population, the interviewed B1 states that the center is seeking projects from other
departments that involve specific audiences and providing them to the center. “We got
here a month ago or so, people related to the environmental agency, people who are
involved with social policy, for instance, the threatening homeless situation”(B1). For
the respondent, the characterization of the citizens who are involved in projects varies
depending on the project and the secretariat involved.
ICT-based applications, such as social media, can be used to raise public engagement in
public debates and give information to governments about the population’s needs. Citi-
zens can then be seen as one of the main sources for knowledge about what is occurring
in the city (Castelnovo et al., 2015). According to respondents R2 and P1, citizens interact
with the center through social media in particular. The centers utilize information from
social media to build scenarios for addressing unusual situations, such as political manifes-
tations. The same was noted by respondents P3, P4, P6, B13, R1, R2, and R3, who claim that
the various social networks are tools that can assist in communication and citizen partici-
pation. “Twitter or Facebook are direct channels where citizens talk to the communication
department of the centre”(R1).
In addition to the constant use by citizens, the center monitors social media for data
intelligence matters. “There is a monitoring of social networking that is done to work in
intelligence purpose, and there is a supply of these social networks, mainly through
Twitter and the City Hall website”(P5).
The interaction also occurs through the media, in which the press helps in disclosing
information that can be used to reduce disorders in citizens’day-to-day lives (P1). Among
the various means of dissemination, radio appears to be one of the channels adopted
from the center. According to respondent P1, “the radio is a very large channel of communi-
cation to citizens who are moving, so we want to provide it, and the radio is also connected
to social networks and rapidly spreads information”(P1). According to respondents P4 and
P6, some information is only accessible by the public through the press. The importance of
the press is also perceived by respondent B1, who states that they have a proposal to bring
the press inside the center, which is also a form of partnership and dissemination.
To facilitate this interaction (with the press), as noted by respondent R2, the center has a
conference room and a communication department, including several TV stations and city
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 543
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
radios, to ensure aspects such as transparency and participation. In terms of communi-
cation, respondent R2 believes that this room strengthens the relationship between the
press and the center. He said that although it was present since the start, with time, the
press became increasingly confident about the work done by the center and started
increasing its membership and presence.
It was identified that the main challenge for the initiatives in this sense is the lack of
communication channels with citizens to enable a better understanding of the actions
and the existence of the centers. Several respondents (P3, P5, P7, R6, R7, B3, and B4)
believe that the population has a very low perception of the center’s performance; they
realize that the city is getting better, that problems are being solved, and that the
media reports timely information, but they do not know that the source of everything is
the center of operations. Respondent P5 believes that the challenge is making “people
understand what the centre serves and that this initiative can improve your assistance
in a crisis situation.”In the same view, respondent R6 believes that “citizens do not
have this return, and in reality, they know very little about the city.”For him, the initiatives
reach the citizens without their knowledge (R6).
As identified by Alawadhi et al. (2012), beyond collaboration between government
agencies, smart city initiatives usually have inter-sectoral relationships and encourage
citizen participation in decision-making, monitoring city services and providing feedback.
As suggested by Halchin (2004), an improvement can be noted in external collaboration
through partnerships and engagement of stakeholders, such as private companies, univer-
sities, representatives of communities or specific groups, and citizens in general.
External collaboration in the analyzed centers is represented by public–private partner-
ships (inter-sectoral partnership), partnerships with universities, and relations with citizens
who are indirectly affected by the operations center and, as discussed above, have an
active role in relation to the problems of the city. In addition, relationships were identified
with associations and other non-profit organizations.
The cross-sector partnerships are especially represented by technology companies and
social networking services, such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook. One example of public–
private–people partnership, according to respondent R4, is the Waze application (out-
smarting traffic application). For him, it represents an exchange for both sides that
affects people in general. The use of government information by regional TV companies
(media) is another example of public–private partnership between the centers and
radio and television stations.
One challenge for governments in implementing new technologies and smart pro-
cesses is that the agents should be able to follow this progress, which requires specific
skills. However, this is also a major barrier to the government, which addresses limited
budget and human resources that limit progress in some areas. One way to overcome
this barrier is through interactions among universities, industry, and government. In the
center of Belo Horizonte, a partnership is being proposed with a university in the city to
offer a discipline or internship in which people are trained to work in an operations
center (B1). Respondent B1 states that “people talk about smart city and centre of oper-
ations as if it was the future, but this future is actually now, and the cities must have pro-
fessionals working in this area.”The case of Rio de Janeiro is already showing evidence of a
public–private–university relationship. According to respondent R3, increasing the
amount of collected data increases the need for artificial intelligence that can process
544 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
all of the data generated. Artificial intelligence algorithms to select cameras to illustrate
various city problems are developed by engineering school laboratories at UFRJ
(Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) using Waze data, for example.
Considering public engagement, two ways for citizens to get involved and participate
in public affairs could be identified: directly (through citizen service or social media service)
and indirectly (through an intermediary actor who interacts and actively participates in the
decision-making process).
The direct form includes both the demand side of citizens to get instructions, infor-
mation, and public services and acting as a source for government to obtain information
and new demands through a toll-free number for non-emergency situations or social
media. “In terms of social networks, we use this issue a lot, not only to stimulate public
engagement but also to develop a kind of counter intelligence”(R2). That is, according
to respondent R2, a two-way communication path in which governments receive infor-
mation from society through social media and transfer the information to the press and
general public through social networks. Using social media to communicate with
people stimulates public engagement, thus making it possible to align governments
with society.
The indirect way depends on an important figure called the “deputy mayor,”who acts
in connecting citizens and the city. According to respondent R3, “these individuals often
gather the comments on everyday life in the region and bring them to the centre.”It
allows the government to create a risk grade for each district for the better control of
the city, and it covers the perception from all angles through contact with sub-prefects
or local managers of the unit. In Porto Alegre, there is the city council, regional forums,
and a community advisor who participates in the meetings. The community councils
are the “community spokesman,”who generally discusses safety concerns (P10).
5. Discussion
In this section, we discuss and present a framework of the results that emerged from the
findings section as a way to illustrate the main contributions of this research. To answer
the main research question of this study –how can ICT promote collaborative governance
and increase participation and engagement in smart city initiatives –based on the evi-
dence, we propose that information sharing and the integration of systems and depart-
ments are the main elements in framing the use of ICT to enable collaborative
governance along with participation and engagement practices. Figure 1 illustrates the
proposed framework.
The first research question covered the role of ICT in supporting collaborative govern-
ance. In short, it was found that the main objective and achievement in adopting ICT in
these smart city initiatives is enabling information sharing and integration between
agencies. In the interviews, this aspect could be noted in the emphasis on information
sharing and integration but also because of the frequency with which the respondents
referred to data and information concepts and technologies (Table 8). From the literature
(Charalabidis et al., 2012; Chen, 2013; Gil-Garcia et al., 2015), the urban smartness of a city is
defined as data and information: when it is instrumented with data from physical and
virtual sensors, when an enterprise uses a computing platform that integrates data and
shares information, and when it uses analytics to make better operational decisions. In
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 545
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
this study, aspects such as data collection from a broad number of sources, data mining,
big data analytics, data analysis, a common platform that encompasses data processing
and geo-referencing systems, and social media for sharing information within the stake-
holders were mentioned. One innovative aspect that was also identified in the cases is
the use of city sensors to gather information, such as the river levels to mitigate the
risks of a flood. Although there is still an absence of city sensors in all sectors and a lack
of infrastructure in the context of emerging economies, this issue has been solved by col-
lecting historical information, examining social media, and using private enterprise
systems such as Waze.
The integration of systems and processes is another important role, but the interoper-
ability of systems is critical and is the main barrier for enhanced collaboration. These inter-
operability aspects include the exchange of data as a key asset to provide the basis for
information and, as a consequence, knowledge-sharing between departments and organ-
izations (Axelsson & Melin, 2008; Tambouris, Liotas, & Tarabanis, 2007). In this regard, the
role of ICT in supporting collaborative governance should not minimize the challenges of
privacy and consistency of information, budget constraints, and the continuous need of
technological upgrade. Future research must therefore address the inter-operational
Figure 1. Framework of results on the use of ICT to enable collaborative governance.
546 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
aspects of front-and back-offices through a more general/holistic approach (Angelopoulos
et al., 2010).
The second research question focused on governance elements. In the smart city
context, governments should perform the role of moderators and establish platforms
for collective intelligence that can be adapted to the challenging new technologies, pro-
cesses, and mechanisms that are being built (Misuraca et al., 2012). The definition and
realization of these governance models are still missing, but our findings highlight a gov-
ernance model based on a hierarchical structure, with a collaborative/participative
decision process in which decision-making is authoritative or shared, depending on the
context, and in which the leadership plays a distinctive role. This governance model has
some elements across the cases that seemed to be a pattern and might provide insights
for other smart initiatives. Such elements are coordination (operational briefing), prioritiza-
tion of processes (action framework/operational instruction/trade-off analysis), shared and
autonomous decision-making processes (operation protocol), and collaborative decision-
making processes (crisis room).
This question is important because according to several existing studies, coordination
and cooperation are always important issues in e-government initiatives (Axelsson &
Melin, 2008). The elements that we found have been implemented to operationalize
internal collaboration or collaborative governance.
The third research question concerned increasing the participation and collaboration
through ICT-based solutions. The participation mechanisms and citizen engagement
vary, depending on the project and the secretariat that is involved. Without contradicting
the literature concepts of collaboration, engagement, and participation, the research
results emphasize interacting through media (e.g. communication channels in a resource
for journalists and the use of radio or the press by the centers to deliver real-time infor-
mation to citizens); interacting through social media (e.g. monitoring Twitter or connect-
ing social media with radio broadcast); civic engagement (e.g. directly engaging citizens or
through an intermediary actor such as the “deputy mayor”); inter-sectorial partnership (e.g.
technology suppliers, universities); and openness and transparency. Regarding the lasţ
access to real-time information and the supervision of public services acquired importance
during the data analysis. The introduction of information feeds that the general public can
tap into can improve transparency and participation in that the public can see what occurs
and then communicate feedback in a bi-directional manner through the introduced social
media channels.
According to Gorla (2008), sustainable governance proficiently manages the resources
and tasks at hand, always on the conditions of openness, accountability, and responsive-
ness to the needs of the general public. Furthermore, it directs effort towards minimizing
corruption and towards protecting minorities and valuing their opinion. It should be noted
that transparency is an asset in inter-sectorial work because both the various sectorial
actors and government departments benefit from it. Considering the context of the emer-
ging economy it is worth noting the actions that address the needs of vulnerable groups.
6. Conclusion
This study contributes to a better understanding of the role that ICT plays in smart city
initiatives within municipal operations centers. Relying on the existing collaboration and
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 547
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
participation concepts and the smart city domain, this study empirically analyzed how ICT
can promote collaborative governance and increase the collaboration and participation in
government in smart city initiatives. Our findings revealed that ICT has an important role
supporting information sharing and integration between government agencies and exter-
nal stakeholders, including citizens.
Our study makes two primary contributions. The former, from a substantive viewpoint,
is that our results reveal data and information sharing as a key asset in municipal oper-
ations center initiatives. In addition to the substantive field, the research contributes to
the literature gap suggested by Alonso and Lippez-De Castro (2016), in which the role
of ICT in increasing the engagement and collaboration of people in public debate was
not fully achieved. Data-based decision-making is one of the main results of the analyzed
initiatives for increasing the quality of public decisions. Using the definition of governance
of Alonso and Lippez-De Castro (2016), that is, that governance has been characterized as
multiple stakeholders influencing decision-making processes through increased inter-
action and collaboration, we may affirm that ICT has been playing a role in initiatives sup-
porting smart governance. From a theoretical perspective, our results illustrate how to
apply the framework proposed by Gil-Garcia et al. (2015) to better understand smart
city initiatives. By considering two of the components of the proposed framework, it
was possible to offer a comprehensive view of ICT-enabled collaborative governance.
This study explored the context of smart city initiatives in the form of municipal oper-
ation centers. Interviews with directors, managers, and technicians shed light on the con-
tribution of ICT to promoting an environment of collaboration in government. A limitation
of this study may be that the cases are located in an emergent economy, which may limit
the results to this specific scenario. Because operation centers have been gaining attention
in local governments, future research should focus on similar centers around the world to
contextualize the results, especially including countries in different levels of economic
development to identify the challenges in each context.
Regarding the limitations of the study, we can note that both the composition and the
number of participants in the interviews differ among the three cases. In the cases of Porto
Alegre and Belo Horizonte, the composition includes service operators and professionals
who work internally in the centers. In contrast, the case of Rio de Janeiro includes
members of partner agencies, such as the big data office and the citizen service, whose
activities are strongly related to the center. Although there were fewer respondents, the
case of Rio de Janeiro presented a convergence of data that allowed the collection to
be completed. Because we used the “snowball”technique to select interviewees, different
compositions were generated, probably due to differences in the size, time of existence,
and organizational structure. One way to minimize this situation in future studies may
be through the prior analysis of possible interviewees.
The time of existence of the centers may have led to some limitations, particularly in the
case of Belo Horizonte, which had been operating for a year when the data collection was
performed. Over time, operations centers present more precise outcome indicators that
can provide data to analyze the impact of the center’s actions on future research. More-
over, due to constant technological changes, new technologies can emerge, and a longi-
tudinal study can bring new contributions in this sense. One of the aspects to analyze in
future studies is the implementation of the integrative system in the cases of Porto Alegre
and Belo Horizonte.
548 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
It was also noted that the digital divide is a concern when implementing smart city
initiatives because everyone should receive and understand government alerts in a critical
situation. As shown by Janowski (2015), in a more complex stage of e-government,
especially in the specific context stage, governments face pressure for self-governance
and using open platforms to democratize the exchange of real-time information and ser-
vices. Such aspects may, however, result in consequences such as the inquiry of govern-
ment power and the increase in the level of the demands by the citizens. Thus,
understanding the unintended consequences of smart city initiatives is another aspect
that should be explored in further research.
Note
1. http://www.smartcityexpo.com/awards
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was partially supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior; CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasília –DF 70.040-020, Brazil (Process
number 99999.014692/2013-09); Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul.
Notes on contributors
Gabriela Viale Pereira is Senior Scientist at the Department for E-Governance and Administration at
Danube University Krems and visiting Post-doc at Fundação Getúlio Vargas (EAESP/FGV). She holds a
doctoral degree in Business Administration (PUCRS, Brazil) in addition to her Master’s degree in the
field of Management Information Systems. She is Connected Smart City Minitrack Co-Chair at
CeDEM. Her experience covers research at national (Brazil, Austria) and EU-funded project in elec-
tronic government, smart governance, and smart city topics. She has background and interest in
smart cities and data-driven decision-making topics.
Maria Alexandra Cunha is a professor at Sao Paulo Business School (EAESP), Fundação Getulio Vargas
(FGV), where she also leads the Technology and Government area at the Center for Research on
Public Administration and Government. Her line of research is information technology management.
She holds a doctorate degree in business administration from São Paulo University (USP) and she has
been leading academic research and professional projects in ICT governance, e-government, e-gov-
ernance, and e-democracy, and on models for administering computerization in governments. More
recently, her research interests are ICT for development and smart cities.
Thomas J. Lampoltshammer holds a doctoral degree in Applied Geoinformatics in addition to his
Master’s degrees in the fields of Information and Communication Technology, Embedded and Intel-
ligent Systems, as well as in Adult Education. Prior to his current position as Senior Scientist at
Danube University Krems, he has worked as a Researcher and Lecturer in Applied Informatics at
the School of Information Technology and Systems Management at the Salzburg University of
Applied Sciences Salzburg/Austria. His research experience covers national and EU-funded projects
in ICT-related topics, such as Geoinformatics, Remote Sensing, Semantics, Social Media, Legal Infor-
matics, and Open Data. He has a strong background in the design and implementation of expert and
decision-making systems, data analytics, as well as semantic-based reasoning.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 549
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Peter Parycek is Professor for E-Governance and Head of the Department for E-Governance and
Administration at the Danube University Krems. As a lawyer and graduate of the Master’s
program Telematics, his work is at the intersection of legal policy, social and technological develop-
ments. His research and project priorities include eGovernance, eDemocracy, and eGovernment. He
is the founder of the conference series CeDEM (International Conference for eDemocracy and Open
Government) held in Austria and Asia, and also responsible for the open access journal JeDEM
(eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government).
Maurício Gregianin Testa is Professor at the Business School at Pontifical Catholic University of Rio
Grande do Sul (PUCRS, Brazil). He is also the Director of Finance and Administration of the University.
He holds a master and a doctoral degree in Business Administration –Information and Decision
Support Systems (UFRGS, Brazil). His research areas are Management Information Systems, IT Gov-
ernance, eGovernment, Innovation Ecosystems, and Distance Education.
References
Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Leung, S., Mellouli, S., …Walker, S. (2012,
September). Building understanding of smart city initiatives. In International Conference on
Electronic Government (pp. 40–53). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
AlAwadhi, S., & Scholl, H. J. (2013, January). Aspirations and realizations: The smart city of Seattle. In
System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1695–1703). IEEE.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance,
and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology,22(1), 3–21.
Alhusban, M. (2015). The practicality of public service integration. Electronic Journal of e-Government,
13(2), 94–109.
Allwinkle, S., & Cruickshank, P. (2011). Creating smarter cities: An overview. Journal of Urban
Technology,18(2), 1–16.
Alonso, R. G., & Lippez-De Castro, S. (2016). Technology helps, people make: A smart city governance
framework grounded in deliberative democracy. In J. R. Gil-Garcia, T. A. Pardo, & T. Nam (Eds.),
Smarter as the new Urban Agenda (pp. 333–347). Springer International.
Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., Kofakis, P., & Papadopoulos, T. (2010, August). Emerging barriers in
e-government implementation. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 216–
225). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2009, September). From online to ubiquitous cities: The technical trans-
formation of virtual communities. In International Conference on e-Democracy (pp. 360-372).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Aström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in
non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly,29, 142–
150. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.008
Axelsson, K., & Melin, U. (2008). An inter-organisational perspective on challenges in one-stop gov-
ernment. International Journal of Electronic Governance,1(3), 296–314.
Barrionuevo, J. M., Berrone, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2012). Smart cities, sustainable progress. IESE Insight,14,
50–57.
Bătăgan, L. (2011). Smart cities and sustainability models. Informatica Economică,15(3), 80–87.
Bekkers, V., Edwards, A., & de Kool, D. (2013). Social media monitoring: Responsive governance in the
shadow of surveillance? Government Information Quarterly,30(4), 335–342.
Bolívar, M. P. R., & Meijer, A. J. (2016). Smart governance: Using a literature review and empirical
analysis to build a research model. Social Science Computer Review,34(6), 673–692.
Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens’engagement on local governments’Facebook sites.
An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe.
Government Information Quarterly,32(1), 52–62.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology,18(2),
65–82.
550 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2015). Smart cities governance the need for a holistic
approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Social Science Computer Review,34(6),
724–739.
Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S., Lampathaki, F., & Misuraca, G. (2012). ICT for governance and policy
modelling: Visionary directions and research paths. In Empowering open and collaborative govern-
ance (pp. 263–282). Heidelberg: Springer.
Chatfield, A. T., Reddick, C. G., & Brajawidagda, U. (2015). Government surveillance disclosures, bilat-
eral trust and Indonesia–Australia cross-border security cooperation: Social network analysis of
Twitter data. Government Information Quarterly,32(2), 118–128.
Chen, M. (2013). Towards smart city: M2M communications with software agent intelligence.
Multimedia Tools and Applications,67(1), 167–178.
Cheng, X., Fu, S., & Druckenmiller, D. (2016). Trust development in globally distributed collaboration:
A case of U.S. and Chinese mixed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems,33(4), 978–
1007.
Cheng, X., Yin, G. P., Azadegan, A., & Kolfschoten, G. L. (2016). Trust evolvement in hybrid team col-
laboration: A longitudinal case study. Group Decision and Negotiation,25(2), 267–288.
Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research,6(3), 319–340.
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., …Scholl, H. J. (2012, January).
Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii
International Conference on (pp. 2289–2297). IEEE.
Chun, S. A., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Sandoval-Almazán, R. (2012). Collaborative e-government.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,6(1), 5–12.
Cunha, M. A., Coelho, T. R., & Pozzebon, M. (2013). The use of ICT in public decision-making partici-
pation. In Proceedings of the ECIS –21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht,
Netherlands.
Díaz-Díaz, R., & Pérez-González, D. (2016). Implementation of social media concepts for e-govern-
ment: Case study of a social media tool for value co-creation and citizen participation. Journal
of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC),28(3), 104–121.
Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices,
trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly,27(4), 597–636.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532–550.
Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2013). Electronic governance for sustainable development –conceptual
framework and state of research. Government Information Quarterly,30, S94–S109.
Estevez, E., Ojo, A., & Janowski, T. (2010). Idioms for collaborative government networks –conceptu-
alization and applications to seamless services. L. M. Camarinha-Matos, X. Boucher, &
H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.). Collaborative Networks for a Sustainable World, 336, Springer, pp. 219–
226. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 978-3-642-15960-2.
Federici, T., Braccini, A. M., & Sæbø, Ø. (2015). “Gentlemen, all aboard!”ICT and party politics:
Reflections from a mass-eParticipation experience. Government Information Quarterly,32(3),
287–298.
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart cities.
Ranking of European medium-sized cities (Final Report). Centre of Regional Science, Vienna UT.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Aldama-Nalda, A. (2013, January). Making a city smarter through information inte-
gration: Angel network and the role of political leadership. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th
Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1724–1733). IEEE.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the
public sector. Government Information Quarterly,31,I1–I8.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Nam, T. (2015). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components
and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity,20(1), 61–
87.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An inte-
grative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly,33(3), 524–534.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 551
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Gorla, N. (2008). Hurdles in rural e-government projects in India: Lessons for developing countries.
Electronic Government, An International Journal,5(1), 91–102.
Grönlund, Å. (2001). Democracy in an IT-framed society. Communications of the ACM,44(1), 23–26.
Grönlund, Å, & Horan, T. (2005). Introducing e-GOV: History, definitions and issues. Communications
of the AIS,15, 713–729.
Halchin, L. E. (2004). Electronic government: Government capability and terrorist resource.
Government Information Quarterly,21(4), 406–419.
Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J., & Williams, P.
(2010). Foundations for smarter cities. IBM Journal of Research and Development,54(4), 1–16.
Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., …Pardo, T. (2012). Open
government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective.
Information Polity,17(2), 83–97.
Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepre-
neurial? City,12(3), 303–320.
Hoon Lee, J. H., Phaal, R., & Lee, S.-H. (2013). An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for
smart city development. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,80(2), 286–306.
Inayatullah, S. (2011). City futures in transformation: Emerging issues and case studies. Futures,43(7),
654–661.
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization.
Government Information Quarterly,32(3), 221–236.
Macadar, M. A., & Lheureux-De-Freitas, J. (2013, June). Porto Alegre: A Brazilian city searching to be
smarter. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
(pp. 56-64). ACM.
Maheshwari, D., & Janssen, M. (2014). Reconceptualizing measuring, benchmarking for improving
interoperability in smart ecosystems: The effect of ubiquitous data and crowdsourcing.
Government Information Quarterly,31, S84–S92.
McFarlane, C. (2011). Assemblage and critical urbanism. City,15(2), 204–224.
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban
governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences,82(2), 392–408.
Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Zhang, J. (2014). Smart government, citizen participation and open
data. Information Polity,19(1, 2), 1–4.
Misuraca, G., Broster, D., & Centeno, C. (2012). Digital Europe 2030: Designing scenarios for ICT in
future governance and policy making. Government Information Quarterly,29, S121–S131.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2012, October). Transforming city government: A case study of Philly311. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
(pp. 310-319). ACM.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2013). Identifying success factors and challenges of 311-driven service inte-
gration: a comparative case study of NYC311 and Philly311. In Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case study of Philly311.
Government Information Quarterly,31,S1–S9.
Odendaal, N. (2003). Information and communication technology and local governance:
Understanding the difference between cities in developed and emerging economies.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,27(6), 585–607.
Pérez-González, D., & Díaz-Díaz, R. (2015). Public services provided with ICT in the smart city environ-
ment: The Case of Spanish cities. Journal of Universal Computer Science,21(2), 248–267.
Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2010). Collaborative governance and cross-
boundary information sharing: Envisioning a networked and it-enabled public administration.
In R. O’Leary, D. M. Van Slyke, & S. Kim (Eds.), The future of public administration around
the world: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Pozzebon, M., Cunha, M. A., & Coelho, T. R. (2016). Making sense to decreasing citizen eParticipation
through a social representation lens. Information and Organization,263,84–99.
552 G. VIALE PEREIRA ET AL.
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Jaramillo, P. A. (2015). Public opinion on National Security
Agency surveillance programs: A multi-method approach. Government Information Quarterly,32
(2), 129–141.
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). The pursuit of fair and competent citizen participation.
In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in public participation:
Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 339–367). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Rose, J., Persson, J. S., & Heeager, L. T. (2015). How e-Government managers prioritise rival value pos-
itions: The efficiency imperative. Information Polity,20(1), 35–59.
Sæbø, Ø, Rose, J., & Flak, K. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging
research area. Government Information Quarterly,25, 400–428.
Scholl, H. J., & Scholl, M. C. (2014). Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice.
iConference 2014 Proceedings.
Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., & Tarabanis, K. (2007). A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and
tools. In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
(pp. 90–90). IEEE.
Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies,51(5),
883–898.
Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: Governing the global knowledge society. New York, NY: Campus
Verlag.
Winters, J. V. (2011). Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays. Journal of Regional
Science,51(2), 253–270.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 553
Downloaded by [77.119.128.109] at 02:46 20 October 2017
