Exploring smartness in public sector innovation - creating smart public services with the Internet of Things

Figures & data

Figure 1. The smartness framework (from Nam & Pardo, 2011, 2014).

Table 1. An IoT smartness framework (adapted from Nam and Pardo (2011, 2014))).

Dimensions	Management (internal) perspective	Service delivery (external) perspective	References
Efficiency	How IoT may reduce intra-organisational workloads, minimise waste, time and effort in activities and processes, and maximise intended managerial objectives.	How IoT may improve the production and delivery of public services in terms of minimising expenses, time, waste and effort, and maximising outputs	Cordella and Bonina (2012) De Vries et al. (2016) J. R. Gil-Garcia et al. (2016) Nam and Pardo (2011, 2014) Ostroff and Schmitt (1993) Washburn et al. (2010)
Effectiveness	How IoT may improve the quality of the management of internal processes, for example, by increasing knowledge	How IoT may contribute to improved service delivery to external stakeholders, such as citizens and private companies	Brewer and Selden (2000) Nam and Pardo (2011, 2014) Osborne et al. (2014) Ostroff and Schmitt (1993)
Transparency	How IoT may improve information integration across government offices	How IoT may provide access to information and decision making, in the process of service delivery	Bertot et al. (2010) Coglianese (2009) Cucciniello et al. (2017) Nam and Pardo (2011, 2014) Meijer (2009) McIvor et al. (2002) Porumbescu (2015)
Collaboration	How IoT may foster internal collaboration processes of two or more people working together across and inside the departments of the public organisation	How IoT may foster the process of governmental and non-governmental parties working together	Ansell and Gash (2008) Bakıcı et al. (2013) Bătăgan (2011) McDermott (2010) Nam and Pardo (2011, 2014)

Table 2. A summary of interview respondents.

Municipality & respondent ID	Respondent title	Respondent age	Area by km2	Density (people per km^2)	Service contractor ID
1.1	Head of public administrative unit	45	859,0	15,4
1.2	Head of economics department	43	859,0	15,4
2	Head of economics department	54	480,0	23,0
3	Environmental and municipal advisor	30	533,0	11,5
4	Head of economics department	45	5,99	676,1	SC1
5	Municipal vice-mayor	29	1008,0	10,8
6.1	Head of economics department	62	890,0	11,1	SC2
6.2	Head of public administrative unit	29	890,0	11,1
7	Head of economics department	63	881,0	8,5
8	Municipal vice-mayor	51	1449,0	4,9
9.1	Municipal vice-mayor	55	389,0	14,6
9.2	Head of public administrative unit	47	389,0	14,6
10	Head of economics department	55	494,0	9,8
11	Head of economics department	64	126,0	12,1
12	Municipal vice-mayor	37	706,0	20,0	SC3
13	Municipal vice-mayor	31	599,0	14,6	SC4
14	Municipal vice-mayor	56	1164,0	6,5	SC4
15	Municipal mayor	51	158,1	9,6	SC3
16	Municipal vice-mayor	31	9,85	308,0
17	Municipal mayor	47	10,12	798,2
18	Environmental and municipal advisor	44	177,0	21,8
19	Municipal vice-mayor	53	10,64	1448,6	SC3
20	Municipal mayor	39	58,37	62,1
21	Municipal mayor	44	123,32	8,1
22	Municipal mayor	38	933,0	5,8
23.1	Municipal mayor	52	103,4	23,1
23.2	Head of public administrative unit	30	103,4	23,1
24	Head of economics department	34	398,0	4,7
25	Municipal mayor	46	750,0	21,3
26	Municipal vice-mayor	50	269,81	4,5
27	Municipal vice-mayor	57	300,0	5,5	SC5
28	Municipal vice-mayor	56	952,0	11,3
29	Head of road maintenance	41	3,83	689,5
30	Municipal vice-mayor	58	628,0	34,1

Table 3. Overview of interview questions.

Interview question examples:	Associated dimension(s) of the smartness framework
What is the most important aspect of winter road maintenance?
How do you decide which roads to maintain during the winter?	Efficiency; Effectiveness
How do you categorise the roads?	Efficiency; Effectiveness
How do you decide in which order the roads should be maintained?	Efficiency; Transparency
What are the biggest challenges regarding road maintenance?
Has there ever been a conflict of trust between you (the municipality) and the service contractors?	Transparency; Collaboration
Why did the municipality decide to use the tracking devices?
How do you verify the integrity of the collected data?	Transparency
Who does the municipality share the collected data with?	Transparency; Collaboration

Table 4. Coding examples.

Code name	Code example (specific code name)
	Internal perspective	External perspective
Efficiency	Public official 15: “It is no longer necessary to drive behind them and check, whether they are working or not.” (Internal efficiency)	Public official 1.1: “The service has actually improved. The drivers maintain problematic roads much faster than before. “ (External efficiency)
Effectiveness	Public official 5: “Of course I do not see whether the snowplough is lifted from the ground or not, however, I can see the speed of the vehicle.” (Internal effectiveness)	Public official 22: “To avoid all of the arguments between the citizens and service contractors, we actually made the data available online.” (External effectiveness)
Transparency	Public official 13: “Every public official learns quickly that it is crucial to defend why they took the decision.” (Internal transparency)	Public official 4: “Many people look up the vehicles online and complain about the route, driving speed and so on.” (External transparency)
Collaboration	Public official 7: “I talk to my colleagues from population registry, regarding where new people have moved in. It helps to manage the maintenance.” (Internal collaboration)	Public official 2: “When we start working with new service contractors, I drive through all roads with them and they save everything to their system – where things are and what needs to be done.” (External collaboration)

Table 5. Summary of innovation outcomes.

	Summary of innovation outcomes
	Internal perspective	External perspective	Total
Efficiency	113 coded segments Examples: Reduced time to manage maintenance Better managerial overview of the equipment, contractors and road status Easier to resolve disputes, e.g. through vehicle analysis Streamlined governmental processes for information sharing	91 coded segments Examples: Decreased costs for maintenance services Improved communication with and up-to-date information to citizens and contractors Improved logistics Need-based snow ploughing	204 coded segments
Effectiveness	65 coded segments Examples: Targeted investments in infrastructure Data analytics to follow up routing Allowed to introduce cycle-based pricing models, which emphasised quality over price	108 coded segments Examples: Possibility to identify problematic service contractors through access to data Re-routing of vehicles based on real-time information Increased road maintenance quality, e.g. through real time coordination and control	173 coded segments
Transparency	27 coded segments Examples: Making the decision making process more visible through the use of vehicle reports Increased understanding of road condition	85 coded segments Examples: Increased citizen engagement Increased control of drivers Transparency of the service delivery process Tacit knowledge was documented and made accessible	112 coded segments
Collaboration	29 coded segments Examples: The IoT system served as mediator for new internal collaborations within the municipality	97 coded segments Examples: Change in route planning based on citizen demands New work practice involving the public official in road maintenance work IoT system enabled enhanced knowledge transfer between old and new drivers	126 coded segments
Total	234 coded segments	381 coded segments

Figure 2. Overview of data collected by sensors.

Figure 3. System display for maintenance manager.

Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In J. Bertot, K. Nahon, S. A. Chun, L. Luna-Reyes, & V. Atluri (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation In Challenging Times (pp. 282–291). Association for Computing Machinery.

 Google Scholar

Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case study of Philly311. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.03.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1345–1361. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256814

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Washburn, D., Sindhu, U., Balaouras, S., Dines, R. A., Hayes, N. M., & Nelson, L. E. (2010). Helping CIOs understand “smart city” initiatives: Defining the smart city, its drivers, and the role of the CIO. Forrester Research.

 Google Scholar

Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024287

 Google Scholar

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., & Kinder, T. (2014). A sustainable business model for public service organizations? Public Management Review, 16(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.872435

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Coglianese, C. (2009). The transparency president? The Obama administration and open government. Governance, 22(4), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01451.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12685

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309104175

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McIvor, R., McHugh, M., & Cadden, C. (2002). Internet technologies: Supporting transparency in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(3), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550210423352

 Google Scholar

Porumbescu, G. A. (2015). Using transparency to enhance responsiveness and trust in local government: Can it work? State and Local Government Review, 47(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X15599427

 Google Scholar

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9

 Google Scholar

Bătăgan, L. (2011). Smart cities and sustainability models. Informatica Economica, 15(3), 80–87.http://revistaie.ase.ro/content/59/07%20-%20Batagan.pdf

 Google Scholar

McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar