Smart City Development: Positioning Citizens in the Service Life

Cycle (Citizens as Primary Customer)

Priyanka Singh

, Fiona Lynch

and Markus Helfert

School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

School of Science & Computing, Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT), Waterford, Ireland

Keywords: Smart City, Citizens, Service Lifecycle.

Abstract: There has been an enormous discussion around involving the citizens in smart city design and development.

However most of the papers discussed citizen’s involvement and their feedback at the initial level of the

service design where they intend to support citizen’s ideas with the help of methodologies, tools, templates,

online platforms such e-participation, m-gov etc. Nevertheless, there are very few articles which discuss the

impact of citizen’s feedback after the deployment of the services. With this systematic literature review we

highlight that for the successful smart city development, there is a requirement to obtain citizen’s feedback

not only during the initial stages of the service design and planning but also after the deployment of the

services in order to recognize if their feedback really had any implication in the actual design process; and if

the services are working as they were planned initially with the feedback of the citizens during the initial

phases of the service design process.

1 INTRODUCTION

A smart sustainable city has been considered as an

innovative city which utilizes information and

communication technologies (ICTs) along with other

resources in order to improve quality of life,

proficiency of services and urban operations, while

making sure that the present and future generation

requirements are met effectively (Mohanty, Choppali,

& Kougianos, 2016). Hollands, (2008) emphasise

that to empower environmental, social, economic,

and cultural development, smart cities should be

beyond the practise of ICT. Existing literature seems

to be biased towards solving the technical problems

and ignoring the existence of non-technical ones

which involve management, policies, citizens and

creating a void in the field (Habibzadeh et al., 2019;

Nam & Pardo, 2011). One of the non-technical

problems is the negligence of citizen’s requirement,

at the price of strategic and technological

development which has been considered as a critical

element for developing a successful smart city

(Heaton & Parlikad, 2019). Customer is commonly

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6182-6111

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6546-6408

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7558-5926

believed to be an essential component of successful

smart services, however it has not gained enough

attention in research of Information System literature

(Dreyer et al., 2019). In order to bring any change in

an organization for developing smart systems, it must

be deliberated from a socio-technical viewpoint

(Bednar & Welch, 2019). Therefore, when

organizations undertake smart initiatives, a socio-

technical perspective is desired in order to address

new challenges for service providers and enterprises

(Ekman, Röndell, & Yang, 2019; Bednar & Welch,

2019). Conversely, the impact of social factor has not

been investigated enough in smart city projects, for

instance in Northern Asia, Songdo, has been

criticized for no or minimal public participation

(Bouzguenda, Alalouch and Fava, 2019). Therefore,

there is a requirement to consider urban issues beyond

technological innovation (Yigitcanlar, Foth, Sabatini-

marques, & Ioppolo, 2019). This study has selected

ITIL framework for analysing the involvement of

citizens in smart city development. Its phases are

represented as strategy, design, transition, operational,

and improvement which are applicable in the

112

Singh, P., Lynch, F. and Helfert, M.

Smart City Development: Positioning Citizens in the Service Life Cycle (Citizens as Primary Customer).

DOI: 10.5220/0010108101120119

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2020), pages 112-119

ISBN: 978-989-758-480-0

perspective of smart city development as well.

Existing literature predominantly discuss the

contribution of citizens in smart city services at initial

level of the smart city projects, however this study

argues that discussing their involvement only at the

initial stages won’t make the services successful until

we have paid equal attention to all the phases of the

services from the citizen’s viewpoint. This research

highlights that most of the studies have considered

citizens during the design and planning phases of the

services, whereas this study emphasises that the

consideration of the citizens in smart city design and

development should be beyond that and require

approaches which can address the challenges from

citizen’s perceptive by considering their feedback

after the deployment as well for providing effective

services to the citizens. This remaining part of the

paper is structured as follows: In section 2 we

describe the methodology applied to perform the

systematic literature review, Sect. 3 provides the

detail of literature review by positioning the citizen’s

contribution in the service lifecycle of the ITIL

framework. In Sect. 4, the consideration of citizens as

primary customer has been discussed. Finally, Sect. 5

sum up the contributions of the paper and

forthcoming work of the research.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

METHODOLOGY

This study has conducted a systematic literature

review in order to investigate how can citizens

contribute in design of services in smart cities? This

study has adopted a methodology comprising a three-

stage procedure as discussed by Yigitcanlar et al.,

(2019, p.352). First stage is: Planning stage which

defines objectives and review procedure for a

systematic review. Second stage is: Review stage

comprising descriptive and organisational analysis.

The third stage is: Reporting and dissemination stage

containing analysis and synthesis of the results based

on the established objectives. The research aim was

to investigate the contribution of citizens in the design

of services and to explore the state of art with the aim

of identifying the studies which tried to provide

methods and approaches for achieving this aim. The

inclusion conditions were set as academic journal

articles accessible online in full-text that are

appropriate to address the research question. The

search was conducted using the Scopus and

Springerlink databases. Initially, total 145 articles

were received. After assessing the abstracts against

the research aim, this number was taken down to 24

articles.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section emphasises the importance of citizen’s

participation in design and development of smart city

services based on the various phases of ITIL

framework that has been adopted from (Dreyer et al.,

2019). The Information Technology Infrastructure

Library (ITIL) framework has been selected for the

analysis as it has been recognised adequate for

services which are quality based and use information

technology (Dreyer et al., 2019). Also, the ITIL

phases help in progressing from concept to

improvement during the service life cycle phase.

Thus, the focus of this research is to understand how

the feedback from citizens can further result in the

improvement of the services by analysing their role in

the different phases of the service life cycle.

Therefore, this framework is considered adequate to

investigate citizen’s involvement from the

perspective of adopted framework and to classify the

existing literature among those life cycle phases. The

service lifecycle consists of five phases as defined in

(“ITIL: Key Concepts and Summary,” 2020). In the

first phase, the process objective is defined based on

the requirements of the customer, a Service Strategy

(SS) is established, and the essential capabilities are

defined. We selected those articles which emphasise

the role of citizens in the strategy of the smart city

services and how they should be considered. The

second phase is Service Design (SD), which uses a

prebuilt strategy for designing the services. This

phase considers those articles that recommend an idea

of involving citizens in the design of the services. In

the Service Transition (ST) phase, the distribution of

the designed services is enclosed, those papers have

been considered which define the platforms and

technology which could be used as a way to obtain

citizen’s input and implementing the services

accordingly. The fourth phase is Service Operation

(SO) phase containing failure management,

maintenance, and the execution of processes and task.

Those publications have been discussed which

highlight how citizens can support in improving the

services by proving the information on any type of

service failure or maintenance related issues. The last

phase of the lifecycle is Continual Service

Improvement (CSI). Which is based on the learning

from the successes and failures of the past which are

key parameter to be considered in this phase, papers

which considered citizen’s inputs for further

Smart City Development: Positioning Citizens in the Service Life Cycle (Citizens as Primary Customer)

113

Table 1: Positioning Citizen’s Involvement in the Service

Lifecycle Phases.

References

Service Lifecycle Phases

SS SD ST SO CSI

(Wolff et al., 2020)

(Timeus, Vinaixa,

& Pardo-Bosch,

2020)

(Abella, Ortiz-De-

Urbina-Criado, &

De-Pablos-

Heredero, 2019)

x x

(Andreani et al.,

2019)

(Gupta, Chauhan,

& Jaiswal, 2019)

(Simonofski et al.,

2019)

(Johannes &

Snoeck, 2019)

x x x

(Rana et al., 2019)

(Brandt et al., 2018)

(Javed, Khan, &

McClatchey, 2018)

(Cabitza, Locoro, &

Batini, 2018)

(Abu-Tayeh,

Neumann, &

Stuermer, 2018)

(Okwechime,

Duncan, & Edgar,

2018)

(Marrone &

Hammerle, 2018)

(Weerakkody et al.,

2017)

x x

(Janssen et al.,

2017)

(Gagliardi et al.,

2017)

(Ludlow et al.,

2017)

(P. van Waart,

Mulder, & de Bont,

2016)

(Shareef et al.,

2016)

(Góngora & Bernal,

2015)

(Ojala et al., 2015)

(Solaimani,

Bouwman, & Itälä,

2015)

(Van der Graaf &

Veeckman, 2014)

Number of Articles

9 7 8 1 2

continual service improvement were categorized in

this phase. This classification is represented in the

Table 1 and it could be observed that the most of the

articles discussed the citizen’s involvement in service

strategy, design and transition phases. Nevertheless,

it is important to understand that for designing the

better quality of the services, further improvement in

the services based on the feedback provided has a

significance role in it which could further guide in

designing better quality of the services.

3.1 Service Strategy (SS)

Simonofski et al., (2019) described five context

factors as the smart city consideration, the drivers for

participation, the legal requirements and the citizens’

characteristics, and the degree of centralization,

which influence citizen participation strategies in

smart city development. For achieving people-centric

smart city transformations, it should consider diverse

needs of its citizens, and should be approached from

a transdisciplinary perspective (Brandt et al., 2018).

Though the technological components of smart cities

are included enough in the literature, the importance

of citizen’s role has often been abandoned (Johannes

& Snoeck, 2019). In this paper authors present a

framework for organising and evaluating citizen’s

participation, where it is highlighted that the citizens

can be considered in the decision based activities, and

can also learn to solve technical problems and could

contribute in public interest (Johannes & Snoeck,

2019). It has been pointed out by Marrone and

Hammerle, (2018) that citizens are not represented

well in discussions on smart cities, and it has been

recommended that future research should consider

citizens along with the other stakeholders of the smart

cities. Therefore, we argue that citizens should be

considered as primary customer of the servcies, and it

should be desgined as per their requirment. There are

31 barriers for the smart cities development discussed

by Rana et al., (2019), and they divided them into six

categories. One of the categories belongs to Social

(SOC) category of barriers and in that category lack

of citizen’s involvement is the top ranked.

Furthermore, it has been emphasised by the authors

that community engagement is an important aspect

for forecasting and executing smart cities projects

(Rana et al., 2019). Likewise, policy makers and

elected officials expect that the open data

accessibility through online government portals will

permit public engagement in policy making

(Weerakkody et al., 2017). To that end, a research has

been presented by Javed, Khan and

McClatchey,(2018) and an architecture has been

developed in the working of a provenance system for

policy process tracking. Which will benefit policy-

makers in terms of providing a system that can work

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

114

in an ad-hoc and political environment of the policy-

making by considering citizen’s active participation

and multiple stakeholders’ involvement in the system

implementation. Moreover, another approach has

been discussed by Timeus, et al., (2020) using a

business model logic to design city business models

which can be applied in the planning phase of an

cohesive ICT city platform in order to evaluate the

value City Councils offer to the citizens. However, it

has been highlighted that it can only be used by city

council managers and does not comprise any other

kinds of stakeholders of the smart cities. Furthermore,

there is a requirement for evolving new bottom-up

tools with the aim of co-producing in engaging with

citizens (Ludlow et al., 2017). A major challenge for

governments is to design and implement innovative

strategies for collaboration and communication with

citizens, through technologies in order to achieve an

effective and efficient services (Góngora & Bernal,

2015).

3.2 Service Design (SD)

Despite the fact that Smart City(SC) projects

legitimise and improve the citizens ‘lives, their role in

SC development is ambiguous, and decisions on the

selection, implementation and deployment of smart

city services should be made according to the actual

needs of local citizens (Gupta et al., 2019). Many

times, smart cities do not meet their goals if the

citizens are not engaged in their design (Johannes &

Snoeck, 2019). One of the main objectives for smart

services is to address citizens’ concerns and their

need (Pourzolfaghar & Helfert, 2017). It has been

suggested by the authors that we should consider

citizens need as client requirement in the design

process of the services. Correspondingly, citizens

should not be treated as passive customers as they are

crucial stakeholders that can generate valuable ideas

(Johannes & Snoeck, 2019). Nevertheless, an

evolving problem is that there is a lack of suitable

tools which can support citizens in many parts of co-

design process (Wolff et al., 2020). To this end, a

typology with a set of design templates have been

discussed by the authors to enable citizens in

converting their ideas into technology applications

which can be utilised as an ideation implements

during the design process. These types of methods

and tools certainly assist in obtaining citizen’s ideas

and their inputs for designing the services, however

there is a lack of understanding how their ideas have

been implemented in actual design of services and if

those ideas really had any impact in improving the

quality of the services. On that note, a methodology

has been designed in order to improve smart city

services by recognising citizen’s expectations and

experiences, and utilising their feedback (Abella et

al., 2019). However, it has been highlighted by the

authors that methodology needs to be customized for

each service. Correspondingly, for the active

engagement of stakeholders in the ideation process

has been discussed by Andreani et al., (2019), where

authors presented a threefold design research model

which leads to the co-creation of proposals by sharing

a common design path among public authorities,

associations at different levels, private citizens, and

research centres. On the similar note, a participatory

approach has been discussed for prototyping future

cities that holds practice-oriented design research

accomplishments and aims for real-world impact

(Peter van Waart, Mulder, & de Bont, 2016).

However, it has been pointed that the main

concerning area in creating future smart city will be

scaling up of those practices and make them self-

sustaining. A design based research has been

discussed with the experience-driven approach

utilizing playful experience (PLEX) cards to create

concept ideas for smart city services which support

citizen’s idea generation (Ojala et al., 2015). This is

another approach suggested in the literature for

utilising and supporting citizen’s ideas for designing

the services based on user’s experience.

3.3 Service Transition (ST)

Public sector organizations have started to discover

ways to employ big data to provide smarter solutions

for cities, and trying to install and integrate this new

emerging technology big data to another fast pace and

comparatively new concept smart city (Okwechime et

al., 2018). The ﬁndings reveal that organizations have

the capability to practise big data to rectify the

problems that cities are facing. Furthermore, with

open data, citizens and other stakeholders would be

able to contribute in the decision making process that

would enable the development of new solutions for

undertaking the urban issues. Nevertheless, a

noteworthy amount of the citizens are quiet not

behaviourally, technologically, psychologically, and

professionally ready and capable, and not even

prepared, to compact with the technologically

focused eGov system, which can be alleviated to

some extent through launching mobile-government

(mGov) systems (Shareef et al., 2016). However, it

has been stressed by the authors that there is a

discontinuation between prospective and real impact

of data resources on public, and according to its

current form, citizens are not able to use it for any

Smart City Development: Positioning Citizens in the Service Life Cycle (Citizens as Primary Customer)

115

significant purpose. Data-driven innovation can

impact the transformation of public sector systems

and can create societal benefits including reduced

pollution, less traffic jams, better energy efficiency,

novel applications to improve citizen experience

interacting online with government (Janssen et al.,

2017). Moreover, the incorporation of ICT in a city

can offer a new range of opportunities and can

transform the city with the assistance of citizen’s

participation by utilising the capability of

infrastructure and the open data (Johannes & Snoeck,

2019). Conversely, it is vital to note that the formats

of the open data, presentation and contents indicates

that most of the output does not consider the

impending positive impact that sharing huge amounts

of information would have for individual decision

making, citizens’ lives, and social welfare (Cabitza et

al., 2018). And to overcome this limitation authors

presented a methodology to analyse, excerpt and

assess features of possible value from the available

datasets in order to personalize suitable information

services according to the profiles and preferences of

citizens and taxpayers. Nonetheless, merely open data

cannot offer sufficient reasons for the engagement of

citizens which is crucial to establish a collaborative

and open governance system, and therefore it should

be elaborated appropriately, used and communicated

(Gagliardi et al., 2017). On this point, authors

proposed an integration of open data along with basic

explanations and imagining for local government to

form new and open services for communities and

citizens. Similarly, if custom-made tools are

provided, everyone in a society can play a

significance role in the development of the smart

cities where citizen’s life can probably be benefited

(Van der Graaf & Veeckman, 2014). In this paper,

authors provided the toolkit template which offers the

collaboration amongst numerous stakeholders, and

enables modalities of civic engagement guided by

design space and design capabilities.

3.4 Service Operation (SO)

In this phase of the framework those papers have been

discussed which highlight how citizens can support in

improving the services by proving the information on

any type of service failure or maintenance related

issues. There was only one article found which

emphasized how citizens assisted in identifying the

operational issue related to the infrastructure of the

city by using an online application. To that end, Abu-

Tayeh, et al., (2018) examined the stronger drivers of

citizen reporting engagement. For which the authors

observed sample of users from the mobile application

‘‘Zurich as good as new’’ in Switzerland, that enables

citizens to report damages and other issues related

with the city’s infrastructure. The findings suggest

that the self-concern and other-orientation stimulate

citizens to voluntary support government, yet self-

concern is a slightly stronger driver. With this

example, it can be observed that how citizens could

assist in further improving the services at

infrastructure level, therefore the focus should also be

given to capture their inputs at the operational level

as well in order to rectify the issues quickly and

provide solutions accordingly.

3.5 Continual Service Improvement

(CSI)

Continual service improvement is an important part

of the framework which focus on further improving

the services based on past successes and failures. It

would be vital to consider this aspect for smart cities

as well in order to provide better quality of the

services. In this phase, those papers have been

discussed which considered citizen’s/end user’s

inputs for continual service improvement. The

Independent Living Project (ILP) and Home-based

senior care (HSC) smart living services are

specifically designed for elderly with the goal of

improving independent living in Finland and China

(Solaimani et al., 2015); and it is indicated that with

the integration of an information flow amid various

service providers and customers, a rich quality of user

behaviour data can be generated, which can be used

to further improve the services. Likewise, it has been

highlighted by Sofiyabadi, Kolahi, &

Valmohammadi, (2016) that the dissatisfactory

services can endure having outstanding KPIs but

many aggravated users. Once actions are

implemented, monitoring has to be carried out to

determine if the actual impact varies from the

anticipated impact in the servcies from the user’s

perespective (Abella et al., 2019). In order to achieve

it, authors offers a methodology that provides an

approach to comprehend the interaction among

citizens and services in order to improve the design of

smart cities by conisdering their feedback for

continual improvement.

4 CITIZENS AS PRIMARY

CUSTOMER

Smart cities practices should be surrounded in all

aspects of city governance which also needs smart

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

116

citizens (Janssen et al. 2015). It was even found that

the impact of ICT on quality of citizen’s life and

urban development is unclear (Nicolas, Kim, & Chi,

2020). Smart sustainable city need to bridge the gaps

among sustainability, social sustainability, digital

public participation, and community engagement

(Bouzguenda, Alalouch, & Fava, 2019). Researchers

argued that rather than just being focused on

technology or infrastructure, it is important for SC

planners to underline more on the requirements of

people as their necessities mostly influence and shape

the environment (de Lange and de Waal 2013;

Schaffers et al., 2011; Komninos, Pallot, & Schaffers,

2013 cited in Gupta, Chauhan, & Jaiswal, 2019). For

achieving people-centric smart city transformations,

it should consider diverse needs of its citizens, and

should be approached from a transdisciplinary

perspective (Brandt, 2018). Citizens’ participation in

the planning and decision process can augment the

abilities and functionalities of the government for

development of the sustainable cities (Kumar, Singh,

Gupta, & Madaan, 2018). Correspondingly, it has

been pointed out by Marrone and Hammerle, (2018)

that citizens did not get enough importance in

discussions of smart cities and they should be

included along with the other stakeholders of the city.

Therefore, this research argues that citizens should be

considered as a primary customer of the servcies, and

services should be desgined as per their requirment

and the feedback for desiging effective services

which should not be restricted to only intial stages of

the smart city devlopment.

5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORK

Systems should be assessed through citizens’ past

experience and their level of expectations, and

therefore there is a requirement for a constant

evaluation approach for enhancing the values from

information and services in e-Government systems

(Alruwaie, El-Haddadeh, & Weerakkody, 2020).

However, with this study it has been highlighted that

there are very limited studies which provide guidance

for designing and evaluating the systems based on the

citizen’s feedback during the later stages of the design

process in order to offer better experience to the

citizens. The research aim was to identify the role of

citizens in the design of services and to position their

involvement in the service life cycle of the ITIL

framework. The intension behind positioning them in

the service life was to classify the existing literature

which discussed the role of citizens in smart city

development and to understand at which level the

existing literature is discussing their involvement.

The results highlight that the existing literature is

more inclined towards the initial stages of smart city

development where they intend to support the

citizen’s ideas in planning and design phases of the

services. However, with this research it has been

emphasised that for successful smart city

development it is vital to consider their feedback not

only during the initial stages of service design, but at

the same time after the deployment of the services.

Which would eventually assist in evaluating the

quality and performance of the services from the

citizen’s viewpoint. There are platforms which

support their feedback in smart city development,

though it is not well understood from the literature

how those feedbacks are utilised in order to make any

improvement to the service. Therefore, with this

study it has been underlined that the focus should also

be given to validate the effectiveness of the services

in terms of quality from the perspective of citizen’s

feedback and their experiences which could be

obtained via various online or offline platforms as

discussed in the literature during the later stages of

the service design process. In addition to the research

question elevated in this paper, our perspective

research will focus on how to utilise the citizen’s

feedback after the deployment of the services in order

to provide effective services to the citizens which

meet the citizen’s concerns and the quality factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported with the financial support

of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094

and co-funded under the European Regional

Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern

Regional Operational Programme to Lero - the Irish

Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie).

REFERENCES

Abella, A., Ortiz-De-Urbina-Criado, M., & De-Pablos-

Heredero, C. (2019). A methodology to design and

redesign services in smart cities based on the citizen

experience. Information Polity, 24(2), 183–197.

https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180116

Abu-Tayeh, G., Neumann, O., & Stuermer, M. (2018).

Exploring the Motives of Citizen Reporting

Engagement: Self-Concern and Other-Orientation.

Smart City Development: Positioning Citizens in the Service Life Cycle (Citizens as Primary Customer)

117

Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60(3),

215–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0530-8

Alruwaie, M., El-Haddadeh, R., & Weerakkody, V. (2020).

Citizens’ continuous use of eGovernment services: The

role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and

satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3),

101485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101485

Andreani, S., Kalchschmidt, M., Pinto, R., & Sayegh, A.

(2019). Reframing technologically enhanced urban

scenarios: A design research model towards human

centered smart cities. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 142(September 2018), 15–25.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.028

Bednar, P. M., & Welch, C. (2019). Socio-Technical

Perspectives on Smart Working: Creating Meaningful

and Sustainable Systems. Information Systems

Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09921-1

Bouzguenda, I., Alalouch, C., & Fava, N. (2019). Towards

smart sustainable cities: A review of the role digital

citizen participation could play in advancing social

sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society,

50(November 2018), 101627. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.scs.2019.101627

Brandt, T. (2018). Interview with David Prendergast on

“Mediating Between Technology and People in Smart

City Transformations.” Business and Information

Systems Engineering, 60(3), 265–267. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s12599-018-0531-7

Brandt, T., Ketter, W., Kolbe, L. M., Neumann, D., &

Watson, R. T. (2018). Smart Cities and Digitized Urban

Management. Business and Information Systems

Engineering, 60(3), 193–195. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s12599-018-0537-1

Cabitza, F., Locoro, A., & Batini, C. (2018). Making Open

Data more Personal Through a Social Value

Perspective: a Methodological Approach. Information

Systems Frontiers, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10796-018-9854-7

De Lange, M., & De Waal, M. (2013). Owning the city:

New media and citizen engagement in urban design.

First Monday.

Dreyer, S., Olivotti, D., Lebek, B., & Breitner, M. H.

(2019). Focusing the customer through smart services:

a literature review. Electronic Markets, 29(1), 55–78.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00328-z

Ekman, P., Röndell, J., & Yang, Y. (2019). Exploring smart

cities and market transformations from a service-

dominant logic perspective. Sustainable Cities and

Society, 51(February), 101731. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.scs.2019.101731

Gagliardi, D., Schina, L., Sarcinella, M. L., Mangialardi,

G., Niglia, F., & Corallo, A. (2017). Information and

communication technologies and public participation:

interactive maps and value added for citizens.

Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 153–166.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.002

Góngora, G. P. M., & Bernal, W. N. (2015). Key Factors in

Information Technology Management for Smart

Government Systems. Journal of Technology

Management and Innovation, 10(4), 109–117.

Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2019).

Classification of Smart City Research - a Descriptive

Literature Review and Future Research Agenda.

Information Systems Frontiers, 661–685.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09911-3

Habibzadeh, H., Nussbaum, B. H., Anjomshoa, F.,

Kantarci, B., & Soyata, T. (2019). A survey on

cybersecurity, data privacy, and policy issues in cyber-

physical system deployments in smart cities.

Sustainable Cities and Society, 50(August 2018),

101660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101660

Heaton, J., & Parlikad, A. K. (2019). A conceptual

framework for the alignment of infrastructure assets to

citizen requirements within a Smart Cities framework.

Cities, 90(January), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.cities.2019.01.041

Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand

up? City, 4813. https://doi.org/10.1080/136048108024

79126

ITIL: Key Concepts and Summary. (2020). Retrieved April

15, 2020, from https://www.simplilearn.com/itil-key-

concepts-and-summary-article

Janssen, M., Konopnicki, D., Snowdon, J. L., & Ojo, A.

(2017). Driving public sector innovation using big and

open linked data (BOLD). Information Systems

Frontiers, 19(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10796-017-9746-2

Javed, B., Khan, Z., & McClatchey, R. (2018). An

adaptable system to support provenance management

for the public policy-making process in smart cities.

Informatics, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics

5010003

Johannes, A., & Snoeck, M. (2019). Hearing the Voice of

Citizens in Smart City Design : The CitiVoice

Framework, 61(6), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s12599-018-0547-z

Komninos, N., Pallot, M., & Schaffers, H. (2013). Special

Issue on Smart Cities and the Future Internet in Europe.

Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 119–134.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0083-x

Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., Gupta, M. P., & Madaan, J.

(2018). Smart neighbourhood: A TISM approach to

reduce urban polarization for the sustainable

development of smart cities. Journal of Science and

Technology Policy Management, 9(2), 210–226.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-04-2017-0009

Ludlow, D., Khan, Z., Soomro, K., Marconcini, M., José,

R. S., Malcorps, P., … Metz, A. (2017). From top-down

land use planning intelligence to bottom-up stakeholder

engagement for smart cities – A case study:

DECUMANUS service products.

International Journal

of Services, Technology and Management, 23(5–6),

465–493. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2017.1000

9861

Marrone, M., & Hammerle, M. (2018). Smart Cities: A

Review and Analysis of Stakeholders’ Literature.

Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60(3),

197–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0535-3

Mohanty, S. P., Choppali, U., & Kougianos, E. (2016).

Everything You Wanted to Know About Smart Cities,

CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

118

(August 2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2016.

2556879

Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban

innovation. In Proceedings of the 5th International

Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic

Governance - ICEGOV ’11 (p. 185).

https://doi.org/10.1145/2072069.2072100

Nicolas, C., Kim, J., & Chi, S. (2020). Quantifying the

dynamic effects of smart city development enablers

using structural equation modeling. Sustainable Cities

and Society, 53(November 2019), 101916.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101916

Ojala, J., Korhonen, H., Laaksonen, J., Mäkelä, V.,

Pakkanen, T., Järvi, A., … Raisamo, R. (2015).

Developing novel services for the railway station area

through experience-driven design. Interaction Design

and Architecture(S), 25(1), 73–84.

Okwechime, E., Duncan, P., & Edgar, D. (2018). Big data

and smart cities: a public sector organizational learning

perspective. Information Systems and E-Business

Management, 16(3), 601–625. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s10257-017-0344-0

Pourzolfaghar, Z., & Helfert, M. (2017). Taxonomy of

Smart Elements for Designing Effective Services.

Proceedings of the 23rd American Conference on

Information Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/

10.1037/rmh0000009

Rana, N. P., Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Islam, R., Roderick,

S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Barriers to the

Development of Smart Cities in Indian Context.

Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 503–525.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9873-4

Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B.,

Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Future Internet

Assembly. Smart Cities and the Future Internet:

Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open

Innovation (Vol. 9). https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-

7101(78)90038-7

Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kumar, U.

(2016). Service delivery through mobile-government

(mGov): Driving factors and cultural impacts.

Information Systems Frontiers, 18(2), 315–332.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9533-2

Simonofski, A., Vallé, T., Serral, E., & Wautelet, Y. (2019).

Investigating context factors in citizen participation

strategies: A comparative analysis of Swedish and

Belgian smart cities. International Journal of

Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.007

Sofiyabadi, J., Kolahi, B., & Valmohammadi, C. (2016).

Key performance indicators measurement in service

business: a fuzzy VIKOR approach. Total Quality

Management and Business Excellence, 27(9–10),

1028–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.

1059272

Solaimani, S., Bouwman, H., & Itälä, T. (2015). Networked

enterprise business model alignment: A case study on

smart living. Information Systems Frontiers, 17

(4),

871–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9474-1

Timeus, K., Vinaixa, J., & Pardo-Bosch, F. (2020).

Creating business models for smart cities: a practical

framework. Public Management Review, 22(5), 726–

745. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1718187

Van der Graaf, S., & Veeckman, C. (2014). Designing for

participatory governance: Assessing capabilities and

toolkits in public service delivery. Info, 16(6), 74–88.

https://doi.org/10.1108/info-07-2014-0028

van Waart, P., Mulder, I., & de Bont, C. (2016). A

Participatory Approach for Envisioning a Smart City.

Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 708–723.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315611099

Weerakkody, V., Irani, Z., Kapoor, K., Sivarajah, U., &

Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017). Open data and its usability: an

empirical view from the Citizen’s perspective.

Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 285–300.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9679-1

Wolff, A., Barker, M., Hudson, L., & Seffah, A. (2020).

Supporting smart citizens: Design templates for co-

designing data-intensive technologies. Cities, 101.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102695

Yigitcanlar, T., Foth, M., Sabatini-marques, J., & Ioppolo,

G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being

sustainable ? A systematic review of the literature.

Sustainable Cities and Society, 45(June 2018), 348–

365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.033

Smart City Development: Positioning Citizens in the Service Life Cycle (Citizens as Primary Customer)

119