Purpose\ud – Contemporary debate is increasingly focused on ICT and sustainability, especially in relation to the modern configuration of urban and metropolitan areas in the so-called smartization process. The purpose of this paper is to observe the connections between smart city features as conceptualized in the framework proposed by Giffinger et al. (2007) and new technologies as tools, and sustainability as the goal.\ud \ud Design/methodology/approach\ud – The connections are identified through a content analysis performed using NVivo on official reports issued by organizations, known as industry players within smart city projects, listed in the Navigant Research Report 2013.\ud \ud Findings\ud – The results frame ICT and sustainability as “across-the-board elements” because they connect with all of the services provided to communities in a smart city and play a key role in smart city planning. Specifically, sustainability and ICT can be seen as tools to enable the smartization process.\ud \ud Research limitations/implications\ud – An all-in-one perspective emerges by embedding sustainability and ICT in smart interventions; further research could be conduct through direct interviews to city managers and industry players in order to understand their attitude towards the development of smart city projects.\ud \ud Practical implications\ud – Potential approaches emerging from this research are useful to city managers or large corporations partnering with local agencies in order to increase the opportunities for the long-term success of smart projects.\ud \ud Originality/value\ud – The results of this paper delineate a new research path looking at the development of new models that integrate drivers, ICT, and sustainability in an all-in-one perspective and new indicators for the evaluation of the interventions
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the interdisciplinary debate promoted by service research community by establishing the conceptual frame within which different perspectives addressing systemic and multifaceted approaches to innovation are framed. Growing research interest in innovation has led to different definitions, which are referred to here as “innovation system(s)”, “innovation network(s)” and “innovation ecosystem(s)”. The paper examines the theoretical foundations, outcomes, and patterns of contributions to which each innovation perspectives is tied and proposed a subject and the framework allowing an exploration of an interdisciplinary dialogue between the different research positions. Design/methodology/approach A literature review was conducted to discern differences in concepts and their meanings. An overview obtained using Web of Knowledge leads to a focus on studies, followed by a content analysis using NVivo, which enables identification of key concepts and their definitions. By highlighting relationships among terms, the paper establishes a framework of the ontological assumptions of different innovation discourses and explores their contribution to the interdisciplinary dialogue promoted by service research perspective on innovation. Findings A comparison among the three innovation perspectives leads us to focus on innovation itself, alongside context, actors, enablers, and governance, which are useful to mark the commonalities and differences among the three research approaches. The framework is helpful to break down the fragmented and sometimes overlapping points of view of innovation and provides a more integrative stance from which to address the emergence of the service ecosystems approach on innovation. Research limitations/implications The investigation focuses on three innovation perspectives and on top-cited articles alone; hence, it can be complemented with a full analysis through a bibliometric approach to test whether the features highlighted are linked to other elements. Moreover, the different approaches grouped on “innovation ecosystems” perspective suggest the possibility to enhance service ecosystems discourse on innovation by looking at different knowledge and contributions that are rapidly growing in this area. Social implications The central idea this work puts forward is that after some decades of separation, there is a need to move towards an increasing convergence of economics, business and service based on the milestones of innovation systems, innovation networks, and innovation ecosystems thoughts. Originality/value This research sheds light on the different ways innovation, in multi-actor and the interconnected setting, is theoretically framed and described. By capturing established thinking in different innovation perspectives, the paper provides an integrated framework to making sense of the full picture of economies and societies seen as complex networks and systems of service systems.
Our purpose is to identify the relevance of participative governance in urban areas characterized by smart cities projects, especially those implementing Living Labs initiatives as real-life settings to develop services innovation and enhance engagement of all urban stakeholders.A research on the three top smart cities in Europe -i.e. Amsterdam, Barcelona and Helsinki -is proposed through a content analysis with NVivo on the offi cial documents issued by the project partners (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) to investigate their Living Lab initiatives.The results show the increasing usefulness of Living Labs for the development of more inclusive smart cities projects in which public and private actors, and people, collaborate in innovation processes and governance for the co-creation of new services, underlining the importance of the open and ecosystem-oriented approach for smart cities.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of technology as it has been framed within Innovation System (IS) and Innovation Ecosystem (IE) literature research streams. The methodological choice is a systemic review that allows to focus on theoretical proposals by scholars and the identification of the commonalities regarding the pivotal role of technology and the differences in describing innovation-based mechanisms in both literatures. Results show that the key elements are the overall idea of technology as pivotal in driving innovation, the actors affecting technology and contributing to reach innovation-based goals, and the decisional process emerging because of technology. Furthermore, emerging features on evolution through time and knowledge-transforming mechanisms favored by technology in IE show an opportunity to learn in-depth from specific insights generated in both the literatures and to delineate a more comprehensive approach to technology related to innovation in wider interconnected contexts.
PurposeThe paper offers a comprehensive understanding of how digital transformation affects business models and how firms operate and compete effectively and successfully in a digital economy.Design/methodology/approachThe research adopted an abductive approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) through constant movement between theory and empirical evidence. A systematic literature review led the first conceptual development and examples of practices from cultural heritage sectors were used in the theorizing process.FindingsThis paper depicts a digital model framework through a set of assumptions about how an organization creates and delivers value in an interconnected way by orchestrating new interactive processes, and providing experience propositions to customers, and about how value is framed in terms of economic, social and cultural outcomes.Originality/valueThe study contributes to the scientific debate by discussing the role of digital business models as enhancements more rather than replacements of traditional business models; it frames a digital business model as consisting of three main pillars: value orchestration, experience propositions and value sharing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.