Citizen involvement in digital transformation: a systematic review and a framework

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to improve the understanding of the factors influencing the success of digital transformation (DT) and problems/challenges in DT as well as the communication methods used to involve citizens, based on a systematic literature review of research articles about citizen involvement in DT published between January 2010 and May 2021.Design/methodology/approachAfter establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria, a systematic review of relevant studies was conducted. Out of a total of 547 articles, 33 met the paper selection criteria.FindingsThe analysis of the included 33 empirical studies reveals that the factors influencing the success of DT can be described as the opposite side from challenges and problems in DT. These factors and challenges/problems all influence DT and they can be grouped into organisational values, management capabilities, organisational infrastructure, and workforce capabilities. The communication methods for citizen involvement in DT include: (1) communication mediated by human, (2) communication mediated by computers, and (3) mixed communication methods.Originality/valueThe study identified specific factors that influence DT supported by citizen involvement, at a more fine-grained level. The findings concerning communication methods extend related studies for citizen involvement by adding town hall meetings and communication methods mediated by computers. Furthermore, this study links the research findings to develop a framework for citizen involvement in DT, assisting in better selecting communication methods to involve citizens for addressing problem areas in DT.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-04-2022-0237

Scrum@PA: Tailoring an Agile Methodology to the Digital Transformation in the Public Sector

“…Due to its dinamicity and the requirement of flexibility, a DT strategy requires: (a) the rapid adoption of novel technologies, e.g., [13]; (b) the implementation of an inclusive coaching strategy that promptly makes available new digital competences to citizens, administrators, and policy makers, e.g., [14]; (c) the adoption of adaptive and flexible organizational models for the design, implementation, and deployment of digital services, e.g., [15]. Therefore, a conventional plan-driven approach to the design and implementation of digital services is not perceived as appropriate in this context [16].…”

Digital Transformation in the Public Administrations: A Guided Tour for Computer Scientists

“…A successful DT process requires users not only to acquire new skills but also to know how to interact effectively with them [60], [61]. Those skills required to handle DT do not only relate to a particular discipline but require a multidisciplinary approach, where the importance of knowing the specific competency levels of the individuals that are part of an organisation and the know-how of the entire organisation itself is recognised as a fundamental requirement.…”

CommunityClick-Virtual: Multi-Modal Interactions for Enhancing Participation in Virtual Meetings

“…Many local and national governments moved their public engagement processes to online teleconference applications such as Zoom [2] and social media for reaching out to their constituents and target audiences. While this shift allowed for broader engagement over digital technology, it raised new questions and challenges regarding inclusive participation [12,17]. For instance, these public engagement events were often conducted in a webinar, and forum-style Q&A sessions, which often did not promote inclusive participation as the attendees received a limited amount of time to share their opinions.…”

“…For instance, these public engagement events were often conducted in a webinar, and forum-style Q&A sessions, which often did not promote inclusive participation as the attendees received a limited amount of time to share their opinions. Furthermore, oftentimes attendees were required to identify themselves before sharing their feedback which was discouraging for some attendees from speaking up and risking confrontation with other attendees [12].…”