Dynamic capabilities of a smart city: An innovative approach to discovering urban problems and solutions

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 682-692

  Chong, Miyoung ^a   Habib, Abdulrahman ^a   Evangelopoulos, Nicholas ^a   Park, Han Woo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b Yeungnam University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Case study; Citizen engagement; Dynamic capabilities; Informetrics; Latent Dirichlet allocation; Latent semantic analysis; Methodological triangulation; Smart city

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050874200     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. AlAwadhi, S., Scholl, H.J., Aspirations and realizations: The smart city of Seattle. System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2013, IEEE, 1695–1703.
2. Anaya, L.H., Comparing latent dirichlet allocation and latent semantic analysis as classifiers. Doctoral dissertation, 2011, University of North Texas.
3. Anthopoulos, L.G., Reddick, C.G., Understanding electronic government research and smart city: A framework and empirical evidence. Information Polity 21:1 (2016), 99–117.
4. Ashton, T., Evangelopoulos, N., Prybutok, V., Quantitative quality control from qualitative data: Control charts with latent semantic analysis. Quality & Quantity 49:3 (2015), 1081–1099.
5. Bannister, F., Connolly, R., Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the story so far. Information Polity 17:3–4 (2012), 211–226, 10.3233/IP-2012-000282.
6. Benzécri, J.P., L'analyse des données. Vol. 2, 1973, Dunod, Paris, l.
7. Bertot, J.C., Estevez, E., Janowski, T., Digital public service innovation: Framework proposal. ICEGOV2016, March 1–3, 2016, Montevideo, Uruguay, 2016, 10.1145/12345.67890.
8. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., McClure, C.R., Citizen-centered e-government services: Benefits, costs, and research needs. Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on Digital government research (dg.o2008), 2008, Digital Government Society of North America, 137–142.
9. Biddix, J.P., Chung, C.J., Park, H.W., The hybrid shift: Evidencing a student-driven restructuring of the college classroom. Computers & Education 80 (2015), 162–175.
10. Biddix, J.P., Chung, C.J., Park, H.W., Faculty use and perception of mobile information and communication technology (m-ICT) for teaching practices. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 53:4 (2016), 375–387.
11. Blei, D.M., Ng, A.Y., Jordan, M.I., Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2003), 993–1022.
12. Chatfield, A.T., Reddick, C.G., Customer agility and responsiveness through big data analytics for public value creation: A case study of Houston 311 on-demand services. Government Information Quarterly 35:2 (2018), 336–347.
13. Chen, H., Chiang, R., Storey, V., Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly 36:4 (2012), 1165–1188.
14. Chun, S.A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., Hovy, E., Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity 15 (2010), 1–9, 10.3233/IP-2010-0205.
15. Clower, T.L., Weinstein, B.L., A look at the economic and demographic projections for the City of Denton. 2008, University of North Texas, Center for Economic Development and Research https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30418/ Accessed 30 May 2018.
16. Dameri, R.P., Searching for Smart City definition: A comprehensive proposal. International Journal of Computers & Technology 11:5 (2013), 2544–2551.
17. Dameri, R.P., Ricciardi, F., Smart city intellectual capital: An emerging view of territorial systems innovation management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 16:4 (2015), 860–887.
18. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Harshman, R., Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 1990, 391.
19. Denzin, N.K., Sociological methods: A sourcebook. 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York.
20. Diesner, J., Aleyasen, A., Chin, C., Mishra, S., Soltani, K., Tao, L. (2015). ConText: Network Construction from Texts [Software]. Available from http://context.lis.illinois.edu/. (Accessed 30 May 2018).
21. Dirks, S., Keeling, M., A vision of smarter cities: How cities can lead the way into a prosperous and sustainable future. 8, 2009, IBM Institute for Business Value.
22. Evangelopoulos, N., Visinescu, L., Text-mining the voice of the people. Communications of the ACM 55:2 (2012), 62–69, 10.1145/2076450.2076467.
23. Evangelopoulos, N., Zhang, X., Prybutok, V., Latent semantic analysis: Five method-ological recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems 21:1 (2012), 70–86.
24. Fietkiewicz, K.J., Mainka, A., Stock, W.G., eGovernment in cities of the knowledge society. An empirical investigation of Smart Cities' governmental websites. Government Information Quarterly 34:1 (2017), 75–83.
25. Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., Landauer, T.K., The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25:2–3 (1998), 285–307.
26. Goldsmith, S., Crawford, S., The responsive city: Engaging communities through data-smart governance. 2014, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
27. Gonzalez-Zapata, F., Heeks, R., The multiple meanings of open government data: Understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Government Information Quarterly 32:4 (2015), 441–452.
28. Gordon, E., Baldwin-Philippi, J., Making a habit out of engagement: How the culture of open data is reframing civic life. Beyond transparency: Open data and the future of civic innovation, 2013, 139–149.
29. Hagen, L., Harrison, T.M., Uzuner, Ö., May, W., Fake, T., Katragadda, S., E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter?. Government Information Quarterly 33:4 (2016), 783–795.
30. Hall, P., Creative cities and economic development. Urban Studies 37:4 (2000), 633–649.
31. Hollands, R.G., Will the real smart city please stand up?. City 12:3 (2008), 303–320.
32. Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C., Designing, implementing, and evaluating user-centered and citizen-centered E-government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 6:2 (2010), 1–17.
33. Jick, T.D., Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24:4 (1979), 602–611.
34. Jung, K., Park, H.W., A semantic (TRIZ) network analysis of South Korea's “open public data” policy. Government Information Quarterly. 32:3 (2015), 353–358.
35. Katsonis, M., Botros, A., Digital government: A primer and professional perspectives. Australian Journal of Public Administration 74:1 (2015), 42–52.
36. Klievink, B., Janssen, M., Realizing joined-up government—Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly 26:2 (2009), 275–284.
37. Marchal, V., Dellink, R., van Vuuren, D., Clapp, C., Château, J., Lanzi, E., van Vliet, J., OECD environmental outlook to 2050: the consequences of inaction. http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/oecd-environmental-outlook-1999155x.htm, 2012. (Accessed 30 May 2018)
38. Nam, T., Pardo, T.A., Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, 2011, June, ACM, 282–291.
39. Navigant Research, Navigant Research's leaderboard report. https://www.navigantresearch.com/newsroom/smart-city-technology-will-reach-27-5-billion-in-annual-revenue-by-2023, 2014 Accessed 30 May 2018.
40. O'Reilly, T., Government as a platform. Innovations 6:1 (2011), 13–40.
41. Park, H.W., Examining academic internet use using a combined method. Quality & Quantity 46:1 (2012), 251–266.
42. Piccoli, G., Ives, B., IT-dependent strategic initiatives and sustained competitive advantage: A review and synthesis of the literature. MIS Quarterly 29:4 (2005), 747–776.
43. Reddick, C.G., Chatfield, A.T., Ojo, A., A social media text analytics framework for double-loop learning for citizen-centric public services: A case study of a local government Facebook use. Government Information Quarterly 34:1 (2017), 110–125.
44. Sechrest, L., Sidani, S., Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?. Evaluation and Program Planning 18:1 (1995), 77–87.
45. Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J.S., Ramakrishnan, T., Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly 32:3 (2008), 467–482 A1–A20.
46. Soe, R.-M., Drechsler, W., Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation. Government Information Quarterly 35:2 (2018), 323–335.
47. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18:7 (1997), 509–533.
48. Topic Modeling, http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/topics.php, 2016 Accessed 30 May 2018.
49. Torres, R., Sidorova, A., Jones, M.C., Enabling firm performance through business intelligence and analytics: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Information & Management, 2018, 10.1016/j.im.2018.03.010 in press.
50. Whitlark, D.B., Smith, S.M., Using correspondence analysis to map relationships. Marketing Research, 13(3), 2001, 22.
51. Yeh, H., The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens' perspectives. Government Information Quarterly 34:3 (2017), 556–565.
52. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., Martinez-Fernandez, C., Rising knowledge cities: The role of urban knowledge precincts. Journal of Knowledge Management 12:5 (2008), 8–20.
53. Zhu, M., Ghodsi, A., Automatic dimensionality selection from the scree plot via the use of profile likelihood. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51:2 (2006), 918–930.