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

Abstract With the recent increase in urban population worldwide, and the emergence of big data analytics, there is a growing interest in research on how cities are actively reconstructing themselves into a smart and sustainable city. Research studies have shown that the smart city system primarily focuses on integrating three components: economic, environmental, and social. The social component includes participatory democracy with citizen engagement. In many cases, smart cities focus on discovering answers for various urban problems through the adoption of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) designed to collect citizen feedback, or provide knowledge resources that can improve the quality of urban life. However, there are very few studies that attempt to close the information loop and link problems to solutions in one, unified framework. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate such a unified approach. Using the theoretical lens of dynamic capabilities, we expand the definition of a smart city to include the notion of an urban organization with dynamic capabilities, which operates within cycles of ‘sense’, ‘seize’, ‘align’, and ‘transform’ functions. Our case study focuses on the ‘sense’ and ‘seize’ steps, describing a medium-size city in Texas, where an open-ended survey is used as a collection instrument for citizen input and concept-based analytics are employed to convert such input into actionable insights. Our approach has the potential to assist policy makers in designing a comprehensive strategy toward the goal of the smart city.

[1]  Han Woo Park,et al.  The hybrid shift: Evidencing a student-driven restructuring of the college classroom , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[2]  Lucian L. Visinescu,et al.  Text-mining the voice of the people , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[3]  Gilbert Saporta,et al.  L'analyse des données , 1981 .

[4]  R. Hollands Will the real smart city please stand up? , 2008, The Routledge Companion to Smart Cities.

[5]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating User-centered and Citizen-centered E-government , 2010, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[6]  R. Dameri,et al.  Smart city intellectual capital: an emerging view of territorial systems innovation management , 2015 .

[7]  Tim O'Reilly Government as a Platform , 2011, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[8]  Chung Joo Chung,et al.  Faculty use and perception of mobile information and communication technology (m-ICT) for teaching practices , 2016 .

[9]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  Latent Semantic Analysis: five methodological recommendations , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Customer agility and responsiveness through big data analytics for public value creation: A case study of Houston 311 on-demand services , 2018, Gov. Inf. Q..

[11]  Han Woo Park Examining academic Internet use using a combined method , 2008 .

[12]  P. Hall Creative Cities and Economic Development , 2000 .

[13]  T. Landauer,et al.  Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis , 1990 .

[14]  Wolfgang G. Stock,et al.  eGovernment in cities of the knowledge society. An empirical investigation of Smart Cities' governmental websites , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[15]  Renata Paola Dameri,et al.  Searching for Smart City definition: a comprehensive proposal , 2013, BIOINFORMATICS 2013.

[16]  Blake Ives,et al.  Review: IT-Dependent Strategic Initiatives and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature , 2005, MIS Q..

[17]  Adegboyega Ojo,et al.  A social media text analytics framework for double-loop learning for citizen-centric public services: A case study of a local government Facebook use , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[18]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Understanding electronic government research and smart city: A framework and empirical evidence , 2016, Inf. Polity.

[19]  Hans Jochen Scholl,et al.  Aspirations and realizations: The smart city of Seattle , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[20]  Soon Ae Chun,et al.  Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government , 2010, Inf. Polity.

[21]  Wolfgang Drechsler,et al.  Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[22]  Anna Sidorova,et al.  Uncovering the Intellectual Core of the Information Systems Discipline , 2008, MIS Q..

[23]  罗海军,et al.  A New Focusing Excitation Method Based on Magnetic Induction Tomography , 2017 .

[24]  T. Jick Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. , 1979 .

[25]  Souraya Sidani,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative methods:: Is There an Alternative? , 1995 .

[26]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[27]  N. Denzin Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook , 1978 .

[28]  Kyujin Jung,et al.  A semantic (TRIZ) network analysis of South Korea's "Open Public Data" policy , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[29]  Hsiaoping Yeh,et al.  The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens' perspectives , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[30]  Cristina Martinez-Fernandez,et al.  Rising knowledge cities: the role of urban knowledge precincts , 2008, J. Knowl. Manag..

[31]  Theresa A. Pardo,et al.  Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions , 2011, dg.o '11.

[32]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  Quantitative quality control from qualitative data: control charts with latent semantic analysis , 2015 .

[33]  Bram Klievink,et al.  Realizing joined-up government - Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[34]  Mu Zhu,et al.  Automatic dimensionality selection from the scree plot via the use of profile likelihood , 2006, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[35]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big Impact , 2012, MIS Q..

[36]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  The Measurement of Textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. , 1998 .

[37]  Richard Heeks,et al.  The multiple meanings of open government data: Understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[38]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[39]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Citizen-centered e-government services: benefits, costs, and research needs , 2008, DG.O.

[40]  Leticia H. Anaya,et al.  Comparing Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Latent Semantic Analysis as Classifiers , 2011 .

[41]  Loni Hagen,et al.  E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[42]  Frank Bannister,et al.  Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the story so far , 2012, Inf. Polity.

[43]  Andrew Botros,et al.  Digital Government: A Primer and Professional Perspectives , 2015 .

[44]  Tomasz Janowski,et al.  Digital Public Service Innovation: Framework Proposal , 2016, ICEGOV.

[45]  Russell Torres,et al.  Enabling firm performance through business intelligence and analytics: A dynamic capabilities perspective , 2018, Inf. Manag..