Performance Measurement in the Smart Cities

A successful smart city needs an adequate performance measurement system to have all the information required to develop an effective involvement of stakeholders. Indeed the concept of smart city is connected no longer just to the presence and use of digital infrastructure but also to the role of human, social and relational capital and to the participation of all stakeholders, who, to be really involved, must be adequately informed about goals, activities and results achieved. In this work, after an introduction of the smart city concept, a new model to measure the performance of a smart city is proposed and the results of an empirical study on a sample of smart cities in Italy and Europe are reported. The empirical study aims to analyze how smart cities included in the sample are used to measure their performance and the capability of the new model to meet all the information needs.

[1]  Walter J.M. Kickert,et al.  Public Governance in the Netherlands: An Alternative to Anglo‐American ‘Managerialism’ , 1997 .

[2]  Panagiotis Tsarchopoulos,et al.  Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems sustained by the Future Internet , 2012 .

[3]  Geert Bouckaert,et al.  Managing Performance: International Comparisons , 2007 .

[4]  Robert D. Behn,et al.  Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures , 2003 .

[5]  E. Ostrom.  Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development , 1996 .

[6]  C. Harrison,et al.  A Theory of Smart Cities , 2011 .

[7]  Nikolaos Komninos,et al.  Intelligent Cities and Globalisation of Innovation Networks , 2008 .

[8]  Archon Fung.  Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance , 2006 .

[9]  Kjell A. Eliassen,et al.  Governance and Public Management , 1993 .

[10]  Carlo Ratti,et al.  Special Issue on Smart Applications for Smart Cities - New Approaches to Innovation: Guest Editors' Introduction , 2012, J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res..

[11]  J. Mack,et al.  Local Government Reports: Australian Empirical Evidence on Recipients , 2001 .

[12]  Michel Lebas,et al.  Performance measurement and performance management , 1995 .

[13]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  An International Comparison , 2000 .

[14]  John Domingue,et al.  The Future of the Internet , 1999, Academia Letters.

[15]  R. Rhodes.  Understanding governance : policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability , 1997 .

[16]  Nicos Komninos,et al.  Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces , 2002 .

[17]  Jennifer Law,et al.  ACCOUNTABILITY AND LOCAL AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORTS: THE CASE OF WELSH DISTRICT COUNCILS , 1991 .

[18]  I. Steccolini.  Is the Annual Report an Accountability Medium? An Empirical Investigation into Italian Local Governments , 2004 .

[19]  S. Osborne.  The new public governance? : emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance , 2010 .

[20]  Owen E. Hughes.  Does governance exist , 2010 .

[21]  Suzanne W. Morse.  Smart Communities: How Citizens and Local Leaders Can Use Strategic Thinking to Build a Brighter Future , 2004 .

[22]  Steve Wright,et al.  Intelligent spaces : the application of pervasive ICT , 2006 .

[23]  Edoardo Ongaro,et al.  Public Management Reform and Modernization , 2009 .

[24]  Kjell A. Eliassen,et al.  Managing public organizations : lessons from contemporary European experience , 1989 .

[25]  Ileana Steccolini,et al.  Using the Internet for Communicating Performance Information , 2006 .

[26]  Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko,et al.  Smart cities in the new service economy: building platforms for smart services , 2014, AI & SOCIETY.

[27]  Hans Schaffers,et al.  Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation , 2011, Future Internet Assembly.