CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Smart Cities and TechnologiesE-Government and Public ServicesInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moving beyond showcasing: The five faces of leadership in smart city transformation

Open access
Cranefield, Jocelyn, Pries-Heje, J·2020
DOI 10.26686/wgtn.12910076.v1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

© 27th European Conference on Information Systems - Information Systems for a Sharing Society, ECIS 2019. All rights reserved. The smart city concept is used as tool by local and municipal governments to deliver benefits relating to people, government, economy, mobility, environment and living. By embedding technologies and the internet of things in the city's infrastructure, smart cities aim to generate insights that drive local improvements and accrue to a global level. The smart city is also viewed as a transformative lever for government. As cities move beyond smart city pilot showcasing projects, they face the challenge of embedding smart city initiatives in business-as-usual. Despite ambitious goals and high stakes, little is known about the work that leaders perform in undertaking this transformation. This study explored the leadership practice of smart city leaders in Denmark, Holland, USA, Australia and New Zealand. We focus on how leaders drive transformation from showcasing to becoming a sustainable smart city, and the challenges faced. As result we present a framework of six barriers to overcome and five enacted leadership roles to transform the city of today to a future sustainable smart city. We use institutional logics as a lens to discuss and explain the challenges faced by city leaders and their critical role as innovation agents and boundary spanners in smart city transformation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.26686/wgtn.12910076.v1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Misalignment between local governments and national digital strategies frequently results in fragmented implementation of smart city programs.

    “misalignment between local governments and national digital strategies frequently results in fragmented implementation of smart city programs, highlighting the need for improved coordination and alignment to mitigate these challenges (Cranefield and Pries-Heje, 2020).”

    From Smart city governance and interoperability: enhancing human security in Yogyakarta and Makassar, Indonesia (2025) · cites this paper as Cranefield and Pries-Heje, 2020

    Section 4.1.2 describes municipal structures and siloed departments as barriers to integrating and scaling smart city initiatives; section 4.1.1 describes pilot data that was not integrated with city data. These passages support an implementation-fragmentation concern, but they do not identify misalignment between local governments and national digital strategies as its cause or establish that this frequently occurs. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Albino, V., U. Berardi, and R. M. Dangelico. 2015. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology 22 (1), 3-21.
  2. Anthopoulos, L. G., and C. G. Reddick. 2016a. Smart City and Smart Government: Synonymous or Complementary? Paper read at Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web April 11-15, at Montreal.
  3. Anthopoulos, L. G., and C. G. Reddick. 2016b. Understanding electronic government research and smart city: A framework and empirical evidence. Information Polity 21 (1),99-117.
  4. Bass, B. M., and R. E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational leadership. : Psychology Press.
  5. Belbin, R. M. 2010. Management teams: Routledge.
  6. Belbin, R. M. 2012. Team roles at work: Routledge.
  7. Bibri, S. E., and J. Krogstie. 2017. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society 31,183-212.
  8. Brauer, B., M. Eisel, and L. M. Kolbe. 2015. The State of the Art in Smart City Research-A Literature Analysis on Green IS Solutions to Foster Environmental Sustainability. PACIS 2015 Proceedings. 74.
  9. Busch, P. A., H. Z. Henriksen, and Ø. Sæbø. 2018. Opportunities and challenges of digitized discretionary practices: a public service worker perspective. Government Information Quarterly 35, 547-556.
  10. Chourabi, H., N. Taewoo, S. Walker, J. R. Gil-Garcia, S. Mellouli, K. Nahon, T. A. Pardo, and H. J. Scholl. 2012b. Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2289-2297.
  11. Cocchia, A. 2014. Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In R. P. Dameri & C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (Eds.), Smart City, progress in IS (pp. 13-43). Berlin: Springer.
  12. Contractor, N. S., L. A. DeChurch, J. Carson, D. R. Carter, and B. Keegan. 2012. The topology of collective leadership. . The Leadership Quarterly 23 (6), 994-1011.
  13. Denison, D. R., R. Hooijberg, and R. E. Quinn. 1995. Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science 6 (5), 524-540.
  14. DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 3-21.
  15. Durand, R., and P. Thornton. 2018. Categorizing Institutional Logics, Institutionalizing Categories: A Review of Two Literatures. Academy of Management Annals, (ja). 12 (2).
  16. Elnaghi, M., and S. Alshawi. 2007. A Leadership Model for e-Government Transformation. Proceedings of European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2007 (EMCIS2007), June 24-26, 2007.
  17. Giffinger, R., and H. Gudrun. 2010. Smart Cities Ranking-An Effective Instrument for the Positioning of Cities? ACE Architecture, City and Environment 4 (12), 7-25.
  18. Höjer, M., and J. Wangel. 2015. Smart sustainable cities: definition and challenges. In ICT innovations for sustainability. Berlin: Springer-verlag, 333-349.
  19. Hollands, R. G. 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12 (3), 303-320.
  20. Johansen, J., & Pries-Heje, J. 2007. Success with improvement-requires the right roles to be enact- ed-in symbiosis. Software process: improvement and practice, 12(6), 529-539.
  21. Khan, Z., A. Anjum, K. Soomro, and M. A. Tahir. 2015. Towards cloud based big data analytics for smart future cities. Journal of Cloud Computing. 4 (1),2.
  22. Kotter, J. P. 2012. Leading change: Harvard Business Press.
  23. Levina, N., and E. Vaast. 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 29 (2), 335- 363.
  24. Meyer, R. E., I. Egger-Peitler, M. A. Höllerer, and G. Hammerschmid. 2014. Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers: Institutional logics, executive identities, and public service motivation. Public Administration 92 (4), 861-885.
  25. Nam, T., and T. Pardo. 2011. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions, 282-291. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government re- search conference: digital government innovation in challenging times (pp. 282-291). ACM.
  26. Nicholds, A., J. Gibney, C. Mabey, and D. Hart. 2017. Making sense of variety in place leadership: The case of England's smart cities. Regional studies 51 (2), 249-259.
  27. Prusak, L., and R. Cross. 2002. The people who make organizations go-or stop. Harvard Business Review 80 (6),104-112.
  28. Smith, M. L. 2006. Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and organization 16 (3):191-211.
  29. Thornton, P., and W. Ocasio. 1999. Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958- 1990. American Journal of Sociology 105 (3):801-843.
  30. Thornton, P., and W. Ocasio. 2008. Institutional logics. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K. Suddaby, R. (eds.). The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. 840, 99-128.
  31. Thornton, P., W. Ocasio, and M. Loundsbury. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
  32. Tushman, M., and T. Scanlan. 1981. Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. . Academy of Management Journal 24 (2), 289-305.
  33. Van den Bergh, J., and S. Viaene. 2015. Key challenges for the smart city: Turning ambition into reality. Proceedings of 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). 2385-2394. IEEE.
  34. Walsham, G. 1995. The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research 6 (4), 376-394.
  35. White, L., G. Currie, and A. Lockett. 2016. Pluralized leadership in complex organizations: Exploring the cross network effects between formal and informal leadership relations. The Leadership Quarterly 27 (2), 280-297.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cranefield, J., & Pries-Heje, J.
Affiliations
Roskilde University (DK)
Corresponding author
  • Cranefield, Jocelyn
  • Pries-Heje, J
ORCID
Cranefield, Jocelyn
Publisher
Victoria University of Wellington Library
Published
2020-09-03
DOI
10.26686/wgtn.12910076.v1
OpenAlex
W2952335728
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2020: 2
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
leadership, municipal government, institutional logics, boundary spanners, innovation agents, barriers to transformation, sustainable cities, Internet of Things, local government

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review