Exploring emergent collaborations for digital transformation in local governments: The engagement of public libraries in the development of smart cities

Abstract

Collaboration is increasingly perceived as essential for digital transformation in the public sector. Transforming services and internal operations through the use of information and communication technologies frequently requires the engagement of multiple stakeholders beyond government agencies. This is particularly important in the specific case of smart city initiatives, which intend to leverage technologies to address complex socio-economic and sustainability challenges in local jurisdictions. In addition, emergent research asserts that community organizations such as public libraries can be strategic partners in these multi-actor efforts but does not adequately assess the determinants of these collaborations for developing smart cities, which may result in significant digital transformation at the local level. Based on public management literature on collaboration, this article contributes to digital transformation research by quantitively testing the antecedents of existing collaborations between public libraries and other stakeholders to develop smart cities. Overall, our findings suggest that leadership, preexisting relationships, and agreement on initial aims significantly impact the extent and effectiveness of public libraries' collaborations in developing smart cities.

Keywords

Collaboration digital transformation local government smart city public library

Introduction

With the advancement of technology, changes in public management practices, and citizen expectations, digital transformation has emerged as a “holistic effort to revise the core processes and services of government beyond digitization and digitalization efforts” that “evolves along a continuum of transition from analog to digital to a full stack review of policies, current processes, and user needs and results in a complete revision of the existing and the creation of new digital services” (Mergel et al., 2019: 12).

Digital transformation encompasses a shift to an innovative, dynamic government and the reinvention of public services to meet the ever-changing needs of diverse stakeholders, who are placed at the center of this development (Mergel et al., 2018; Vial, 2019). This transition is realized through the use of digital technologies and by engaging in new ways of working with government and non-government actors to co-design the said transformation and co-produce government services, altering how value is created and delivered (Liva et al., 2020; Luna-Reyes and Gil-García, 2014; Scupola and Mergel, 2022). Digital transformation can also help tackle complex societal problems and socio-economic issues intensified by the evolving demands of citizens and nascent sustainability challenges (Pereira et al., 2020), which particularly impact cities and local governments (Batty et al., 2012; Caragliu et al., 2011; Pardo et al., 2021; Soe et al., 2022).

In the last years, the concept of “smart city” has emerged as a strategy for digital transformation that uses digital technologies to change how local governments operate and collaborate to mitigate urban problems (Barcevičius et al., 2019; Meijer, 2018; Nam and Pardo, 2011a). Aware of different definitions, this study identifies smart cities as cities that, through technological and human development, seek to increase the efficiency of urban operations, enhance the quality of life, and foster economic development while maintaining environmental sustainability (Gascó-Hernández, 2016). Smart city initiatives contribute to digital transformation in local governments through multi-actor collaborations and leveraging technological innovations to advance collaborative forms of governance (Bousdekis and Kardaras, 2020; Meijer, 2015; Meijer and Rodríguez Bolívar, 2016; Mergel et al., 2019). This engagement and empowerment of stakeholders enable them to contribute to developing smart cities (Chourabi et al., 2012; Gascó-Hernández, 2018; Pereira et al., 2019, 2020). In the effort to build a comprehensive, collaborative model for developing smart cities, research often recognizes tech companies, governments, and universities as the main stakeholders (Alawadhi et al., 2012; Eger, 2005; Ruhlandt, 2018) while paying less attention to community organizations, such as public libraries, that could also play a role in building a smart city (Leorke and Wyatt, 2019; Luterek, 2018; Mora et al., 2019b).

Emerging research suggests that public libraries have the potential to become strategic partners in the development of smart cities through new collaborations with local governments and other stakeholders. Public libraries can contribute to these partnerships by developing smart citizens through digital literacy programs, facilitating and enabling citizen engagement with local issues, and offering resources and community spaces for innovation and technology co-production (Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022a). Existing studies, however, do not explore in-depth how public libraries and local governments collaborate for smart city development (Burke et al., 2014; Leorke and Wyatt, 2019; Sayogo et al., 2016). More specifically, the determinants of these collaborations, which are particularly important since these efforts are frequently part of digital transformation processes at the local level, remain understudied. Therefore, given the potential impact of the collaboration between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders on the development of smart cities, it is imperative to better understand what affects the extent and the effectiveness of these collaborations.

Our study contributes to addressing this gap by answering the following research question: what are the initial factors that affect the extent and effectiveness of the collaboration between public libraries, local governments, and other organizational actors in the development of smart cities? Among the several collaboration frameworks that have been proposed (e.g., Ansell and Gash, 2007; Emerson et al., 2012), we use the work by Bryson and colleagues (2015) as an analytical framework as it integrates prior research and offers a synopsis of the components of collaborative processes. This framework informs our hypotheses, which we test by quantitively analyzing the results of a national survey of 222 public libraries in the United States that collaborate with local governments and other stakeholders in smart city development.

This article is organized into five sections, including the foregoing introduction. Section two reviews the literature on smart cities as examples of digital transformation at the local level and also includes a review of studies on the collaboration among various stakeholders, including public libraries, to develop smart cities. Section three describes the framework used to analyze the antecedents of collaborations for digital transformation at the local level, particularly in the case of smart cities, and also presents our hypotheses. Section four explains the research design, sample selection, data, and methods used in this article. Section five presents the results of our statistical analysis and their interpretation. Section six discusses our main findings, compares them to previous research, and provides several implications for research and practice. Finally, section seven shares our conclusions, states the limitations of this study, and suggests areas for future research on this topic.

Literature review

The literature review is comprised of two subsections. We start by focusing on smart cities as examples of digital transformation in local governments. Then, we discuss the importance of collaboration for developing smart cities, including the specific case of collaborations between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders.

Smart cities as an instance of digital transformation in local governments

Although the state of knowledge and practice is advancing on digital transformation in the public sector, scholars assert that this research area needs more empirical studies (Mergel et al., 2019). Further, most existing research has focused on national governments and thereby could benefit from evidence from local governments, which directly interact with various stakeholders, including citizens, and provide them with critical public infrastructure and services (Bousdekis and Kardaras, 2020; Mossberger et al., 2013). In addition, municipalities have to be responsive as they are government entities closest to the population they serve (Ruud, 2018). Besides these strong ties to their communities, local governments are well-situated to deliver digital public services and generate benefits for various stakeholders by, for example, integrating and leveraging private and public data (Kocaoğlu and Gezici, 2021; Pittaway and Montazemi, 2020).

Local governments have made notable progress in digital transformation beyond the digitization of municipal services and internal processes (e.g., Cordella and Tempini, 2015; Dunleavy, 2005). As part of their digital transformation, local governments have fundamentally changed how they interact with citizens, other administrations, and their employees to achieve specific policy objectives (Kuhlmann and Heuberger, 2021). Further, the co-evolution of these relationships, networks, and corresponding exchanges of knowledge among different groups can facilitate digital transformation at the local level and the innovation necessary to improve urban services (Ho, 2002; Lewis et al., 2017; Liva et al., 2020) as well as the transfer of know-how on how to manage this transformation in local governments (Datta, 2020; Pittaway and Montazemi, 2020). These multi-actor collaborations can also help solve complex problems related to, inter alia, sustainability, mobility, and waste and water management (Hietala et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2020). Some of these transformative collaborative efforts based on the use of data and technology have been attached to different terms and recent trends in cities.

The smart city stands out among these trends since technologies are particularly salient as one of its main components. The relationship between digital transformation and smart cities is multidimensional and complex. At its core, digital transformation is the process of using digital technologies to change how organizations operate to address challenges and meet objectives (e.g., Vial, 2019). Formally, a city is considered smart when it tackles community problems, improves citizens' quality of life, and contributes to sustainable development through technology, innovation, and active participation of stakeholders including citizens as co-producers, not just passive consumers (Caragliu et al., 2011; Gascó-Hernández, 2016; Gil-García et al., 2015; Hollands, 2008; Nam and Pardo, 2011a). In smart cities, technology is not only used to improve public services and help address pressing urban issues but also to empower and increase opportunities to engage and collaborate with government and non-government stakeholders in the formulation of a smart city vision and the design of specific smart city initiatives (Chen et al., 2022; Lember, 2018; Trivellato, 2017). As such, smart cities are developed for, by, and with various stakeholders including citizens, and depend on participatory governance processes and collaborative organizational capacities in addition to investments in digital technologies and human and social capital (Gascó-Hernández, 2016; Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022b).

Developing smart cities as part of local digital transformation to improve citizens’ quality of life and leverage technology to address urban challenges requires fundamental internal and external changes (Alawadhi et al., 2012; Chourabi et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2020). Policy and management transformations are needed to mitigate risk and uncertainty associated with advanced technologies and the complexity of public problems while organizational transformation is essential to the creation of the capabilities and conditions for technological innovation (Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022b; Nam and Pardo, 2011b). Further, organizational and institutional transformations are integral to improving urban services through participatory, evidence-based decision-making and advanced collaborations with community organizations to face complex problems (Meijer and Rodríguez Bolívar, 2016; Pereira et al., 2020). In this regard, recent research shows that achieving this transformation with the support of technology mainly requires organizational capacities in terms of management and specifically in the form of strategic leadership and collaboration with government and non-government actors (Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022b). This combination of internal and external transformation that leads to improved governance and collaboration has been framed as the highest level of transformation and referred to as smart urban collaboration in the context of smart cities (Meijer and Rodríguez Bolívar, 2016; Pereira et al., 2020). In this light, smart city initiatives could contribute to digital transformation in local governments as smart cities are built and governed through new ways of working with various collaborators and innovative uses of technology to reinvent themselves and their governance (Hietala et al., 2021; Meijer, 2015; Mergel et al., 2019; Pereira et al., 2017, 2020).

Collaboration between various stakeholders for smart city development

In public management literature, collaboration is viewed as one of the ways to tackle complex problems in which non-government actors actively participate in problem identification and solving as well as decision-making on par with the government (e.g., Emerson et al., 2012). This is based on the realization that these challenges cannot be effectively mitigated in isolation and through the existing capacities and capabilities of public organizations and traditional methods of governance and therefore require collaboration with diverse stakeholders (e.g., Ansell and Gash, 2018). Aware of various conceptualizations, we adopt a definition of collaboration as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage [non-government] stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets” (Ansell and Gash, 2007: 544). Collaboration can therefore involve partnerships that include government agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector, communities, and the larger society; these multi-actor collaborations are considered one of the means of tackling complex public issues, which require new ways of engaging and collaborating with various organizational actors (Bryson et al., 2006; Crosby and Bryson, 2010).

Digital transformation is a complex undertaking that cannot be realized through the actions of a single government agency and calls for a collaborative approach that incorporates the active participation of stakeholders who, with the help of technology, are collectively able to transform public organizations and secure long-term policy objectives (Mergel et al., 2019). In parallel, digital transformation implies different ways and forms of interacting with and considering the needs of heterogeneous stakeholders, which unlocks different types of value by providing services that meet the actual, evolving needs of diverse users (Gong et al., 2020; Hanelt et al., 2021; Scupola and Mergel, 2022). In other words, a government is digitally transformed through new relationships among government agencies and between government and non-government actors, including citizens (Liva et al., 2020; Luna-Reyes and Gil-García, 2014; Meyerhoff Nielsen, 2019), engagement of the end-users as service co-designers and co-producers, and increased responsiveness and flexibility of government agencies (Gong et al., 2020; Janowski, 2015; Mergel et al., 2018). Collaboration is therefore essential for digital transformation in the public sector (Rackwitz et al., 2021; Torfing et al., 2021).

Despite the importance of collaboration for digital transformation in local governments, the extant literature has mainly focused on a few stakeholders such as technology companies, local governments, and universities as current and prospective partners for the development of smart cities (Alawadhi et al., 2012; Mora et al., 2019a, 2019b; Ruhlandt, 2018). The involvement of additional actors, particularly of community organizations such as public libraries is limited despite their potential to become strategic partners in such transformation (Burke et al., 2014; Leorke and Wyatt, 2019; Sayogo et al., 2016). This potential is evident in the literature, which explores how public libraries have evolved from their traditional role as depositories of information and knowledge in the format of books and catalogs to versatile, community-centered institutions able to meet diverse community needs. In this respect, public libraries have been recognized for their ability to extend digital inclusion by providing access and skills to use technology with a purpose (Bertot et al., 2008; Jaeger et al., 2006), serve as community spaces for collective discussion and solving of pressing issues that concern the community (Hildreth, 2012; Kranich, 2012), and offer experimental spaces, technology, training, and connections needed to innovate solutions that improve individual and collective outcomes (Hernández-Pérez et al., 2020; Vilariño and Karatzas, 2018). The aforesaid library contributions are often linked to community development but rarely to the development of smart cities as vehicles of digital transformation at the local level (Mersand et al., 2019).

Nascent research, nonetheless, has started to explore how public libraries contribute to smart city development. This research stream posits that public libraries can be important contributors to smart city development and salient collaborators for: (1) developing smart citizens, (2) facilitating and enabling citizen participation, and (3) offering environments of innovation and technology co-production (Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022a). In particular, public libraries develop smart citizens by providing access to various technologies, including advanced tools (e.g., 3D printers, laser cutters), and offering programs and services that build and improve digital skills to use technology with a purpose, which are proficiencies that are essential to the active participation of diverse stakeholders in smart city initiatives as technology is at the heart of smart cities (Borkowska and Osborne, 2018; Gascó-Hernández, 2016; Tryfonas and Crick, 2018). At the same time, public libraries are perceived as inclusive, safe spaces for community engagement and peer-to-peer learning that can alter how stakeholders, including civil society and citizens, interact, engage, and participate in smart city initiatives design and implementation (Hernández-Pérez et al., 2020; Vårheim, 2017). Public libraries can also provide community-level innovation environments, where various groups, including entrepreneurs, can experiment and innovate in spaces, such as makerspaces, using various technologies (e.g., Mersand et al., 2019) and interact and exchange knowledge to create novel solutions to address some of the community’s challenges as part of local smart city efforts (e.g., Vilariño and Karatzas, 2018).

The three-fold role that public libraries play in the development of smart cities reinforces the collaborative feature of smart cities, for partnerships and collaboration are often the main tool public libraries have to implement many of the programs and services that contribute to a smart(er) city. According to Gascó-Hernández et al. (2022a), collaboration proves “particularly important given the limited staff, scarce resources, and the need to innovate” (p. 429).

However, while there is a growing research interest in exploring how public libraries collaborate for smart city development, previous studies have not addressed in-depth how collaboration actually happens or have not applied existing collaboration frameworks to better understand the partnerships between public libraries and other stakeholders, local governments included, in the context of smart city development. In particular, an evidence-based understanding of the factors that can affect these specific collaborations is still lacking. This gap is concerning as these partnerships are critical to digital transformation processes at the local level. Therefore, it is important to examine the factors that affect the extent and effectiveness of these collaborations in order to fully leverage the potential impact of public libraries on smart city development as prospective partners, facilitators, and capacity builders for helping communities to access and use data, information, and technology to engage with their governments in policy- and decision-making processes (Burke et al., 2014; Leorke and Wyatt, 2019; Sayogo et al., 2016). As the success of collaborations in the public arena depends on several factors (e.g., Bryson et al., 2015), comprehension of these specific determinants can help stakeholders identify conditions under which such collaborations between public libraries and local governments are likely to be most effective and inform actions to foster them. This study aims to address the aforementioned gap by using an established collaboration framework (described in the next section) and analyzing a dataset collected through a survey given that no relevant secondary data are available.

Analytical framework

Given the focus on digital transformation in local governments, this paper analyzes public libraries currently collaborating with local governments or other stakeholders in smart city development and, specifically, the determinants of the extent and effectiveness of these existing collaborations. To do so, we utilize the framework by Bryson and Colleagues (2015) as it synthesizes theoretical and empirical studies on collaboration and offers a comprehensive view for identifying and exploring multiple components of collaborations in the public sector.

In our quantitative models, we then consider the following initial conditions, drivers, and linking mechanisms of collaboration, which are perceived as real antecedents of collaboration even if the external conditions favor its formation (Bryson et al., 2015): (1) agreement on initial aims, (2) preexisting relationships, (3) initial leadership, (4) consequential incentives, and (5) nature of the task. Following a brief discussion of each of these factors, we present the specific hypotheses tested in this study.

First, agreement on initial aims can help specify the roles and interests of the collaborators while reinforcing their interdependence (Ruijer, 2021; Vasconcelos and Nguyen, 2018). Further, scholars posit that these agreements may foster collaborations as they can mediate collective problem definition, vision setting, and consensus on the resources needed to address the immediate problem (Ansell and Gash, 2007; Bryson et al., 2006). Researchers also advise bolstering initial agreements and the effectiveness of collaboration through authoritative texts that formalize, inter alia, the purpose, identity, values, and outcomes of collaboration (Heath and Isbell, 2021; Koschmann et al., 2012). In smart city initiatives, various stakeholders are expected to collaborate and participate in how their cities become smart through transformative strategies, which can improve the effectiveness of these collaborations by communicating a common vision, goals, and roles of the different actors (Angelidou, 2014; Gascó-Hernández, 2016; Mora et al., 2019b). We thus hypothesize that:

H1a

An agreement on initial aims has a positive effect on the extent of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

H1b

An agreement on initial aims has a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

Second, preexisting relationships play an important role in multi-actor collaborations. Prior relationships can enable collaborators to better understand each other’s capacities, strengthen trust, form perceptions, and serve as reference points for partner selection in future collaborations (Ansell and Gash, 2007; Bryson et al., 2006). The history of relationships between collaborators can also be instrumental to collective local responses to complex public problems (Curnin and O’Hara, 2019; Simo and Bies, 2007). Public libraries have endured as trusted partners in community development for several years and through various initiatives (e.g., Goodman, 2014). Further, in partnership with universities and non-profits, public libraries have offered programs and resources that can enable citizens to innovate with technology and empower them to participate in smart city initiatives (e.g., Hernández-Pérez et al., 2020). These prior relationships may affect collaborations between public libraries and other stakeholders in smart city development. We then hypothesize that:

H2a

Preexisting relationships have a positive effect on the extent of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

H2b

Preexisting relationships have a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

Third, leadership has been well-researched in academic literature from multiple disciplines and identified as critical to collaboration. Some researchers underscore how leaders can unite various stakeholders, safeguard the implementation of a shared vision, manage relationships among collaborators, and level the playing field in terms of power (Emerson et al., 2012; Huxham, 2003; Huxham and Vangen, 2000; Yuan et al., 2022). Certain leadership skills and traits such as age, education, and capacity to mobilize resources and actors to reach a collective goal are especially important (Esteve et al., 2013; McGuire and Silvia, 2010). Since libraries under supportive leadership can become partners and actors in the development of smart cities (Mersand et al., 2019; Yerden et al., 2019), we hypothesize that:

H3a

Leadership has a positive effect on the extent of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

H3b

Leadership has a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

Fourth, consequential incentives are perceived as drivers (external or internal) for collaboration, which could be positive or negative (Emerson et al., 2012; Romzek et al., 2012). These incentives can stem from external pressures such as environmental crises, threats, opportunities, or internal pressures such as pressing problems, resource needs, or interests (Emerson, 2018). Further, consequential incentives can intrinsically or extrinsically motivate various actors to collaborate (Ceresia and Misuraca, 2020; March and Olsen, 1998). The range of complex public problems that smart cities intend to address innovatively and the incentives appropriated towards these ends, such as funding, subsidies, and policies, can motivate partnerships and collaborations for smart city development (Khatoun and Zeadally, 2016; Puron-Cid and Gil-Garcia, 2022; Van Winden and van Den Buuse, 2017; Vanolo, 2014). We, therefore, hypothesize that:

H4a

Consequential incentives have a positive effect on the extent of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

H4b

Consequential incentives have a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

Finally, the nature of the task mainly characterizes the complexity of a problem that requires collaboration (Bryson et al., 2015). It can influence the membership, structure, and collaboration process (Provan and Kenis, 2007) as partners typically have distinct resources and capacities, which are pooled and leveraged to collectively solve a shared, complex problem (Ansell and Gash, 2018; Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Esteve et al., 2013). Smart city development aims to address these complex problems, an intricate task requiring collaboration among various stakeholders contributing to different aspects of its advancement (Gascó-Hernández, 2018; Meijer and Bolívar, 2016). Based on this, we hypothesize that:

H5a

The nature of the task has a positive effect on the extent of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

H5b

The nature of the task has a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration of public libraries with local governments and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities

Research design and methods

Given the lack of data from secondary sources that could be used to test our hypotheses,¹ we chose the survey questionnaire method to reach as many potential respondents as possible in the population of interest and efficiently collect substantial data (Kelley et al., 2003; Trochim and Donnelly, 2008). Further, surveying a sample of a specific population provides a “quantitative description of trends, attitudes, and opinions of [that] population, or tests for associations among variables of [that] population” (Creswell and Creswell, 2018: 207). This survey represents the perspective of public libraries and was part of a larger research project following a strict data collection timeline. Moreover, the survey was national in scope and designed and conducted in partnership with the American Library Association to gather representative data from public libraries and local governments. Conscious of the potential common bias with the same respondents providing input for the measures of both independent and dependent variables (Jakobsen and Jensen, 2015; Kelman, 2015), we separated the measures of independent and dependent variables so that the research intentions could not be easily deduced (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

In addition, in terms of the concept of a “smart city” and how it was managed in the survey, there were a few questions at the beginning of the survey, which were designed to help the researchers understand how respondents understood this concept at the time of filling the survey. For example, we specifically asked about what the concept of a smart city meant to them. We also asked about the aspects or components they considered related or not to this concept and what they perceived the goals of smart cities were. After analyzing these responses, we concluded that definitions of the smart city were similar among the responders: they included several dimensions related to technology, urban operations (e.g., more efficient transportation), quality of life, the local economy (e.g., entrepreneurial activities), and environmental sustainability.

The survey was sent to 8230 public library directors and representatives of library associations across the United States. The former group received invitations to respond between October and November 2020 and the latter between December 2020 and January 2021. In addition, weekly reminders were sent to non-responders and 10% of the sample chosen randomly received follow-up phone calls. Before administration, we conducted two pretests and one pilot test with 5% of the sample (N = 433) and adjusted the content and the process to administer the survey accordingly.

The respondents were mainly public library directors (83.78%) with an average work experience of 12 years. In total, we received 1254 responses. Among these, 222 public libraries responded that, at the moment of completing the survey, they were collaborating with local governments and other stakeholders for smart city development. Therefore, this study includes these 222 responses in our analysis. We used the multiple imputation technique for missing values in the scale-response questions (Rubin, 1996; Schafer, 1999).

For the analysis, we applied multiple linear regression to determine the relationship between two dependent variables (one for the extent of collaboration, the other for the effectiveness of collaboration) and five independent variables. The first dependent variable (extent of current collaboration) is measured by the number of different types of organizations libraries collaborate with to develop smart cities. The second dependent variable (effectiveness of current collaboration) is assessed by a scaled-response question (Likert scale 1–10) on how effective the collaboration between a public library and the local government (or other stakeholders) is in the development of smart cities.

Five independent variables are measured using scaled-response questions (Likert scale 1–10). An agreement on initial aims determines whether a formal agreement on collaboration between the public library and other organizations exists. Preexisting relationships represent the extent of previous collaborations between public libraries and other parties. Leadership is the average of eight sub-indicators that characterize leaders: (1) understanding of community issues, (2) capacity to assemble resources and support to address local issues, (3) ability to communicate the significance of the community issues to collaborators, (4) commitment level, (5) a collaborative mentality, (6) open-mindedness in communication and decision-making, (7) ability to coordinate work internally and externally, and (8) fairness in treating the staff and partners. Consequential incentives are measured as the average score of two drivers for collaboration: (1) the extent of existing community issues and (2) the availability of funding that supports collaboration. The nature of the task is measured by the extent of community challenges that call for collaboration. A table with the operationalization of all dependent and independent variables is provided at the end of the paper in Appendix 1.

Main findings

Table 1 presents summary statistics for all the variables. For the dependent variables, the effectiveness of collaboration has the highest average mean, which seems to indicate that public libraries perceive their current collaborations as effective. For the independent variables, leadership has the highest average mean value, suggesting that public libraries highly regard supportive leadership in collaborations and they think they have it. Further, the nature of the task has a high average value too, which suggests that most public libraries believe that the community development challenges they face require collaborations with other actors. On the contrary, agreement on initial aims has the lowest average value indicating that formal agreements on collaborations between public libraries and other actors are not always available.

Table 1.

Summary statistics.

Variables	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev	Min	Max
Extent of collaboration [DV1]	222	4.054	2.378	0.000	9.000
Effectiveness of collaboration [DV2]	222	5.952	2.017	1.000	10.000
Agreement on initial aims [IV1]	222	4.172	2.723	1.000	10.000
Preexisting relationships [IV2]	222	7.430	2.352	1.000	10.000
Leadership [IV3]	222	7.542	1.730	1.625	10.000
Consequential incentives [IV4]	222	5.912	1.569	2.000	10.000
Nature of the task [IV5]	222	7.356	1.783	3.000	10.000

In Table 2, model (1) shows results for the impact of all independent variables on the extent of collaboration, and model (2) on the effectiveness of collaboration. The coefficients have been standardized to better identify and understand the most important predictors in the models. Model (1) explains 28.5% of the variance in the extent of the current collaboration between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders in developing smart cities. The coefficients and p-values indicate that agreement on initial aims (β = 0.146, p < 0.05), preexisting relationships (β = 0.187, p < 0.01), leadership (β = 0.303, p < 0.001), and consequential incentives (β = 0.171, p < 0.05) have a statistically significant positive effect on the extent of the said collaboration. In this light, our data support hypotheses H1a, H2a, H3a, and H4a.

Table 2.

Regression estimates.

Variables	(1) Extent of collaboration	(2) Effectiveness of collaboration
Agreement on initial aims [IV1]	0.146 (0.0572)^*	0.150 (0.0476)^*
Preexisting relationships [IV2]	0.187 (0.0679)^**	0.409 (0.0566)^***
Leadership [V3]	0.303 (0.0876)^***	0.163 (0.0730)^**
Consequential incentives [IV4]	0.171 (0.110)^*	−0.027 (0.0913)
Nature of the task [IV5]	−0.105 (0.0931)	0.001 (0.0775)
Observations	222	222
R ²	0.285	0.311

Standardized beta coefficients; standard errors in parentheses. ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001.

Model (2) explains 31.1% of the variance in the effectiveness of current collaboration in developing smart cities. The coefficients and p-values indicate that agreement on initial aims (β = 0.150, p < 0.05), preexisting relationships (β = 0.409, p < 0.001), and leadership (β = 0.163, p < 0.01) have a statistically significant positive effect on the effectiveness of collaborations between public libraries, local governments, and other organizational actors in developing smart cities. Our data, therefore, support hypotheses H1b, H2b, and H3b.

The results also suggest that the nature of the task does not have a statistically significant effect on either the extent or the effectiveness of the collaboration between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders in the development of smart cities.

Discussion and implications

This study aimed to examine the determinants of the collaboration between public libraries and other organizational actors in the development of smart cities, which may be part of digital transformation processes at the local level. Overall, we find that Bryson et al.’s (2015) collaboration framework is useful in understanding the collaborative development of smart cities, showing that the use of this framework can be extended to new initiatives, partnerships, and contexts. In addition, in the following paragraphs, we briefly discuss the main findings, compare them with previous studies, and identify some implications for research and practice.

First, the significance of the agreement on initial aims on both extent and effectiveness suggests that formal agreements on collaboration increase not only the types of stakeholders public libraries collaborate with but also their confidence in the impact of current collaborations for smart city development. This is consistent with previous research on other types of collaboration between different partners, which asserts that formal agreements can condition and strengthen collaborations, regardless of their goals and context, through improved accountability and credibility (Ruijer, 2021; Vasconcelos and Nguyen, 2018). In the case of smart cities, it seems that existing local smart city strategies may help in the creation of these initial agreements, given that they provide formal, shared roadmaps for smart city development and already include aims and goals around which initial agreements may happen (Yerden et al., 2019, 2020). These smart city strategies and plans may therefore result in reaching a shared understanding of goals and objectives among partners sooner than in other types of collaborations, which may amplify the impact on the extent and effectiveness of the collaboration.

Second, the history of collaborations with various stakeholders appears to notably prime libraries to continue collaborating and has the strongest impact in terms of magnitude on the effectiveness of these multi-actor efforts for smart city development compared to other predictors in the model. This is also consistent with current literature, which postulates that previous collaborations with diverse stakeholders can motivate current and future collaborations as well as their effectiveness (Ansell and Gash, 2007; Bryson et al., 2006). However, it seems to be particularly important in the case of public libraries and smart city development. Public libraries have a long history of collaboration with different stakeholders, such as other public libraries, museums, schools, non-profits, and governments (see, for example, Nicholson, 2019; Ogden and Williams, 2022; Rodger et al., 2005). As Gascó-Hernández et al. (2022a) discuss, public libraries have often pursued collaborations that have been key in helping them to offer successful programs and services to their communities, given that they provide resources, but also the additional knowledge that librarians and library staff may not have. The role public libraries play in developing smart cities only adds to this extended history of collaboration and builds on successful partnerships public libraries may already have.

Third, leadership has the strongest impact on the extent of collaboration compared to other predictors in the model, suggesting that leadership can broaden collaborations between libraries and other stakeholders. Concomitantly, the results show that leadership also improves the outcomes of such partnerships. These findings align with some past studies that accentuate that leaders and their characteristics can be instrumental to both the inception and outcomes of collaborations (Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Esteve et al., 2013; McGuire and Silvia, 2010). The novelty of this finding is that it adds empirical evidence to the notion that community organizations such as public libraries, which have leaders with a collaborative orientation, can become salient partners and actors in smart city development (Mersand et al., 2019). More importantly, this result seems to indicate that public libraries’ leadership (mainly directors) may play a greater and more impactful role in the success of smart cities than the one they have usually played in previous partnerships and collaborations. This is significant given that local governments’ staff traditionally lead smart city efforts.

Fourth, consequential incentives have a statistically significant positive effect only on the extent of collaboration between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders in smart city development. As previously stated, the scale of some community issues and the availability of incentives, such as funding, can motivate public libraries to collaborate with others in developing smart cities, but this does not necessarily increase the perceived effectiveness. This is partially consistent with the conclusions of previous research, which argues that internal and external drivers can compel organizations to collaborate (Emerson, 2018; Emerson et al., 2012; Khatoun and Zeadally, 2016; Puron-Cid and Gil-Garcia, 2022; Romzek et al., 2012). This finding suggests that, in the context of smart cities, while incentives can be effective in initiating collaboration, they may not necessarily lead to better outcomes or can sustain collaborations over time. Further, the effectiveness of increased collaborations could also be contingent on the long-term maintenance of shared goals and objectives; changing priorities over time could then influence the effectiveness of collaboration. Also, while incentives might encourage collaboration, less than optimal allocation of such resources throughout collaboration could affect the effectiveness of these partnerships.

Lastly, the nature of the task does not have a statistically significant effect on the collaboration’s extent or effectiveness. In other words, the existence of complex problems that require collaboration does not necessarily influence the willingness of public libraries and other stakeholders to collaborate or their perceptions of the effectiveness of collaborations for smart city development. This is inconsistent with existing literature, which highlights that addressing these complex problems through smart city development requires collaboration among diverse stakeholders that contribute to its different facets (Gascó-Hernández, 2018; Meijer and Bolívar, 2016). However, this could be partially explained by previous research on public libraries highlighting that community organizations, through limited partnerships or on their own, are capable of addressing complex problems such as digital inclusion, social welfare, and community development (Bertot et al., 2008; Kranich, 2012). This also suggests that problem complexity may not be the primary driver of collaboration for smart city development between public libraries and other stakeholders, underscoring the importance of considering the unique characteristics of different collaborators (e.g., missions, values, motivations) in such efforts. Further, the responsibility for many complex problems usually falls on the local governments, and thereby public libraries may not perceive they should be initiating collaborations to address problems outside their responsibilities.

This article has the following implications for research. Our study suggests that specific variables affect collaborations between public libraries and other organizational actors for smart city initiatives as examples of digital transformation in local governments. We contribute to the emerging research (Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022a; Mersand et al., 2019) by exploring the specific determinants of the extent and effectiveness of these collaborations for smart city development. The study of the organizational determinants of collaboration has added to the recent literature on smart cities as vehicles of digital transformation at the local level (Gascó-Hernández et al., 2022b). By examining public libraries, we also add empirical evidence to the limited knowledge of collaborations with community organizations for smart city development (Burke et al., 2014; Leorke and Wyatt, 2019; Sayogo et al., 2016). Further, this article contributes to multidisciplinary research on collaboration, which has been an area of interest for public administration scholars (e.g., Ansell and Gash, 2007; Bryson et al., 2006) and researchers studying digital transformation at the local level (e.g., Mergel et al., 2019; Pereira et al., 2020) as well as smart city development (e.g., Meijer and Rodríguez Bolívar, 2016; Pereira et al., 2017). Although we tested only a few aspects of one specific collaboration framework, the one proposed by Bryson and Colleagues (2015), we found this framework useful for better understanding the relationships between local governments and community organizations to achieve digital transformation. In particular, initial conditions, drivers, and linking mechanisms of collaboration can be seen as valuable determinants of multi-actor collaborations for smart city development. Finally, this paper links literature from Public Management and Digital Government, which, if integrated, could significantly advance the state of knowledge in both research fields (Gil-Garcia et al., 2018). This link is made in the specific context of the determinants of collaboration between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders for the development of smart cities.

This paper also has some practical implications. Our article shows that public libraries need to be aware of specific factors that can significantly affect the extent and effectiveness of collaborations with various stakeholders to become strategic partners in smart city development. In parallel, for local governments, a grasp of the exact factors can help improve collaborations with community organizations, such as public libraries, that have not been traditionally involved in digital transformation processes. For local government and public libraries, recognizing the factors that affect partnerships can help them to better prepare, plan, and organize collaborations for digital transformation using existing capacities and scarce resources. In this regard, organizational capacities, such as managerial leadership, are particularly important as we find leaders with a collaborative orientation to be one of the factors that can significantly affect the collaboration between public libraries and local governments for smart city development. Further, these partnerships may need to invest in relationship management as past and present collaborations affect future collaborations and significantly impact their outcomes. Also, the finding that consequential incentives have a positive effect only on the extent of collaboration could help public libraries and local governments rethink how they allocate resources (e.g., funding) and better encourage collaborations for digital transformation and smart city development. This study also shows that the extent and effectiveness of collaborations between community organizations, such as public libraries, and local governments depend not solely on the need for funding but also on leadership and past experiences. As such, the extent and effectiveness of these collaborations hinge on a mix of internal and external changes: the transformation of current governance processes and collaborative approaches as well as investments in technology and existing human and social capital.

Conclusions

In this study, we explored emergent collaborations for digital transformation in local governments by examining the engagement of public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders in smart city development. To do so, we quantitatively analyzed data from a national survey based on an established collaboration framework. We conclude that the extent and the effectiveness of collaborations between public libraries, local governments, and other stakeholders for smart city development are significantly affected by specific variables: leadership, preexisting relationships, and agreement on initial aims. This article shows the theoretical and practical importance of exploring the determinants of collaboration with non-government actors to create value through digital transformation in local governments.

This study has several limitations, which could be potential avenues for future research. First, the response rate was relatively low, partly due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, as explained early in the paper, we did our best to increase the response rate as much as possible given the circumstances (e.g., by sending several reminders and calling a random sample of survey respondents). With that said, future research could test the validity of the proposed quantitative model in different contexts and with a higher response rate if possible. Also, given that public libraries collaborate with different stakeholders, future research could test whether the results change depending on the specific type of organizations that libraries collaborate with. Further, there is a need for a deeper understanding of the motivations and values of public libraries and their partners in smart city development. At the same time, the findings of this paper go beyond existing research by showing the need to contextualize existing collaborative models to ensure that such partnerships are both effective and sustainable when involving heterogeneous actors.

We also recognize that despite our efforts, respondents might have emphasized different aspects of the smart city concept while responding to the survey questions. However, as explained in the methods section, based on our initial questions, we know that respondents were considering similar characteristics of the smart city concept. In addition, the findings are based on a survey conducted in the U.S., which means its external validity could be limited and caution should be taken with generalizing beyond this context. Further, this study is informed by a survey of mainly public library directors as we intentionally focused on the perspective of libraries. Therefore, our findings do not reflect the perspectives of patrons and other actors involved in these collaborations and we recognize that further research could include a case study approach to capture those additional points of view. Future research could also examine the dynamics of the partnerships between public libraries and local governments through a longitudinal study.

Also, as the data is cross-sectional, the findings should not necessarily be interpreted as causal but correlational. However, the framework used as the basis for this research is well-established and the relationships have been studied empirically in the past, which could suggest a potential for causality based on a strong theoretical foundation. Moreover, there could be other confounders that could have affected our estimates. Therefore, future studies should attempt to identify as many confounding variables as possible and include them in the model to control for them. In addition, although our operationalization of the variables is based on an extensive literature review, it is not perfect and could be improved in future studies.

This study tested just a few variables of a complex model. Therefore, future studies can test other framework components by Bryson and Colleagues (2015). For instance, factors such as trust, commitment, shared understanding of the problem, and legitimacy could be explored to better understand the process, structure, accountabilities, and outcomes, which ultimately may affect the extent and effectiveness of collaborations. Also, the interrelationships between the two dependent variables could be examined as there could be interaction effects. Finally, this paper’s findings could also be triangulated with qualitative methods, such as case studies, to further understand the relations that shape collaborations for digital transformation in local governments.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services; LG-96-17-0144-17.

ORCID iDs

Battulga Buyannemekh

J Ramon Gil-Garcia

Mila Gasco-Hernandez

Note

Appendix

Variables	Questions	Measurement
IV1: An agreement on initial aims	There are often written agreements about the collaboration between our public library and the local government on city/community development	Likert scale 1-10
IV2: Preexisting relationships	Our public library has a long history (more than 3 years) of collaborating with the local government in community development	Likert scale 1-10
IV3: Leadership	1. The leadership in our public library believes that there are community development issues that need to be addressed	Likert scale 1-10
	2. The leadership in our public library helps secure resources and support to address community issues
	3. The leadership in our public library has the ability to frame community issues to make diverse partners understand the issues’ importance and relevance
	4. The leadership in our public library is committed to collaborative problem-solving
	5. The leadership in our public library has a collaborative mindset.
	6. The leadership in our public library is open-minded during discussion and decision-making
	7. The leadership in our public library has the ability to coordinate work across departments, branches, and organizations
	8. The leadership in our public library treats every employee and work partners equally
IV4: Consequential incentives	1. Our city has encountered significant challenges in becoming smarter	Likert scale 1-10
IV4: Consequential incentives	2. There are often grants and other funding opportunities that support collaboration on city/community development	Likert scale 1-10
IV5: Nature of the task	These community development challenges call for collaboration among different organizations within the community	Likert scale 1-10
DV1: The extent of collaboration	What type(s) of organizations has your public library collaborated with in developing a smart city? (Please select all that apply)	Multiple choices
DV2: The effectiveness of collaboration	How effective is the collaboration between your public library and the local government in developing a smart city?	Likert scale 1-10

References

Alawadhi

Aldama-Nalda

Chourabi

, et al. (2012) Building understanding of smart city initiatives. In: Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 11th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2012. In: Scholl

Janssen

Wimmer

, et al. (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33489-4_4

Angelidou

(2014) Smart city policies: a spatial approach. Cities 41: S3–S11. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007

Ansell

Gash

(2007) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mum032

Ansell

Gash

(2018) Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(1): 16–32.

Barcevičius

Cibaitė

Codagnone

, et al. (2019) Exploring Digital Government Transformation in the EU. KJ-NA-29987-EN-N (online), Scientific analysis or review. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union. (online). DOI: 10.2760/17207

Batty

Axhausen

Giannotti

, et al. (2012) Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 214(1): 481–518. DOI: 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3

Bertot

McClure

Jaeger

, et al. (2008) Public libraries and the Internet 2007: issues, implications, and expectations. Library and Information Science Research 30(3): 175–184. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2008.01.001

Borkowska

Osborne

(2018) Locating the fourth helix: rethinking the role of civil society in developing smart learning cities. International Review of Education 64(3): 355–372. DOI: 10.1007/s11159-018-9723-0

Bousdekis

Kardaras

(2020) Digital transformation of local government: a case study from Greece. In: 2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Antwerp, Belgium, June 2020, pp. 131–140. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/CBI49978.2020.10070

10.

Bryson

Crosby

Stone

(2006) The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review 66(s1): 44–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x

11.

Bryson

Crosby

Stone

(2015) Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Administration Review 75(5): 647–663. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12432

12.

Burke

Pardo

Sutherland

, et al. (2014) Enabling Open Government for All: A Road Map for Public Libraries. 1 December. Center for Technology in Government, UAlbany. Available at: https://www.ctg.albany.edu/media/pubs/pdfs/enabling_open_gov_for_all.pdf (accessed 15 February 2021).

13.

Caragliu

Del Bo

Nijkamp

(2011) Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology 18(2): 65–82. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601117

14.

Ceresia

Misuraca

(2020) Critical issues in the management of the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: the role of some organizational flaws on the adoption of collaborative governance models. Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Ve) XXVI(3): 11–19.

15.

Chen

Gil-Garcia

Gascó-Hernández

(2022) Understanding social sustainability for smart cities: the importance of inclusion, equity, and citizen participation as both inputs and long-term outcomes. Journal of Smart Cities and Society 1(2): 135–148. DOI: 10.3233/SCS-210123

16.

Chourabi

Nam

Walker

, et al. (2012) Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, January 2012, pp. 2289–2297. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2012.615

17.

Cordella

Tempini

(2015) E-government and organizational change: reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly 32(3): 279–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005

18.

Creswell

(2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

19.

Crosby

Bryson

(2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 211–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003

20.

Curnin

O’Hara

(2019) Nonprofit and public sector interorganizational collaboration in disaster recovery: lessons from the field. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 30(2): 277–297. DOI: 10.1002/nml.21389

21.

Datta

(2020) Digital transformation of the Italian public administration: a case study. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 46: 252–272. DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.04611

22.

Dunleavy

(2005) New public management is dead--long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 467–494. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mui057

23.

Eger

(2005) Smart communities, universities, and globalization: educating the workforce for tomorrow’s economy. Urban and Metropolitan Universities in Tomorrow’s Economy 16(4): 11.

24.

Emerson

(2018) Collaborative governance of public health in low- and middle-income countries: lessons from research in public administration. BMJ Global Health 3(Suppl 4): e000381. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000381

25.

Emerson

Nabatchi

Balogh

(2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mur011

26.

Esteve

Boyne

Sierra

, et al. (2013) Organizational collaboration in the public sector: do chief executives make a difference? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(4): 927–952. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mus035

27.

Gascó-Hernández

(2016) What makes a city smart? Lessons from Barcelona. In: Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-49), Kauai, HI, USA: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.373

28.

Gascó-Hernández

(2018) Building a smart city: lessons from Barcelona. Communications of the ACM 61(4): 50–57. DOI: 10.1145/3117800

29.

Gascó-Hernández

Yerden

Burke

, et al. (2022a) The potential role of public libraries in a quadruple helix model of ‘smart city’ development: lessons from Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Library Quarterly 92(4): 419–436. DOI: 10.1086/721399

30.

Gascó-Hernández

Nasi

Cucciniello

, et al. (2022b) The role of organizational capacity to foster digital transformation in local governments: the case of three European smart cities. Urban Governance 92(4): 419–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.ugj.2022.09.005

31.

Gil-García

Pardo

Nam

(2015) What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity 20(1): 61–87. DOI: 10.3233/IP-150354

32.

Gil-Garcia

Dawes

Pardo

(2018) Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review 20(5): 633–646. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181

33.

Gong

Yang

Shi

(2020) Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital transformation in government: analysis of flexibility and enterprise architecture. Government Information Quarterly 37(3): 101487. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101487

34.

Goodman

(2014) ‘Smart cities’ meet ‘anchor institutions’: the case of broadband and the public library. SSRN Electronic Journal 41: 1665–1694. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2476159

35.

Hanelt

Bohnsack

Marz

, et al. (2021) A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies 58(5): 1159–1197. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12639

36.

Heath

Isbell

(2021) Theorizing principled collaboration. Communication Theory 31(4): 654–674. DOI: 10.1093/ct/qtz039

37.

Hernández-Pérez

Vilariño

Domènech

(2020) Public libraries engaging communities through technology and innovation: insights from the library living lab. Public Library Quarterly 41(1): 17–42. DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2020.1845047.

38.

Hietala

Rossi

Annanperä

, et al. (2021) Modes of collaboration in digital transformation of municipal wastewater management. In: Research Papers, Marrakech, 15 June 2021, p. 17. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rp/91

39.

Hildreth

(2012) Inspiring libraries as community anchors. National Civic Review 101(4): 44–47. DOI: 10.1002/ncr.21093

40.

AT-K

(2002) Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review 62(4): 434–444.

41.

Hollands

(2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12(3): 303–320. DOI: 10.1080/13604810802479126

42.

Huxham

(2003) Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review 5(3): 401–423. DOI: 10.1080/1471903032000146964

43.

Huxham

Vangen

(2000) leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal 43(6): 1159–1175. DOI: 10.5465/1556343

44.

Jaeger

Bertot

McClure

, et al. (2006) The policy implications of Internet connectivity in public libraries. Government Information Quarterly 23(1): 123–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.10.002

45.

Jakobsen

Jensen

(2015) Common method bias in public management studies. International Public Management Journal 18(1): 3–30. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2014.997906

46.

Janowski

(2015) Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly 32(3): 221–236. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001

47.

Kelley

Clark

Brown

, et al. (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15(3): 261–266. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg031

48.

Kelman

(2015) Letter from the Editor. International Public Management Journal 18(1): 1–2. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2014.1002305

49.

Khatoun

Zeadally

(2016) Smart cities: concepts, architectures, research opportunities. Communications of the ACM 59(8): 46–57. DOI: 10.1145/2858789

50.

Kocaoğlu

Gezici

(2021) Digital transformation in local governments: a comparative study. Review of International Geographical Education Online 11(10): 832–840.

51.

Koschmann

Kuhn

Pfarrer

(2012) A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review 37(3): 332–354. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2010.0314

52.

Kranich

(2012) Libraries and civic engagement. Library and Book Trade Almanac. Information Today: 75–96. DOI: 10.7282/T3VX0DWS

53.

Kuhlmann

Heuberger

(2021) Digital transformation going local: implementation, impacts and constraints from a German perspective. Public Money & Management 43(2): 147–155. DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2021.1939584

54.

Lember

(2018) The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production and co-creation. In: Brandsen

Steen

Verschuere

(eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. 1st editio. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315204956

55.

Leorke

Wyatt

(2019) Public Libraries in the Smart City. Singapore: Springer Singapore. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-2805-3

56.

Lewis

Ricard

Klijn

, et al. (2017) The public sector innovation puzzle. In: Innovation in City Governments: Structures, Networks and Leadership. Routledge critical studies in public management. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

57.

Liva

Codagnone

Misuraca

, et al. (2020) Exploring digital government transformation: a literature review. In: 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020). Charalabidis

Cunha

Sarantis

(ed) ICEGOV 2020. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/3428502.3428578

58.

Luna-Reyes

Gil-García

(2014) Digital government transformation and internet portals: the co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Government Information Quarterly. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001

59.

Luterek

(2018) Smart city research and library and information science. preliminary remarks. Zagadnienia Informacji Naukowej - Studia Informacyjne 56(1(111)): 52–64. DOI: 10.36702/zin.381

60.

March

Olsen

(1998) The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization 52(4): 943–969. DOI: 10.1162/002081898550699

61.

McGuire

Silvia

(2010) The effect of problem severity, managerial and organizational capacity, and agency structure on intergovernmental collaboration: evidence from local emergency management. Public Administration Review 70(2): 279–288. [American Society for Public Administration, Wiley].

62.

Meijer

(2018) Datapolis: a public governance perspective on “smart cities”. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 1(3): 195–206. DOI: 10.1093/ppmgov/gvx017

63.

Meijer

Bolívar

MPR

(2016) Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82(2): 392–408. DOI: 10.1177/0020852314564308

64.

Meijer

(2015) E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly 32(2): 198–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001

65.

Meijer

Rodríguez Bolívar

(2016) Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82(2): 392–408. DOI: 10.1177/0020852314564308

66.

Mergel

Kattel

Lember

, et al. (2018) Citizen-oriented digital transformation in the public sector. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, Delft The Netherlands, 30 May 2018, pp. 1–3. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3209281.3209294

67.

Mergel

Edelmann

Haug

(2019) Defining digital transformation: results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly 36(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

68.

Mersand

Gasco-Hernandez

Udoh

, et al. (2019) Public libraries as anchor institutions in smart communities: current practices and future development. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (HICSS-52). DOI: 10.24251/HICSS.2019.399

69.

Meyerhoff Nielsen

(2019) Governance lessons from Denmark’s digital transformation. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Dubai United Arab Emirates, 18 June 2019, pp. 456–461. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3325112.3329881

70.

Mora

Deakin

Reid

(2019a) Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142: 56–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.019

(2019b) Strategic principles for smart city development: a multiple case study analysis of European best practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142: 70–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.035

72.

Mossberger

Crawford

(2013) Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly 30: 351–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016

73.

Nam

Pardo

(2011a) Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In: 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, (dg.o 2011). dg.o ’11. ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2037556.2037602

74.

Nam

Pardo

(2011b) Smart city as urban innovation: focusing on management, policy, and context. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV ’11, Tallinn, Estonia, 2011, p. 185. ACM Press. DOI: 10.1145/2072069.2072100

75.

Nicholson

(2019) Collaborative, creative, participative: trends in public library innovation. Public Library Quarterly 38(3): 331–347. DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2019.1571399

76.

Ogden

Williams

(2022) Supporting patrons in crisis through a social work-public library collaboration. Journal of Library Administration 62(5): 656–672. DOI: 10.1080/01930826.2022.2083442

77.

Pardo

Gil-Garcia

Gasco-Hernandez

, et al. (2021) Creating public value in cities: A call for focus on context and capability. In: Smart cities and smart governance: Towards the 22nd century sustainable city. Estevez

Pardo

Scholl

(eds) Public Administration and Information Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Available at: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030610326

78.

Pereira

Cunha

Lampoltshammer

, et al. (2017) Increasing collaboration and participation in smart city governance: a cross-case analysis of smart city initiatives. Information Technology for Development. DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1353946

79.

Pereira

Estevez

Krimmer

, et al. (2019) Towards a Smart Sustainable City Roadmap. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Dubai United Arab Emirates, 18 June 2019, pp. 527–528. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3325112.3325274

80.

Pereira

Luna-Reyes

Gil-Garcia

(2020) Governance innovations, digital transformation and the generation of public value in Smart City initiatives. In: 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020). Charalabidis

Cunha

Sarantis

(ed) ICEGOV 2020. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/3428502.3428592

81.

Pittaway

Montazemi

(2020) Know-how to lead digital transformation: the case of local governments. Government Information Quarterly. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101474

82.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

83.

Provan

Kenis

(2007) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 229–252. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mum015

84.

Puron-Cid

Gil-Garcia

(2022) Are smart cities too expensive in the long term? analyzing the effects of ICT infrastructure on municipal financial sustainability. Sustainability 14(10): 6055. DOI: 10.3390/su14106055

85.

Rackwitz

Hustedt

Hammerschmid

(2021) Digital transformation: from hierarchy to network-based collaboration? The case of the German “Online Access Act”/Digitale Transformation: Von Hierarchie zu netzwerkbasierter Zusammenarbeit? Das Onlinezugangsgesetz in Deutschland. der moderne staat 14(1): 13–14. Verlag Barbara Budrich.

86.

Rodger

Jörgensen

D’Elia

(2005) Partnerships and collaboration among public libraries, public broadcast media, and museums: current context and future potential. The Library Quarterly 75(1): 42–66. DOI: 10.1086/428692

87.

Romzek

LeRoux

Blackmar

(2012) A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review 72(3): 442–453. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02547.x

88.

Rubin

(1996) Multiple imputation after 18+ Years. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434): 473–489. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476908. Taylor & Francis.

89.

Ruhlandt

RWS

(2018) The governance of smart cities: a systematic literature review. Cities 81: 1–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.014

90.

Ruijer

(2021) Designing and implementing data collaboratives: a governance perspective. Government Information Quarterly 38: 101612. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101612

91.

Ruud

(2018) How to succeed with digital transformation projects in public sector with focus on municipalities (research in progress). Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days 325: 425–436. DOI: 10.24989/ocg.v325.35

92.

Sayogo

Wang

Yuli

SBC

(2016) The values of public library in promoting an open government environment. In: 17th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research dg.o 2016). dg.o ’16. New York, NY, USA: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2912160.2912199

93.

Schafer

(1999) Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 8(1): 3–15. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800102

94.

Scupola

Mergel

(2022) Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: the case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly 39(1): 101650. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650

95.

Simo

Bies

(2007) The role of nonprofits in disaster response: an expanded model of cross-sector collaboration. Public Administration Review 67: 125–142. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00821.x

96.

Soe

R-M

Sarv

Gasco-Hernandez

(2022) Systematic mapping of long-term urban challenges. Sustainability 14(2): 817. DOI: 10.3390/su14020817

97.

Torfing

Ferlie

Jukić

, et al. (2021) A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value. Policy & Politics 49(2): 189–209. DOI: 10.1332/030557321X16108172803520

98.

Trivellato

(2017) How can ‘smart’ also be socially sustainable? Insights from the case of Milan. European Urban and Regional Studies 24(4): 337–351. DOI: 10.1177/0969776416661016

99.

Trochim

WMK

Donnelly

(2008) Research Methods Knowledge Base. 3th edition. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

100.

Tryfonas

Crick

(2018) Public policy and skills for smart cities: the UK Outlook. In: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference, Corfu Greece, 26 June 2018, pp. 116–117. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3197768.3203170

101.

van Winden

van den Buuse

(2017) Smart city pilot projects: exploring the dimensions and conditions of scaling up. Journal of Urban Technology 24(4): 51–72. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1348884

102.

Vanolo

(2014) Smartmentality: the smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies 51(5): 883–898. DOI: 10.1177/0042098013494427

103.

Vårheim

(2017) Public libraries, community resilience, and social capital. Information Research 22(1). Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10037/12470

104.

Vasconcelos

Nguyen

(2018) Initial Conditions for Penta Helix Collaboration in Social Innovation - A Case Study of ReTuren. Student thesis. Malmö universitet/Kultur och samhälle. Available at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-21056 (accessed 27 October 2020).

105.

Vial

(2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 28(2): 118–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

106.

Vilariño

Karatzas

(2018) The library living lab: a collaborative innovation model for public libraries. Technology Innovation Management Review 8(12): 17–25. DOI: 10.22215/timreview/1202.

107.

Yerden

Gil-Garcia

Gasco

, et al. (2019) A Quadruple-Helix model of smart city development? Understanding the role of public libraries. In: Virkar

Glassey

Janssen

, et al. (eds) EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2019. San Benedetto Del Tronto, Italy, 2 September 2019. University of Camerino, pp. 61–69. Available at: http://dgsoc.org/egov-2019/

108.

Yerden

Gascó-Hernández

Gil-Garcia

, et al. (2020) Small Town vs. Big City: a comparative study on the role of public libraries in the development of smart communities. In: Virkar

Janssen

Lindgren

, et al. (eds) Electronic Government, E-Democracy and Open Government, and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2020. Krems, Austria: CEUR Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0.

109.

Yuan

Doke

Gascó-Hernández

, et al. (2022) Understanding drivers and challenges of multi-actor collaborations at the local level. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2022. DOI: 10.24251/HICSS.2022.322