BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Secinaro Silvana (University of Turin), Brescia Valerio (University of Turin), Iannaci Daniel (University of Turin), Barreca Manuela (Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI))
Performance Evaluation in the Inter-Institutional Collaboration Context of Hybrid Smart Cities
Journal of Intercultural Management, 2021, vol. 13, nr 3, s. 20-46, rys., bibliogr. 101 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Inteligentne miasto, Organizacje hybrydowe
Smart city, Hybrid organizations
Klasyfikacja JEL: H11; H77; H79
Turyn, Lugano
Objective: The smart city is defined as a mix of urban strategies aimed at optimizing and innovating public services. Current cities are hybrid and affected by complex systems with inter-institutional collaboration. This study aims to understand which variables are most present and important according to the literature review and comparative analysis of two case studies.
Methodology: The authors have chosen the emerging smart city of Turin and Lugano to conduct a cross-analysis based on the matrix proposed by Yin (2017). This research is characterized as a holistic study of multiple cases.
Findings: The research was carried out thanks to results produced by literature and emerging from the analysis of realities exposed, to assess the performance of projects and urban sustainability. A set of 71 indicators has been designed to assess the impacts of a smart city. 5 Indicators are related to management performance, 18 to governance and 48 to reporting.
Value Added: This research aims to implement the theory of information reporting by providing guidelines for indicators in inter-institutional, cross-sectoral and multi-level contexts maximising smart factors in cities and meeting stakeholder needs in a hybrid organization.
Recommendations: Future research is recommended to confirm the relevant indicators for stakeholders associated with communication methods. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. AAström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the Rise of E-participation in Non-democracies: Domestic and International Factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 142-150.
  2. Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices, in: Accounting Forum. Taylor & Francis, 288-302.
  3. Adams, C. A., Muir, S., & Hoque, Z. (2014). Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector. Sustain.
  4. Adcroft, A., & Willis, R. (2005). The (Un)intended Outcome of Public Sector Performance Measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 386-400.
  5. Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Leung, S., Mellouli, S., Nam, T., Pardo, T.A., Scholl, H.J., & Walker, S. (2012). Building Understanding of Smart City Initiatives. In: International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 40-53). Springer,.
  6. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22, 3-21.
  7. Argento, D., Grossi, G., Persson, K., & Vingren, T. (2019). Sustainability disclosures of hybrid organizations: Swedish state-owned enterprises. Meditari Accountancy Research.
  8. Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A Smart City Initiative: the Case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4.
  9. Bătăgan, L. (2011). Smart Cities and Sustainability Models. Information Economics and Policy, 15, 80-87.
  10. Behn, R. D. (2002). The Psychological Barriers to Performance Management: Or Why Isn't Everyone Jumping on the Performance-Management Bandwagon?. Public Performance & Management Review, 26, 5-25.
  11. Billis, D. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy. Macmillan International Higher Education.
  12. Bonollo, E., & Merli, M. Z. (2018). Performance Reporting in Italian Public Universities: Activities in Support of Research, Teaching and the "Third Mission". In Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector (pp. 307-329). Springer.
  13. Borgonovi, E., Anessi-Pessina, E., & Bianchi, C. (2018). Outcome-based Performance Management in the Public Sector. Springer.
  14. Botzem, S., & Hofmann, J. (2010). Transnational Governance Spirals: The Transformation of Rule-Making Authority in Internet Regulation and Corporate Financial Reporting. Critical Policy Studies, 4, 18-37.
  15. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2007). Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge.
  16. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 27-40.
  17. Brescia, V., & Calandra, D. (2020). I Bilanci degli ETS e la determinazione di costi e ricavi figurativi. European Journal of Volunteering and Community-Based Projects, 1(3), 4-15.
  18. Bris, A., Cabolis, C., & Lanvin, B. (2019). Sixteen Shades of Smart: How Cities Can Shape Their Own Future. IMD International.
  19. Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., Trinchero, E., Farr-Wharton, R., Shacklock, K., & Borgonovi, E. (2016). Public-Private Sector Comparisons of Nurses' Work Harassment Using Set: Italy and Australia. Public Management Review, 18, 1479-1503.
  20. Caird, S. (2018). City Approaches to Smart City Evaluation and Reporting: Case Studies in the United Kingdom. Urban Research and Practice, 11, 159-179.
  21. Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. (2018). Much Ado About Something? An Appraisal of the Relationship Between Smart City and Smart Specialisation Policies. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 109, 129-143.
  22. Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2016). Smart Cities Governance: The Need for a Holistic Approach to Assessing Urban Participatory Policy Making. Social Science Computer Review, 34, 724-739.
  23. Cepiku, D. (2005). Governance: Riferimento Concettuale o Ambiguità Terminologica nei Processi di Innovazione della PA. Azienda Pubblica, 1, 84-110.
  24. Cepiku, D., Hinna, A., Scarozza, D., & Savignon, A. B. (2017). Performance Information Use in Public Administration: An Exploratory Study of Determinants and Effects. Journal of Management and Governance, 21, 963-991.
  25. Cepiku, D., & Savignon, A. B. (2012). Governing Cutback Management: Is There a Global Strategy for Public Administrations?. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25, 428-436.
  26. City of Turin (2020). Torino Smart City. Retrieved from
  27. City of Turin (2021). Smart City Strategy of Turin. Retrieved from
  28. Clark, G., & Moonen, T. (2014a). Mumbai: India's Global City. Case Study. Global Cities Initiative. Jt. Project Brook. JPMorgan Chase.
  29. Clark, G., & Moonen, T. (2014b). Hong Kong: A Globally Fluent Metropolitan City. Hong Kong Global Cities Initiative.
  30. Denis, J.-L., Ferlie, E., & Gestel, N. V. (2015). Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 273-289.
  31. Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in Information Systems positivist Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27, 597-636.
  32. Epstein, M. J., & Yuthas, K. (2017). Measuring and improving social impacts: A guide for nonprofits, companies and impact investors. Routledge.
  33. Esposito, P., Brescia, V., Fantauzzi, C., & Frondizi, R. (2021). Understanding Social Impact and Value Creation in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Italian Civil Service. Sustainability, 13(7), 4058.
  34. Federici, T., Braccini, A. M., & Sæbø, Ø. (2015). 'Gentlemen, all aboard!' ICT and Party Politics: Reflections from a Mass-eParticipation Experience. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 287-298.
  35. Frederickson, H. G. (1999). The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 701-712.
  36. Freeman, J. (2000). The Private Role in the Public Governance. N. Y. University Law Review, 75, 543-675.
  37. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.
  38. Glasmeier, A., & Christopherson, S. (2015). Thinking about smart cities. Oxford University Press UK.
  39. Goldoff, A. C. (2000). Decision-making in Organizations: The New Paradigm. International Journal of Public Administration, 23, 2017-2044.
  40. Goodspeed, R. (2015). Smart Cities: Moving Beyond Urban Cybernetics to Tackle Wicked Problems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 79-92.
  41. Grossi, G., Biancone, P. P., Secinaro, S., & Brescia, V. (2021). Dialogic Accounting Through Popular Reporting and Digital Platforms. Meditari Accountancy Research.
  42. Hammerschmid, G., & Meyer, R. E. (2005). Public Management Dynamics in a Federal Legalistic Rechtsstaat System: Results from an Executive Survey in Austria. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 629-640.
  43. Hoffmann, W. H. (2007). Strategies for Managing a Portfolio of Alliances. Strategy Management Journal, 28, 827-856.
  44. Hollands, R. G. (2015). Critical Interventions into the Corporate Smart City. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 61-77.
  45. Holman, N. (2009). Incorporating Local Sustainability Indicators into Structures of Local Governance: a Review of the Literature. Local Environment, 14, 365-375.
  46. Holt, D., & Littlewood, D. (2015). Identifying, Mapping, and Monitoring the Impact of Hybrid Firms. California Management Review, 57, 107-125.
  47. Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons?. Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
  48. Hood, C. (1995). The "New Public Management" in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93-109.
  49. IMD (2019). Smart City Index 2019. IMD World Competitiveness Center's Smart City Observatory and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). Retrieved from
  50. Julnes, P. de L., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708.
  51. Kellen, V., & Wolf, B. (2003). Business Performance Measurement. Information Visualization, 1, 1-36.
  52. Kickert, W. (1993). Complexity, Governance and Dynamics: Conceptual Explorations of Public Network Management. Modern Governance, 1993, 191-204.
  53. Kickert, W.J., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. Sage.
  54. Komninos, N. (2013). Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces. Routledge.
  55. Kooiman, J. (1999). Social-political Governance: Overview, Reflections and Design. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, 1, 67-92.
  56. Kuhlmann, S. (2018). Introduction to Discussion Paper on 'Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.' Research Policy, 47, 1553.
  57. Kuhlmann, S., & Wayenberg, E. (2016). Institutional Impact Assessment in Multilevel systems: Conceptualizing Decentralization Effects from a Comparative Perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 233-254.
  58. Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances. Organization Science, 22, 1517-1538.
  59. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797-818.
  60. Lima, M. (2020). Smarter Organizations: Insights from a Smart City Hybrid Framework. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1281-1300.
  61. Mak, H. W. L., & Lam, Y. F. (2021). Comparative Assessments and Insights of Data Openness of 50 Smart Cities in Air Quality Aspects. Sustainable Cities and Society, 69, 102868.
  62. Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy Networks in British Government. Clarendon Press.
  63. Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Bagnoli, C. (2019). Transparency and the rhetorical use of citations to Robert Yin in case study research. Meditari Accountancy Research.
  64. McGeough, F. (2015). Performance Reporting in Ireland: The Ongoing Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28, 2-10.
  65. Meijer, A. (2016). Smart City Governance: A Local Emergent Perspective. Public Administration and Information Technology, 11, 73-85.
  66. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the Smart City: a Review of the Literature on Smart Urban Governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82, 392-408.
  67. Meneguzzo, M. (1995). Dal New Public Management alla Public Governance: il Pendolo della Ricerca sulla Amministrazione Pubblica. Azienda Pubblica 8, 491-510.
  68. Meneguzzo, M., Fiorani, G., & Frondizi, R. (2018). Performance management and evaluation of large-scale events in a multistakeholder engagement perspective: the case of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy. In Outcome-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector. Springer, pp. 349-370.
  69. Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing Institutional Logics and Executive Identities: A Managerial Challenge to Public Administration in Austria. American Behavioral Science, 49, 1000-1014.
  70. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (2003). Managing the Hollow State Collaboration and Contracting. Public Management Review, 5, 1-18.
  71. Mosannenzadeh, F., & Vettorato, D. (2014). Defining Smart city. A Conceptual Framework Based on Keyword Analysis. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 24(1).
  72. Nam, T. (2019). Determinants of Local Public Employee Attitudes Toward Government Innovation: Government 3.0 in Korea. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32, 418-434.
  73. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 282-291). ACM,
  74. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Taylor & Francis.
  75. Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2010). Collaborative Governance and Cross-Boundary Information Sharing: Envisioning a Networked and IT-enabled Public Administration. In The Future of Public Administration Around the World: Minnowbrook Perspective, 129-39.
  76. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-Organizational Collaboration and the Dynamics of Institutional Fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37.
  77. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, USA.
  78. Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid Organizational Arrangements: New Form or Transitional Development? California Management Review, Fall.
  79. Pozzebon, M., Cunha, M. A., & Coelho, T. R. (2016). Making Sense to Decreasing Citizen E-participation Through a Social Representation Lens. Information and Organization, 26, 84-99.
  80. Ramirez Lopez, L. J., & Grijalba Castro, A. I. (2021). Sustainability and Resilience in Smart City Planning: A Review. Sustainability, 13(1), 181.
  81. Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.
  82. Rigby, J., Dewick, P., Courtney, R., & Gee, S. (2014). Limits to the Implementation of Benchmarking Through KPIs in UK Construction Policy: Insights from Game Theory. Public Management Review, 16, 782-806.
  83. Robbins, G., & Lapsley, I. (2015). From Secrecy to Transparency: Accounting and the Transition from Religious Charity to Publicly owned Hospital. British Accounting Review, 47, 19-32.
  84. Savoldelli, A., Misuraca, G., & Codagnone, C. (2013). Measuring the Public Value of e-Government: The eGEP2. 0 model. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 11, 373-388.
  85. Secinaro, S., Bignamini, E., Cappa, C., & Calandra, D. (2020). La Qualità dei Dati all'interno dell'evoluzione dei Servizi Territoriali: il Caso del Servizio Dipendenze. MECOSAN. Menagement e Economia Sanitaria, 29(116), 31-51.
  86. Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., Calandra, D., & Biancone, P. (2021). Towards a Hybrid Model for the Management of Smart City Initiatives. Cities, 116, 103278.
  87. Sicilia, M., & Steccolini, I. (2017). Public Budgeting in Search for an Identity: State of the Art and Future Challenges. Public Management Review, 19, 905-910.
  88. Suciu, G., Necula, L. A., Jelea, V., Cristea, D. S., Rusu, C. C., Mistodie, L. R., & Ivanov, M. P. (2021). Smart City Platform Based on Citizen Reporting Services. In Advances in Industrial Internet of Things, Engineering and Management (pp. 87-100). Springer, Cham.
  89. Talbot, C., & Wiggan, J. (2010). The Public Value of the National Audit Office. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23, 54-70.
  90. Ticino (2021). Smart City Ticino. Retrieved from
  91. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press on demand.
  92. UNITO-USI. (2020). Framework and results of "Performance evaluation in the Inter-institutional collaboration context of hybrid smart cities" [Data set]. Zenodo.
  93. Vaccaro, A., Veloso, F., & Brusoni, S. (2009). The Impact of Virtual Technologies on Knowledge-based Processes: An Empirical Study. Research Policy, 38, 1278-1287.
  94. Vallicelli, M. (2018). Smart Cities and Digital Workplace Culture in the Global European Context: Amsterdam, London and Paris. City, Culture and Society, 12, 25-34.
  95. Van Rooijen, T., Nesterova, N., & Guikink, D. (2013). Civitas WIKI: applied framework for evaluation in CIVITAS PLUS II. Civitas Initiative.
  96. Viale Pereira, G., Cunha, M. A., Lampoltshammer, T. J., Parycek, P., & Testa, M. G. (2017). Increasing Collaboration and Participation in Smart City Governance: A Cross-Case Analysis of Smart City Initiatives. Information Technology for Development, 23, 526-553.
  97. Wiig, A., & Wyly, E. (2016). Introduction: Thinking through the politics of the smart city. Taylor & Francis.
  98. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., & Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008). Rising knowledge cities: the role of urban knowledge precincts. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 8-20.
  99. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and Methods (Fifth). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  100. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
  101. Zygiaris, S. (2013). Smart City Reference Model: Assisting Planners to Conceptualize The Building of Smart City Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 4, 217-231.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu