An Analysis of Design-Reality Gap in Smart city Building: the Case of Ho Chi Minh City

Abbott J Haron^1* and Nguyen Quang Trung^2
*Correspondence: Abbott J Haron, Deputy Director of Research, Excelsia College, Sydney, Australia, Tel: +6104824367568, Email:

Keywords

Organization • Environment • Transparent governance • Stakeholders

Introduction

Smart City has recently become a centrepiece for discussion of local government authorities around the world [1]. Several cities, in both developed and developing countries have been building and researching the new generation of smart modern cities.

Smart city is a relatively new and evolving concept. Therefore, it is no surprise that there have been a limited number of studies into this recent research area. However, there have been initial efforts to build a framework on which a smart city is to be developed and ranked. A framework of six dimensions developed by Manville this study will adopt an approach analyzing one of those dimensions. The dimension which will be included in this project is: smart government.

According to Mellouli et al. [2] smart government is when the government uses technology as an extension to follow two necessary trends: open data and technology ubiquity. The author believes that adapting these trends could contribute to a more efficient understanding of societal problems and enhancing the relationship between government and other stakeholders like citizens, private organizations, NGOs and other governments.

The AHP is used to find the weights of the factors in the above table that influence the design- reality gap. In the field of e-government, the AHP method is recommended for e-government assessment as an effective method for prioritizing a set of factors to improve their practical value [3]. This method was developed by Saaty [4] based on the relative priority of each factor through pairwise comparisons, this multi-criteria decision-making method enables decision makers to set priorities and determine their best options to achieve goals and context [3]. The AHP method can evaluate qualitative data, to mine expert knowledge, and to structure a decision problem to induce a wider variety of organizations and individuals to use the proposed technique [3,5,6]. Further, this method will be discussed in the methodology section.

Using this method, decision-makers and practitioners can better understand the situation and discover more efficient methods for successful implementation. In addition, setting priorities has more significance in the context of developing countries, where a lack of resources is the foremost concern. Sound resource allocation based on priorities established considering the significance of particular factors may contribute to efficient and effective national administration [3].

Definitions and benefits

Definitions of smart city

Despite the fact that the concept of smart city has been increasingly used, it is relatively new and evolving. In addition, the “smartness” is difficult to measure and thus a universal definition has not been found. Some authors contend the “smart” is something moreuser-friendly than intelligent, which is limited to having a quick mind and being responsive to feedback. In addition, there are other definitions which are considerable overlap of the smart city. The variants include intelligent city, knowledge city, sustainable city, talented city, digital city and eco-city. Smart city is, however, a commonly-used concept Some earlier definitions can be found in the below:

• A city that monitors and integrates conditions of all of its critical infrastructures including roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, subways, airports, sea-ports, communications, water, power, even major buildings, can better optimize its resources, plan its preventive maintenance activities, and monitor security aspects while maximizing services to its citizens

• Schaffers define that a city may be called ‘smart’ ‘when investments in human and social capital and traditional and modern communication infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance.

• Other defines it as a future reality for municipalities around the world which will use the power of ubiquitous communication networks, highly distributed wireless sensor technology, and intelligent management systems to solve current and future challenges and create exciting new services and is the key to servicing the next generation.

• Smart City is a city seeking to address public issues via ICT-based solutions on the basis of a multi- stakeholder, municipally based partnership.

What are the dimensions of a smart city?

A review of the literature shows that the core factors which drive the implementation of smart city include technology, human and institution. In the technology dimension, there are various cousins of the smart city concept that draws from a technology perspective. For example, a digital city can refer to a connected community that combines broadband communications infrastructure; a flexible, service- oriented computing infrastructure based on open industry standards; and, innovative services to meet the needs of governments and their employees, citizens and businesses”. An information city refers to creating a digital environment that collects information from the local community and authority and deliver the information to its citizen via web portal. Intelligent city is described to have all the infrastructure, info-structure of information technology including the latest technology in telecommunications, electronic and mechanical technology, furthermore those foundation thrive initiative and create conscious effort to use information technology to transform lives in the region. A ubiquitous city (U-city) is an extension of digital city concept which addresses the ubiquitous computing available to the urban elements such as people, building, infrastructure and open space. Despite there are several names and concepts addressing the smart cities and its “cousin”, these frameworks have at least 1 typical common and core elements that is Information and Communication Technology (ICTs).

On the human dimension, the final purpose of enhancing the efficiency of one system is to serve its end-users, in the case of smart city it is the citizen. On the other hand, human resource places a key role in contributing to development via delivering creativity. Creativity is recognized as a key driver to smart city including four main factors: people, education, learning and knowledge. A creativity city is also a humane city that nurture multiple opportunities to exploit human potential, consequently develop high-skill and smart people. A smart city is also a learning city which improves the competitiveness of urban context in global economy.

Regarding institution dimension, smart communities can be defined as a community ranging from a small neighbourhood to a nation-wide community via common shared interest, whose member; organization and governing institution are collaborating closely to implement information technology in the transformation of their living circumstances

Toward a working framework of a smart city

As mentioned earlier, smart city is a relatively new and evolving concept. Therefore, it is not surprised that there have been a limited number of studies into this young research area. However, there have been initial efforts to build framework on which a smart city is to be developed and ranked. This study adopts the framework of six dimensions developed by Manville which are considered to be more holistic and inclusive. This framework has been combined various early studies on smart city. The six dimensions include: smart governance, smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, and smart living (Tables 1 & 2).

Although the six dimensions are commonly applied, there have been no studies analyzing the stakeholders and their interests in these components. As mentioned earlier, a failure to put in place a mechanism which could incorporate interests of stakeholders can end up in a malfunction of smart initiatives.

The concept of stakeholder is not new as it can be traced back to the 1970s, when American businesses were viewed as something of an industrial managerialism; however, practical implementation of the concept was understudied and somewhat modest [7]. The development of stakeholder literature can be dated back to 1980s, especially when Free introduced stakeholder approach in the first edition of his famous book: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach Despite deep rooted in management field, stakeholder theory has spread its effect to other areas. Rose et al. [7] contend that e-governance initiatives often fail to address the legitimate but diverse interests of many stakeholders, and this is a source of failure. Far more than smart governance, smart city has multiple stakeholders which make its building process more complicated [8].

E-government

After the coining of the term e-government over two decades ago, it has been used explosively in and out of scientific circles [9]. There are no universal, but rather numerous definitions for the term. In essence, it is defined as the use of emerging technologies, or ICT by governments to reform processes of service delivery and citizen engagement [9,10]. To simplify, governments take advantage of internet technology in administrating services to citizens, which exploits the ability to obtain, process, manipulate, store, retrieve and report data on a more effective, consistent and trustworthy manner [11]. Pereira et al. [12] summarized and identified the three main themes of the benefits of e-government. They are administrative efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity, service improvement [13] and citizen- centricity [14].

Firstly, the use of ICT in the government helps improve efficiency in administration within the government departments [7].

Information can flow seamlessly between governmental departments, thereby reducing processing time, labour and information handling costs, as well as improving speed and accuracy in completing administrative tasks [12,15]. The shared infrastructures and integration of data are referred to as interoperability [16]. The second theme relates to the improved dissemination of governmental information to related parties, improved response time and communication speed with external organizations or citizens [17,18]. Lastly, e-government allows for more transparency and a more democratic relationship between government and the public [19]. The focus on citizens leads to more trust [12] and even a reduction in corruption [20-22].

Smart government

On the other hand, over the past decade, besides the e-government, smart government has become another major concept relating to government and the United States is a particular example [23]. Although both government systems have the same objectives of using internet technology to improve administration operation and decision-making process to serve citizens, smart technology is a more advanced concept that informs and connect public more effectively and also connects economies globally [23] in order to provide seamless service experience for citizen across all government programs and activity domains and support solutions for well-being of the community [24]. As mentioned above, smart government follows two major trends which are open data and technology ubiquity to understand societal problems and enhance the relationship between government and other stakeholders.

Regarding the openness of data, Jiménez [25] believe that without open government, there is no smart government because according to Gartner group [26] smart government is the integration of open government and smart city. The former involves the collaboration of citizens and government, whereas the later is developed to improve quality of life of residents [25]. From the perspective of Obama the open government principles include transparency, collaboration and participation; and Jiménez [25] add another one called ‘interoperability’ principle. In fact, in 2007 Gascó proposed a three-level model of public organization including bureaucratic, professional and relational in corresponding to the ICT roles which are e-administration, e-government and open government. However, by including the achievement of the interoperability as a principle, Smart Government has achieved a new level of ICT role from Gascó’s model which is illustrated in the table below. From the table, the term ‘interoperability’ has fostered the ICT role to another level which is interconnected “ecosystem” and management in the government to achieve another principle of public organization, ‘Intelligent’.

Gil-Garcia [27] recognized many dimensions of smartness that are essential for the development of smart governments and some of them could also fit e-governments such as integration, efficiency, citizen-centricity and technology savviness. However, Pereira [12] emphasized the three extended dimensions that should be focused on to gain benefits from smart environment. Firstly, Sustainability and Resilience are two concepts that have been commonly used to discuss the view of governments and wider society as a whole [12] and Gil-Garcia [27] claim that those dimensions should be considered in the ecological implications of growth and development to improve the quality of life in the future as well as quickly recover from emergency and disaster. Secondly, Creativity factor facilitates a diverse culture of smart citizens and Entrepreneurialism can be fostered by motivating the integration of knowledge-based and innovation-oriented economic development (Pereira et al. 2018). Moreover, regarding Social Equality, reducing social exclusion and promoting social justice could be achieved by utilizing ICT, data and proper strategies [27]. Though, some authors [28-30] argue that technology could bring disadvantages for certain categories of general population such as elderly, lower-income and people with disabilities. Lastly, Citizen Engagement involves the role of citizens to engage in decision-making processes so they improve government openness, transparency and accountability which strengthen the relationship between governments and citizens [12].Besides, by collecting, analyzing and sharing the information and knowledge to assist Evidence-based Decision-making Process, governments are able to increase the efficiency of decisions on public policies and programs [12].

Cases of smart government in developed countries

Governments all over the world are facing the challenge to become more innovative, more connected, and more responsive to citizens, which calls for the use of e-government and smart government. For the past two decades, the world has seen a tremendous transformation as more countries adopt more smart governance [31]. A UN report simply ranks the countries’ e-government readiness through the presence of official government websites. They act as portals for the public to easily access information and public services or as a way for citizens to interact with public administration [32]. It was clear at this point in time, the early efforts to drift away from telecommunication networks to web-based platforms were made [33]. In order to achieve more, countries need to overcome complex socio-technical problems that depend on institutional readiness, socio-cultural and technological factors [34,35]. However, in recent years, a transformation in the public sector can be witnessed, with countries turning cities into smart ecosystems [36]. The newest global survey [37] points out the implications of transformative technologies, such as data analytics, artificial intelligence, Internet of things and cloud computing. Theliterature provides multiple examples of successful implementation and applications of smart government.

Countries like Germany have been formulating E-governance at the federal level, with a clear framework being implemented at the municipal level to provide a transparent and innovative government [38]. Dubai is setting up the cornerstone for a smart city transformation with the success of its smart government initiatives including the use of smart cards and ICT in governmental services [39], which are also applications of cities like Singapore [40], and Beijing [41]. Countries that have been at the forefront of smart governance like Denmark and Finland are moving from the triple-helix model (industry, academia and policy actors) to quadruple-helix model, including the citizens and workers, in an effort to improve collaboration of all stakeholders [42]. Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Lisbon and Manchester harness the power of Big Data thathelps involve citizens in political and social affairs, to improve people’s quality of life, as well as implementing plans to reduce the carbon footprint and improve environmental sustainability. Other interesting examples of smart government includes the management of risks of natural disasters thanks to ICT in Costa Rica [43] or the adoption of Big Data technology by Police Departments of Kent County, Santa Cruz and Los Angeles for crime prediction activities [44].

Success Factors

So, what are the success factors or reasons for failures of smart government initiatives? One thing is for certain: The technological infrastructure is the cornerstone, but not necessarily the building blocks of a smart government.

With regards to success factors, those that determine the success of smart government initiatives, Yaghi and Al-Jenabi, Svara [45,46] hypothesize that they are moral values, in other words, a sense of duty, honesty, and integrity of the government, together with rational values, namely the public and organizational interest. On the other hand, the analysis of Guenduez [36] revealed that institutional (clear governance, legal and digital understanding), organizational (structures, capabilities and human factors), and leadership are key factors. The participation of all stakeholders should also be highlighted: the government, citizens, and business should all be involved in the planning and implementation of smart government services [47]. However, in order for that to happen, a major factor that needs to be taken into consideration is trust [48-50]. The citizens’ trust in not only about the technology but also the government which will influence the adoption of e-government services [51].

Failure of smart government in developing countries

Developing a smart government in developing countries can be particularly challenging [52]. Even though e-government initiatives have achieved success in many developing countries such as Brazil [53] India [54] China [55] Oman [56] etc. Examining e-government and smart government, literature and empirical evidence shows that the majority of e-government initiatives have been met withdifficulties. According to an analysis of 40 reports on smart government cases of developing and transitional countries, more than a third are total failures and a half are partial failures. A World Bank study showed ICT applications in the least developing countries were either partial or total failures [57]. Another recent note by Hidding and Nicholas says that 24% of ICT projects were incomplete and 44% were completed and operational but with functions lower than set out standards.

Context of Vietnam

Ho Chi Minh City is the largest financial and economic hub of Vietnam. It is also the most populated city in Vietnam, with the official registered residence approximately 8,444 million people, accounting for 9 percent of the whole country population excluding a large number of immigrants from other provinces. Its population density is 3589/km², nearly 15 times higher than the country average, 265 people, per square km. [58].

However, a smart city is a relatively new concept for the city. The city authorities have been finding smart solutions to accommodate the increasing demand from citizens, investors and tourists [58].The very first plan to apply technology in building a smart city was publicized on 25th November in 2017, which focuses on four main pillars, particularly an open data centre, a smart administrative centre, simulation and forecasting centre, and information security centre. The plan also emphasizes smart government, where the city’s shared data centre can enable the authorities to achieve comprehensive management. This plan is scheduled for a 3-year period to 2020 and is expected to bring many benefits to the citizens, including low energy costs, favourable traffic systems, and easier administrative procedures. Initially, the city leadership mobilized support from the private sector and research institutions to participate in its smart city initiatives. Upon its announcement, the plan was met with skepticism by locals, citing it was too unfeasible and macroscopic. Whilst it is true that attaining these goals are a long-term process, progress has been made. After 18 months, the project to transform HCMC into a smart city has made progress, successfully complete the first stage of building a shared database, and information ecosystem, which is the most important foundation for further applications. Within the next period from 2019 to 2020, HCMC has plans to perfect the technology infrastructure of the shared database as well as receiving feedback on measures to develop the smart city from residents and businesses. Other initiatives regarding smart cities also comprise cooperating with and learn experiences from European businesses to build a smart city and recruiting experts in various fields like IT, IoT, smart city, etc. extra financial incentives.

Conceptual Framework

Design-reality gap is referred to by Heeksas the difference between where we are now (reality) and where we want to be with smart government (design). A number of studies have attributed the difficulty of building a smart government to design-reality gap, especially in developing countries like Malasia [60], Kosovo [61] and India [62]. It is generally agreed upon that the larger the design-reality gap is, the higher the chances of failures are and vice versa [63].

To understand the development of smart cities in the context of developing countries from the perspective of reality-design gap, we propose a conceptual framework of smart cities based on the literature. Previous studies have pointed out the most common basis for smart cities are Technology, Organization and People [64]. Developing countries have distinct characteristics compared to developed countries came up with the STOPE framework which includes five constructs: Strategy, Technology, Organization, People, and Environment to investigate the design-reality gap in creating a smart government.

Strategy

Strategy is the first dimension contributing to the smart city incentives in any country and it relates to the process of identifying the overall goal and then enhance feasibility by assisting this goal at upper level of government. This dimension includes three sub-dimensions which are Goal and Strategy, Leadership and Political commitment. Yoon &Chae [65] believe that any project implementation needs clear goal and sound strategy by considering specific characteristics and particular backgrounds in order to be successful, especially in the context of developing countries where initial or transformative stages of smart government system deploy. Moreover [66] also mention the essential role of leadership to improve e-government efficiency and effectiveness. The complexity of smart government systems requires high cost, risk and challenges, so the leading stakeholders would be the ones to understand costs and benefits to influence management before, during and after project implementation. The last factor of strategy dimension is political commitment which expresses the political support behind e-government including financial matters for innovation or public sector reformation and other drivers to implement e- government smoothly and constantly in longterm perspective, especially in many developing countries where political problems such as corruption and political instability are existing.

Technology

A smart city is surely the one that applies digital and communication technologies to enhance the quality of all aspects inside a smart city [67]. All problems can be anticipated and avoided thanks to the huge data available with the help of Big Data [68]. Networks of devices, people, businesses, infrastructures, and other components are linked together to facilitate the collection of data and real-time decision making. Smart cities will take advantage of this technology to help improve the quality of life for citizens [69].

Organization

Institutions represent the cooperation between stakeholders and the government as well as the legal and regulatory framework that enables the development of smart cities. A smarter government not only regulates the implementation but also connects well with other stakeholders including the citizens, businesses and the community. Furthermore, policymakers should take into consideration whether the laws and regulations are facilitating and restricting IT projects. However, there are major inherent challenges of developing countries such as limitedtransparency, accountability and resources are affecting the success of smart city implementation.

People

Human is another basis for a smart city that is often overlooked as more focus is on the technological and policy aspects of smart cities [70]. The role of human capital is essential because smart cities need citizens to communicate with each other, the organizations, and the government in the implementation of smart city. And in order to do that, trust plays an important role in getting people to participate and overcome feelings of uncertainty and risks. Another important human factor is skills. People need to be familiar and comfortable with technology to facilitate smart changes.

Environment

According to Meneklis and Dougligeris [71] environment factors play a key role in the development of e-government in both physical, like ICT maintenance, and institutional infrastructures, like laws, regulations and regimes. In developing countries where ICT development has not achieved harmonious technical and institutional improvements like developed countries, a significant concern is legal issues so determining specific context in each country is essential to establish the appropriate institutional system. Additionally, issues from social background is the last component of environment dimension, including demographics, history, culture, economics and politics and digital divide is the most critical issue due to inadequate levels of publics education and big gaps between urban and rural areas in developing countries.

All of those aforementioned factors will influence the success of smart initiatives. In other words, the bigger the design-reality gap is in any of the factors, the more likely the smart initiatives are to end up in failure. And in turn, the successful implementation of smart initiatives will help result in the 6 pillars of smart cities: Smart people, Smart Economy, Smart Governance, Smart Environment, Smart Mobility, and Smart living (Figure 1).

Conclusion

Smart government has just been recently implemented in Ho Chi Minh City. Despite the many benefits it can bring, its implementation can be met with a number of challenges which need to be overcome. Therefore, this study aims to develop a framework that seeks to identify the possible difficulties of smart government initiatives by adopting the reality-gap framework and AHP method. The identified gaps are helpful in that modifications can be made and appropriate measures taken to ensure the success of smart city initiatives in Ho Chi Minh City.

The expected findings will corroborate with the framework explained above. To be more specific, when looking at smart government initiatives in Ho Chi Minh City, we will expect design-reality gap will have to be narrowed in some respects. We expect to find that the people working in the government will face some problems not with the set-up of technology, but rather with people trying to adapt to the new technology. We envisage that many older government officials, and senior citizens will find the new technology confusing or unfamiliar. Another factor with regard to people is trust because a lack of trust will certainly affect the adoption of smart government services. The news reported a feeling of doubt among people when the smart initiatives were announced; therefore, it will be something that needs to be taken account of.

Apart from people, the design-reality will also exist in the Environment dimension. Vietnam is a country with varying gaps between the rich and the poor, urban and rural area, educated and uneducated. Different communities will have their respective wants and needs within cities, and the smart initiatives may only be insensitive to balancing the needs of various communities in our society. Another problem that may arise is part of the institutional settings. Despite being a metropolitan and one of the most developed cities in Vietnam, laws and regulations have not yet paralleled with those in developed countries. The model, therefore, cannot be exactly copied and replicated like it is now from developed countries.

With these in mind, we intend to provide some recommendations for the modification of smart city to narrow the gap between reality and design. In that way, goals can be achieved and the full benefits can be reaped with specific conditions in Ho Chi Minh City.

References

1. Allen AB, Juillet L, Paquet G and Roy J. “E-Governance and government online in Canada: partnerships, people and prospects.” Government Inf Quart 18 (2001): 93-104.
2. Mellouli S, Luna-Reyes LF, Zhang J. “Smart government, citizen participation and open data.” Inf Pol 19 (2014): 1-4.
3. Choi H, Park MJ, Rho JJ, Zo H. “Rethinking the assessment of e-government implementation in developing countries from the perspective of the design–reality gap: Applications in the Indonesian e- procurement system.” Telecom Pol 40 (2016) 644-660.
4. Saaty TL. “The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation: McGraw- Hill International Book Company.” (1980).
5. Giokas DI, Pentzaropoulos GC. “Efficiency ranking of the OECD member states in the area of telecommunications: A composite AHP/DEA study.” Telecom Pol 32 (2008): 672-685.
6. NikouS, Mezei J. “Evaluation of mobile services and substantial adoption factors with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).” Telecom Pol 37 (2013): 915-929.
7. Rose J, Persson J, Heeager L. “How e-government managers prioritise rival value positions: The efficiency imperative, Information Polity.” Int J Government Democracy Inf Age 20 (2015): 35-59.
8. Bernando M. “Smart city governance: From E-government to smart governance. In: Carvalho, L.C.Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Development and Innovation within Smart Cities.” Hershey: IGI Global (2017).
9. Bhatnagar S. “Unlocking e-government potential: Concepts, cases and practical insights.” Sage Publications (2009).
10. Carter L, Weerakkody V. “E-government adoption: a cultural comparison.” Inf Sys Front 10 (2008): 473-482.
11. Bonson E, Torres L, Royo S, FloresF. “Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities.” Government Inf Quart 29 (2012): 123-132.
12. Pereira GV, Parycek P, Falco E, Kleinhans R. “Smart governance in the context of smart cities: A literature review.” Inf Pol 23(2018): 143-162.
13. Khalil OE. “E-government readiness: Does national culture matter?” Government Inf Quart 28 (2011): 388-399.
14. Willoughby M, Gómez HG, Lozano MAF. “Making e-government attractive.” Service Bus 4(2010): 49-62.
15. Hirst P, Norton M. “Electronic Government. Information Technologies and the Citizen, United Kingdom Parliament.” Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (1998).
16. Gascó M. “Approaching e-Government interoperability.” Soc Sci Comp Rev 30(2012): 3-6.
17. Janssen M, Estevez E. “Lean government and platform-based governance Doing more with less,Government.” Inf Quart 32 (2013): 221-236.
18. Fang Z. “E-government in digital era: concept, practice and development.” Int J Comp Internet Manag 10(2002): 1-22.
19. Ndou VE. “Government for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges.” Electron J Inf Sys Dev Countries 18 (2004): 1-24.
20. Khan GF, Park HW. “The e-government research domain: A triple helix network analysis of collaboration at the regional, country, and institutional levels.” Government Inf Quart 29 (2013): 182-193.
21. Elbahnasawy NG. “E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: An empirical Investigation.” World Dev 57 (2014): 114-126.
22. Lupu D, Lazăr CG. “Influence of e-government on the level of corruption in some EU and Non- EU states.” Procedia Econ Finan20 (2015): 365-371.
23. Glybovets A, Mohammad A. “E-Government Versus Smart Government: Jordan Versus The United States. EUREKA: Soc Human 3 (2017): 3-11.
24. Harsh A, Ichalkaranje N. Transforming e-government to smart government: A South Australian perspective. In Intelligent Computing, Communication and Devices (2015).
25. Jiménez CE, Falcone F, Solanas A, Puyosa H. Smart government: Opportunities and challenges in smart cities development.” In Civil and Environmental Engineering: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (2016): 1454-1472
26. Di Maio A. “Smart Government: Sustainable, Affordable, Innovative. In Proceedings of Worldwide Government Solutions Forum.” Academic Press (2012).
27. Gil-Garcia JR, Zhang J, Puron-Cid G. “Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view.” Government Inf Quart 33 (2016): 524-534.
28. Burkhardt D, Nazemi K, Zilke JR, KohlhammerJ. “Fundamental aspects for e- government. In Handbook of Research on Advanced ICT Integration for Governance and Policy Modelling” (2014): 1-18.
29. Jaeger PT. Disability and the Internet: Confronting a digital divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (2012).
30. Picazo-Vela S, Gutiérrez-Martínez I, Luna-Reyes LF. “Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector.” Government Inf quart 29 (2012): 504-511.
31. Alencar AJ, Schmitz EA, Fernandes MC, Correa AL. “Evaluating E-Government Initiatives. In Handbook of Research on Democratic Strategies and Citizen-Centered E-Government Services.” (2015): 328- 352.
32. Capgemini R, Europe IDC, Sogeti DT. “Smarter, faster, better eGovernment. 8th eGovernment Benchmark Measurement.” (2009).
33. Grant A, Meadows J. “Communication technology update. Boston: Focal Press.” (2007).
34. Gauld R, Goldfinch S and Dale T. “Dangerous enthusiasms: E-government, computer failure, and informative system development.” Dunedin, NA: Otago University Press (2006).
35. Lau TY, Kim SW, Atkin DJ. “An examination of policy dynamics leading to Korea’s leadership in broadband adoption. TelematInf22 (2005): 349-359.
36. Guenduez A., Ingler S, Tomczak T, Schedler K. “Smart government success factors, Swiss Yearbook.” Admin Sci 9 (2018): 96-110.
37. United Nations. United Nations E-Government Survey 2018. Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies (2018).
38. Singh S. E-governance state-of-the-art survey: Stuttgart, Germany. In: Vinod Kumar T. (eds) E- Governance for Smart Cities. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer (2015).
39. Karmakar A. E-Governance and its role in infrastructure services of UAE, case study—Dubai. In: Vinod Kumar T. (eds) E-Governancefor Smart Cities. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer, Singapore (2015).
40. MahizhnanA. “Smart cities: the Singapore case.” Cities 16(1999): 13-18.
41. Long Y, Thill JC. “Combining smart card data and household travel survey to analyze jobs-housing relationships in Beijing.” Comp Environment Urban Sys 53 (2015): 19-35
42. Lindqvist M, Olsen L, Perjo L, Claessen H. Implementing the Concept of Smart Specialisation in the Nordic Countries: An Exploratory Desk Study (2013).
43. Heeks R. “Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: How can risks be reduced?” i Government Working Paper Series (2003).
44. Asquer A. “Big Data and Innovation in the Delivery of Public Services: The Case of Predictive Policing in Kent.” In Ć. Dolićanin E. Kajan D. Randjelović B. Stojanović Handbook of Research on Democratic Strategies and Citizen-Centered E-Government Services (2015): 20-37.
45. Yaghi A, Al-Jenaibi B. “Happiness, morality, rationality, and challenges in implementing smart government policy." Pub Integrity 20 (2018): 284-299.
46. Svara J. “The Ethics Primer for Public Administration in Government and Nonprofit Organizations.” Burlington, MA: Johnes & Barlett (2015).
47. Almuraquab NAS, Jasimuddin SM. “Factors that influence end-users’ adoption of smart government services in the UAE: A Conceptual framework.” Electron J Inf Sys Evaluation 20 (2017): 11-23.
48. Al-Hujran O, Al-Debei M, Chatfield A and Migdadi M. “The imperative of influencing citizen attitude toward e-government adoption and use.” Comp Human Behav 53 (2015): 189-203.
49. Carter L, Belanger F. “The utilization of e-government services: citizens trust, innovation, and acceptance factors, Inf Sys J 15 (2005): 5-25.
50. Teo T, Srivastava S, Jiang L. “Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study.” J Manag Inf Sys 9 (2008): 99-131.
51. Alzahrani L, Al-Karaghouli W, Weerakkody V. “Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption.” Int Bus Rev 26 (2017): 164-175.
52. Sang S, Lee JD, Lee JE. “Government adoption in ASEAN: the case of Cambodia.” Internet Res 19 (2009): 517-534.
53. Matheus R, Ribeiro MM, Vaz JC. “Brail towards government 2.0: Strategies for adopting open government data in national and subnational governments.” In: Boughzala I, Janssen M, Assar S Case Studies in e-Government 2.0. Changing Citizen Relationships (2015): 121-138.
54. SaurabhC. “E-government in India, the need to study current e-government uptake.” Socrates 4 (2016): 35-46.
55. Zhang P, Mao X, Tang X, Zeng D. “A hybrid e-government model: Case studies in Shanghai.” In: Chen H. et al. (Eds) Digital Government. Integrated Series in Information Systems (2008): 697-718.
56. Al-Mamary Q, Corbitt B, Gekara V. “E-government adoption and implementation in Oman: A government perspective.” In Haider E. Business Technologies in Contemporary Organizations: Adoption, Assimilation and Institutionalization (2015): 263-287.
57. Heeks R, Ospina A. “Conceptualising the link between information systems and resilience: A developing country field study.” Inf Sys J 29 (2019): 70-96.
58. Neto I, Kenny C, Janakiram S, Watt C. “Look before you leap: The bumpy road to e- development.” In Shware R. (Ed.), E-development: From Excitement to Effectiveness. Washington, DC: World Bank (2005).
59. TuoiTre News. Ho Chi Minh City hopes to deliver ‘smart city’ benefits to residents (2017).
60. Ramli R. “E-government implementation challenges in Malaysia and South Korea: A comparative study.” Electron J Inf Sys Dev Countries 80 (2017): 1-26.
61. Zejnullahu F, Baholli I. “System for electronic archiving of document in Republic of Kosovo: An evaluation of success factors Design-reality gap analysis.” Mediterranean J SocSci 8 (2018): 347-352.
62. Vaidya R, Myers MD, Gardner L. “The Design – Reality Gap: The Impact of Stakeholder Strategies on IS Implementation in Developing Countries.” In: Nüttgens M, Gadatsch A, Kautz K, Schirmer I, Blinn N. Governance and Sustainability in Information Systems. Managing the Transfer and Diffusion of IT. TDIT 2011 IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 366 (2017).
63. Dasuki S, Ogedebe P, Kanya RA, Makinde J. “Evaluating the implementation of international computing curricular in African universities: A design-reality gap approach.” Int J EduDev using Inf CommunTechnol 11 (2015): 17-35.
64. Nam T, Pardo TA. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions, Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times ACM (2011): 82-291.
65. Yoon J, Chae M. “Varying criticality of key success factors of national e-strategy along the status of economic development of nations.” Government Inf Quart 26 (2009): 25-34.
66. Yang K, Rho SY. “E-government for better performance: Promises, realities and  challenges.” Int J Pub Admin 30 (2007): 1197-1217.
67. Bhattacharya TR, Bhattacharya A, Mclellan B, Tezuka T. “Sustainable smart city development framework for developing countries.” Urban Res Prac 13 (2018): 180-212.
68. Sujata J, Saksham S, Shreya GT. Developing smart cities: An integrated Framework, 6th International Conference on Advances on Computing & Communications. Procedia Computer Science (2016): 902–909.
69. Bakici T, Almirall E, WarehamJ. “A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona.” J Knowledge Econ 4(2013): 135-148.
70. Chourabi H, Nam T, Walker S, Gil-Garcia JR. “Understanding Smart City Initiatives: An Integrative Framework.” In 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2012): 2289-2297
71. Meneklis V, Douligeris, C. “Bridging theory and practice in e-government: A set of guidelines for architectural design.” Government Inf Quart 27 (2010): 70-81.