Business Models of Public Smart Services for Sustainable Development
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- The most frequently used tool for creating a business model of public smart services is the Business Model Canvas.
- Cities and municipalities need to evaluate the business models of public intelligent services.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1. Was a mission (goal) established in the BM, which outlines the overarching purpose, vision and direction of the service? 1 | −1/+1 |
2. Is the stated mission (goal) consistent with the overall goals and priorities of the organization or entity responsible for providing the service, such as a city government or public agency? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
3. Is the established mission (goal) specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound and does it provide a clear framework to guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of the service? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
4. To what extent does the stated mission (goal) express the needs and expectations of the service’s network recipients, as well as the broader social or community goals to which the service wants to contribute, as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
5. Does the stated mission (goal) provide a compelling and motivating vision that inspires and engages stakeholders, including staff, partners, users, and the wider community, towards achieving the service’s goals? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
6. Is the established mission (goal) flexible and adaptable, allowing adjustments or fine-tuning over time based on changing needs, priorities or external factors while maintaining the overall strategic direction of the service? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
7. To what extent was the set mission (goal) achieved? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
8. Does the achievement of the stated mission (goal) of BM contribute to a sustainable, open and accessible city/municipality? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
9. To what extent does the achievement of the stated mission (goal) of BM contribute to a city/municipality in which the knowledge-based economy and productive innovations prevail? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
10. To what extent does achieving the set mission (goal) of BM contribute to a creative city/municipality? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
11. To what extent does the achievement of the stated mission (goal) of BM contribute to a civically engaged and socially cohesive city/municipality? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
12a. Were the challenges, obstacles or gaps that may arise in the fulfillment of the set mission (goal) identified in the BM, and ways of their appropriate solution or overcoming proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
12b. Are there (have arisen) any challenges, obstacles, or gaps in the alignment of the mission (goal) and operational activities or results, for which no suitable solution has been proposed and the provided service cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Has the value proposition that the service can provide been identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Is there any evidence or data, such as case studies, successful applications, or testimonials from satisfied users, to support the selection of this offer? 1 | −1/+1 |
2a. Were requests for the service ascertained directly from the recipients? 1 | −1/+1 |
2b. Were these requirements included and considered in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
2c. To what extent does the service provided meet the needs of the beneficiaries, as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
3a. Were the requirements of the city/municipality for the service identified, included, and taken into account in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
3b. To what extent does the provided service meet the requirements of the city/municipality? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
4a. Was it ascertained directly from the recipients what kind of profit they are interested in from the delivered value? 1 | −1/+1 |
4b. Was this profit included and considered in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
4c. To what extent does the service provided deliver the desired profit as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
5a. Was the recipient directly asked what needs/problems the delivered value can fulfill/solve? 1 | −1/+1 |
5b. Were these needs/problems included and considered in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
5c. To what extent did the provided service fulfill/solve all identified needs/problems as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6. Does the service’s value proposition differ from competing solutions or alternatives in terms of its features, functionality, performance, cost-effectiveness, or other key attributes? 6 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
7. By how much % is the service provided less/more used than current alternatives? 7 | −4/−3/−2/−1/0/+1/+2/+3/+4 |
8. How many % of network recipients are interested in the provided service? 8 | −2/−1/+1/+2 |
9. Does the service improve the quality of life of citizens? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
10. Does the service effectively use its value proposition to attract and retain users, generate revenue, secure funding, or achieve other goals? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
11a. Were identified (evaluation) threshold values in BM, or KPI for the service provided? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. If so, to what extent were the (evaluation) threshold worthy, or KPI achieved during retrospective evaluation? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
12. Have opportunities or strategies been identified in the BM that the service can explore to improve its value proposition, such as introducing new features, improving the user experience, expanding the user base or exploring new markets? 1 | −1/+1 |
13. Is the value proposition continuously adapted and refined based on changing user needs, market dynamics or technological advances to remain relevant and competitive in the rapidly evolving smart city environment? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Was the data necessary for the provision of the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Were additional data needed in the implementation phase that were not identified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
1c. What % of the necessary data was (is) available during the implementation and provision of the service? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
2a. Has the data to be collected through the provided service been identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
2c. What % of the necessary data is collected? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
2d. What % of collected data is necessary? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
2e. Do the obtained data have a future processor (so that they are not useless)? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
2 f. Is the quality of the collected data sufficient (for example for further analysis)? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
3. Has (Is) a robust data acquisition and integration strategy in place that ensures that relevant data from a variety of sources, both internal and external, can be accessed and used to support its operations, decision making and value creation? 1 | −1/+1 |
4. Has (Is) a clear data governance framework in place that outlines policies, procedures, and practices for managing data throughout its lifecycle, from collection to storage, processing, analysis and sharing? 1 | −1/+1 |
5a. Has the purpose of using the obtained data been determined in BM (to generate actionable knowledge, provide information for decision-making, optimize operations, and create value for its users, stakeholders and the wider community)? 1 | −1/+1 |
5b. What % of the obtained data is used for the specified purpose? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6a. Was it determined in BM how and where the obtained data will be stored? 1 | −1/+1 |
6b. In the implementation phase, it was necessary to use a different method and a different location of data storage, which was not specified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
6c. What % of data is stored in the most appropriate way and in the most appropriate place (no more appropriate alternative is available)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
7a. Was it determined in the BM how the obtained data will be further processed? 1 | −1/+1 |
7b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to choose another/another method of processing that was not mentioned in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
7c. What % of data is processed in the most suitable way (no more suitable alternative is available)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
8a. Have appropriate security, data protection and data breach response measures, including access control, encryption, data backup, disaster recovery and incident response plans, been chosen at BM to mitigate the risks associated with data breaches or other security incidents? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. In the implementation phase, it was necessary to use other methods of security and data protection that were not chosen in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. What % of data is secured in the most suitable way (no more suitable alternative is available)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
9a. Was it determined in the BM how and to whom the data will be made available? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change the method of making data available in the implementation phase? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. What % of data is made available in the most appropriate way and only to relevant persons (no more appropriate alternative is available)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
9d. Has data been stolen or misused? 2 | −1/+1 |
10a. Was it specified in BM how the data should be anonymized? 5 | −1/0/+1 |
10b. Was it necessary to change the method of data anonymization in the implementation phase? 6 | −1/0/+1 |
10c. What % of data is anonymized in the most suitable way (no more suitable alternative is available)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
11a. Have mechanisms been identified in BM to ensure the ethical use of data, including addressing issues such as bias, fairness, transparency, and accountability? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. Was it necessary to change the mechanisms for ensuring the ethical use of data in the implementation phase? 2 | −1/+1 |
11c. To what extent are ethical principles observed in procedures related to data? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
12a. Has the BM established a method for sharing data and collaborating with stakeholders such as other public agencies, private companies, academic institutions, or community organizations? 1 | −1/+1 |
12b. Was it necessary to change the method of data sharing and cooperation with other interested parties in the implementation phase? 2 | −1/+1 |
12c. What % of data is shared in a cooperative and responsible approach? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
13a. Were identified (evaluation) threshold values in BM, or KPI for data? 1 | −1/+1 |
13b. If so, to what extent were the (evaluation) threshold worthy, or KPI achieved during retrospective evaluation? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
14. Were cross-sectional data also used in the processing of BM, if available? 5 | −1/0/+1 |
15. To what extent does the service comply with relevant data management, privacy, security and ethics laws, regulations and standards and demonstrate a commitment to responsible data practices? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Were the network recipients of the service identified in the BM, considering their demographics, characteristics, needs and preferences? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Were network recipients changed in the implementation phase, compared to those identified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
1c. For what % of the required beneficiaries is the service provided? 2 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1d. Were network recipients appropriately segmented, if segmentation was necessary? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
1e. To what extent have the offer, features and communication been appropriately tailored to the needs, preferences, behavior of network recipient segments as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1f. Would it be more appropriate to provide the service to other/additional network recipients? 2 | −1/+1 |
2a. Has a feedback method/mechanism or user engagement strategy been established in the BM to continuously collect and incorporate user feedback into the design, development, and improvement processes of the service? 1 | −1/+1 |
2b. Was it necessary to change/supplement the method/mechanism of feedback or the strategy of user involvement in the implementation phase, compared to those set out in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
2c. Is the satisfaction, engagement and feedback of network beneficiaries regularly evaluated and assessed through surveys, interviews, focus groups or other means? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
2d. Is the feedback obtained used to increase the value proposition for network recipients? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3. What is the overall satisfaction level, adoption rate or user perception of the service in your target group as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
4. What % of network recipients benefit from the service as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
5a. Were possible barriers, challenges, or obstacles (language barriers, digital literacy, accessibility) identified in the BM, which may arise during interactions of the service with its target group, and ways of their appropriate solution or overcoming proposed? 1 | −1/0/+1 |
5b. Are there (have there been) any barriers, challenges, or obstacles in the interactions of the service with its target group, for which a suitable solution has not been proposed and the provided service cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Have the necessary deployment channels been identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. It was necessary to use other deployment channels in the implementation phase that were not identified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
1c. What % of the necessary deployment channels were (are) used? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1d. What % of deployment channels used were (are) necessary? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1e. Were the deployment channels correctly chosen (or would it be better to replace some)? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
2a. Were the beneficiaries’ preferences, possibilities and needs for service accessibility ascertained directly? 1 | −1/+1 |
2b. Have these preferences, behaviors and accessibility needs been included and considered in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
2c. How well do these channels align with the preferences, behaviors and accessibility needs of network recipients as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
3a. Has the method/strategy of addressing and involving the intended beneficiaries of the service been determined in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
3b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to choose a different method/strategy of addressing and involving the intended recipients of the service, compared to those set out in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
3b. Has the reach, adoption and use of the service been optimized through reaching and engaging the intended recipients of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4a. Has a multi-channel approach to deployment been designed in BM that considers the diverse needs, preferences, or limitations of network recipients? 1 | −1/+1 |
4b. Was it necessary to change/use a different approach to deployment in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
4c. Is the service provided through multiple channels if necessary? 5 | −1/0/+1 |
4d. To what extent does the service tailor its offerings, features, or functions appropriately for different deployment channels to ensure consistent user experience and satisfaction, as evidenced by user feedback, market research, or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
5a. Has a method/mechanism been established in BM to collect feedback, insights, or analysis from various deployment channels such as user feedback, usage data or performance metrics? 1 | −1/+1 |
5b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/supplement the method/mechanism of feedback, overviews or analyses from various channels of deployment, compared to those stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
5c. Performance, efficiency, etc. are regularly assessed. deployment channels based on feedback, reports, analyses? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5d. Is the feedback obtained used to improve decision-making processes and to ensure that channels operate in accordance with the evolving needs, preferences, and expectations of network recipients? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
6. What % of network recipients access the service through the chosen deployment channels? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
7. What is the level of user satisfaction, adoption, or engagement with the service across various deployment channels as evidenced by user feedback, market research, or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
8a. Have measures been established in the BM to ensure the security, privacy, and integrity of the offering across different deployment channels, including encryption, access control, authentication, and other best practices? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change the method of securing, protecting privacy and integrity of the offer in individual channels of deployment, compared to those stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. To what extent is the security, privacy and integrity of the offering ensured across different deployment channels? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
9. Were the deployment channels used the most cost-effective option (no better alternative available)? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10a. Has the BM established a way to maintain, monitor and support the offering across various deployment channels, including resolving issues such as software updates, hardware maintenance, user support or service interruptions? 1 | −1/+1 |
10b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change the way of maintenance, monitoring and support of the offer across different deployment channels, compared to those stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
10c. To what extent is service continuity, reliability and availability ensured through deployment channels? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
11a. Has the BM established a way to manage the integration and interoperability of the offering across different deployment channels, such as ensuring seamless data exchange, user authentication or service continuity? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. Was it necessary to change/use a different way of managing the integration and interoperability of the offer across different deployment channels in the implementation phase, compared to the one set in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
11c. To what extent is seamless data exchange, user authentication and service continuity ensured? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
12a. Have challenges, obstacles or problems that may arise in relation to deployment channels been identified in the BM and ways to appropriately address or overcome them proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
12b. Are there (have) been any challenges, obstacles or issues related to deployment channels for which a suitable solution has not been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
13. To what extent does the service comply with relevant laws, regulations and standards relating to security, data protection and integrity of the offer across deployment channels? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
14. To what extent do deployment channels contribute to achieving goals such as improving service delivery, user experience or zaint engagement heresed parties? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Have key actors been identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Was it necessary to involve other/additional actors in the implementation phase who were not identified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
1c. What % of necessary actors are involved in providing the service? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1d. What % of involved actors is necessary? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1e. How many % of actors are correctly chosen (or would it be better to replace some)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
2. What share of actors brought the expected benefit/result? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
3a. Has the BM established a way to identify, engage and collaborate with key stakeholders, including establishing clear lines of communication, defining roles and responsibilities, and managing expectations to ensure effective coordination, alignment and mutual understanding of service objectives and benefits? 1 | −1/+1 |
3b. Was it necessary to change the method of identification, involvement, and cooperation with key actors in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
3c. Is effective coordination, alignment and mutual understanding of the goals and benefits of the service with key actors ensured? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4a. Has the BM established a method/mechanism for building and maintaining positive relationships with key actors, such as partnerships, agreements, or governance structures? 1 | −1/+1 |
4b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different method/mechanism for building and maintaining positive relations with key actors, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
4c. Are relationships, dynamics or effectiveness of key actors regularly evaluated? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4d. Are the results used to inform strategy, action or policies related to stakeholder engagement, collaboration, or management to ensure that key stakeholders are willing to work together on an ongoing basis in line with the aims and objectives of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5a. Was the method of involving key actors in decision-making processes related to the design, development, implementation, or evaluation of the service determined in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
5b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of involving key actors in decision-making processes in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
5c. To what extent are diverse perspectives, needs or interests of actors considered and integrated into the service? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6a. Has a method/mechanism been established in the BM for collecting feedback on satisfaction, engagement, or trust among key actors in relation to the service to increase their involvement, support and commitment to the provision of the service? 1 | −1/+1 |
6b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/add to the method/mechanism of obtaining feedback, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
6c. Is the satisfaction, engagement, trust and perception of actors regularly assessed, based on feedback? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
6d. Is the feedback obtained used to improve decision-making processes and to ensure that the involvement, support, and commitment of key actors in the delivery of the service is increased? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
7. What is the level of satisfaction, engagement, or trust among key stakeholders in relation to the service, as evidenced by stakeholder feedback or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
8a. Has the BM established a way to manage any conflicts of interest, differing expectations or challenges that may arise between key actors? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different method of resolving conflicts, different expectations, and challenges, compared to the ones stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Does it facilitate constructive dialogues, negotiations, or solutions to ensure smooth functioning and satisfaction of stakeholders? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9a. Have risks, dependencies or uncertainties associated with key factors that may arise in connection with changes in policies, regulations, financing, or market conditions been identified in the BM, and ways of appropriately addressing or overcoming them suggested? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Are there (have arisen) any risks, dependencies, or uncertainties with the provision of permanent support from actors for which a suitable solution has not been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Were the necessary key activities identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Has continuous technological progress, best practices or innovative approaches been considered when planning the necessary activities? 1 | −1/+1 |
1c. Are key activities flexible and adaptable, allowing adjustments or fine-tuning to improve service delivery, scalability or sustainability over time based on changing needs, priorities or external factors while maintaining the overall strategic direction of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
1d. Are key activities adapting to the changing needs, expectations or demands of users, stakeholders or market dynamics as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
1e. Was it necessary to carry out other/additional activities in the implementation phase that were not identified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
1f. What % of the necessary activities are carried out? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1g. What % of the performed activities is necessary? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
2. What proportion of the activities brought the expected benefit/result? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
3. Are key activities effective in terms of resource utilization, process optimization and service quality? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4. Do the key activities contribute to achieving the set goals, impacts, benefits, solving challenges or supporting innovation and cooperation? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5a. Were the tasks, responsibilities and communication channels defined in the BM, which should ensure the smooth execution of activities? 1 | −1/+1 |
5b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to modify/supplement the tasks, responsibilities, and communication channels for carrying out activities, compared to those stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
5c. To what extent is the execution of activities smooth in terms of defined tasks, responsibilities and chosen communication channels? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6. What proportion of activities are carried out in accordance with the planned and set conditions (adherence to the set time schedule, delivery of the set result, observance of the set costs, etc.)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
7. Did some activities have a negative impact on the result (delay, delivery of less benefit, increase in costs, etc.)? 2 | −1/+1 |
8a. Did any of the activities have negative externalities? 2 | −1/+1 |
8b. If so, were they identified in the BM as potentially possible and thus a solution was proposed for them? 1 | −1/+1 |
8c. If so, were they compensated in any way? 1 | −1/+1 |
9a. Has BM established a way to ensure user satisfaction and involvement in key activities such as user onboarding, training, or support? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of ensuring user satisfaction and involvement in key activities in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. Is there regular and active involvement of network recipients in key activities? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10. What is the level of user satisfaction, engagement or involvement with key activities as evidenced by stakeholder feedback or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
11a. Has the BM established a method/mechanism for obtaining feedback, insights or input from users and key actors to inform improvements, innovations, or modification of activities? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method/mechanism for obtaining feedback, insights or input from users and key actors in the implementation phase, compared to the one established in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
11c. Is the satisfaction or perception of users and actors regularly assessed, based on feedback? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
12. What is the level of satisfaction or perception among users and key actors in relation to key activities as evidenced by feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
13a. Have key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to assess the performance, effectiveness or efficiency of key activities been established in the BM to ensure they remain relevant, effective, and efficient in delivering the intended value proposition and achieving the desired service outcomes? 1 | −1/+1 |
13b. If so, to what extent were the (evaluation) threshold worthy, or KPI achieved during retrospective evaluation? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
14a. Have the risks and challenges that may arise in relation to key activities, such as data privacy, security, interoperability, or regulatory compliance, been identified in the BM and ways to appropriately address or overcome them proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
14b. Are there (Have there been) any risks and challenges in connection with key activities for which a suitable solution has not been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Were the necessary relationships with actors identified in the business model? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Was it necessary in the implementation phase to modify or supplement relationships that were not identified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
2. Are the relationships between the actor’s collaborative, cooperative and mutually beneficial (use of resources, expertise and skills) in achieving the desired results? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3. What proportion of established relationships brought the expected benefit/result? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
4a. Has a method/mechanism been established in BM for collecting feedback regarding satisfaction, engagement of actors within the framework of mutual relations and cooperation? 1 | −1/+1 |
4b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method/mechanism for gathering feedback from key actors in the implementation phase? 2 | −1/+1 |
4c. Is the satisfaction, engagement and perception of actors regularly assessed, based on feedback? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4d. Is the feedback obtained used to improve decision-making processes and to ensure that improvement, development, innovation support or co-creation opportunities occur? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5. How satisfied are stakeholders with the level of engagement, responsiveness and support they receive in addressing their needs, concerns and expectations as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6. Are actors involved in decision-making processes, designing, and planning in shaping the direction and priorities of services? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
7. Do relationships with stakeholders affect the overall performance, sustainability, and success of the service in achieving its intended goals and creating value for the community as a whole? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
8a. Has the BM established a way of managing relations with actors in terms of building trust and maintaining transparency to ensure a supportive and collaborative environment? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of managing relations with actors in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Does effective and timely management of relations with actors take place? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9a. Were the risks and barriers that may arise in relations with actors, such as conflicting interests, power dynamics or differences in values and goals, identified in the BM, and ways of their appropriate solution or overcoming proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Are there (have) there been any risks and barriers in relations with actors for which a suitable solution has not been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Was the supply of key actors identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Was the offer of individual key actors correctly identified (did they really have the offer that was set in the BM)? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
2. Does the key players’ offering support the sustainability or long-term viability of the service, for example through partnerships, revenue-sharing models or other collaborative arrangements? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3. Does the actors’ offer match the needs, requirements and expectations of the beneficiaries, stakeholders, or the service, as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4. Is the actors’ offer comprehensive, innovative, or differentiated in terms of features, functionalities, capabilities or added value? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5. Is the key players’ offering reliable, scalable, and sustainable in terms of technical performance, data quality, service availability and support, as evidenced by various metrics, analytics, etc.? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
6. Is the offer of key players cost-effective, transparent, and competitive in terms of prices, licensing or other business terms? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
7. Does the key players’ offering provide better value for money compared to the benefits or outcomes of alternative solutions and services? 1 | −1/+1 |
8a. Was it determined in the BM how the offer of key actors will be used? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different way of using the offer of key actors, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. To what extent are the actual results of using the key actors’ offer the same as planned? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
9a. Has a feedback method/mechanism, user involvement strategy or collaborative development been established in the BM so that the offer of key actors leads to continuous improvement, development, innovation support or co-creation opportunities? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of feedback or user involvement in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. Is the feedback of actors and network beneficiaries regularly evaluated and assessed through surveys, interviews, etc.? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9d. Is the feedback obtained used to improve decision-making processes and to ensure that the service evolves, grows, and adapts to changing needs and opportunities? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10. To what extent does the key players’ offering meet expectations and ensure service satisfaction as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
11. Is the offer of key actors flexible and adaptable to meet the unique needs or preferences of the service and its users? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
12. Are the key players offering flexibility, adaptability for modifications, integrations, or extensions to meet changing requirements or future developments? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
13a. Have the risks, challenges and limitations that may arise in connection with the offer of key actors, such as data privacy, security, interoperability, or compliance with regulations, been identified in the BM, and ways to appropriately address or overcome them proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
13b. Are there (have) been any risks, challenges, and limitations in relation to the offer of key actors for which no suitable solution has been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
14. Does the offer of key actors contribute to achieving the overall goals, impacts and benefits of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
15. Is the offer of key actors in line with the strategic goals, mission, and values of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Have operations been identified in BM that key actors can provide? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Was it necessary in the implementation phase to add an actor who would implement the necessary operations? 2 | −1/+1 |
1c. Do key actors contribute expertise or resources to service co-creation operations? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
2. Are key actors involved in service co-creation operations such as joint planning, design, development, implementation, or evaluation of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3. Are co-creation operations inclusive, diverse, or representative in terms of involving key actors from different stakeholder groups such as citizens, businesses, academia, government, or civil society? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4. To what extent are co-creation operations transparent, communicative, or participatory in providing timely, accurate or accessible information to key actors as evidenced by key actor feedback? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
5a. Was the method of measurement, monitoring and evaluation of the achieved results of co-creation established in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
5b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different established method of measuring, monitoring, and evaluating the achieved results of co-creation, compared to the one established in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
5c. Are the results of co-creation regularly measured, monitored, and evaluated? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5d. Are the obtained results used to improve decision-making processes and to ensure the correct implementation of changes? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
6a. Have incentives, motivations or rewards been identified in the BM to be used to encourage key actors in terms of participation, contribution, or commitment to co-creation? 1 | −1/+1 |
6b. Was it necessary to change/use other incentives, motivations, or rewards for key actors in the implementation phase, compared to those set out in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
6c. Are key actors actively involved in co-creation operations, and their sufficient contribution and commitment to co-creation can be monitored? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
7. Did the implemented co-creation operations help to identify aspects that could not be identified otherwise? 5 | −1/0/+1 |
8a. Have collaborative mechanisms and tools or processes been established in the BM to facilitate co-creation operations between key actors, such as co-design workshops, innovation labs, hackathons, or stakeholder engagement initiatives? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use other cooperation mechanisms and tools or processes to facilitate co-creation operations, compared to those stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Are various workshops, hackathons and other stakeholder engagement initiatives held regularly? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9a. Has a method/mechanism been established in the BM to collect, analyze, or incorporate feedback from key actors to continuously improve, develop and support co-creation operations? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method/mechanism for collecting, analyzing, or incorporating feedback from key actors in the implementation phase, compared to the one set out in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. Is the feedback of key actors regularly evaluated and assessed through surveys, interviews, etc.? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9d. Is the obtained feedback used to improve management, coordination or facilitate co-creation operations? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10. Are co-creation operations flexible and adaptable, allowing for modification, development or fine-tuning over time-based on changing needs, technologies or stakeholder dynamics while maintaining the overall strategic direction of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
11. Do co-creation operations contribute to building long-term relationships, partnerships or networks that can increase the sustainability, efficiency, or scalability of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
12. Do co-creation operations lead to tangible results such as improved service quality, increased user satisfaction, efficiency, or innovation? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
13. Are the co-creation operations carried out in accordance with the overall goals, objectives and vision of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Were the key resources and infrastructure necessary for the implementation and provision of the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Were other key resources and infrastructure needed in the implementation phase that were not identified in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
1c. What % of the necessary resources and infrastructure were (are) available? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
1d. If all the necessary resources and infrastructure were not available, was the reason due to a factor that could not be controlled (unexpected inflation, lengthy VO, insolvency of the supplier, etc.)? 8 | −1/0 |
1e. If it was a factor that cannot be influenced, was it identified as potentially possible in the BM and was a method of eliminating negative impacts proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
2. Are key resources and infrastructure reliable, secure, and resilient in terms of minimizing downtime, protecting against cyber security threats, ensuring data integrity, or maintaining service continuity? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3a. Was the method of use of key resources and infrastructure determined in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
3b. Was it necessary to change/use a different way of using key resources and infrastructure in the implementation phase? 2 | −1/+1 |
3c. What % of key resources and infrastructure are used in the most appropriate way (no more appropriate alternative available)? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
4. Were (are) key resources and infrastructure fully secured during the entire implementation period? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5. Were (are) resources and infrastructure provided by actors who were identified as providers of these resources and infrastructure? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
6. To what extent are key resources and infrastructure cost-effective or optimized in terms of resource utilization, operating costs, or total costs of ownership? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
7a. Has the way of integration, interoperability and compatibility of key resources and infrastructure with other systems, technologies or stakeholders in the service ecosystem been established in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
7b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of integration, interoperability and compatibility of key resources and infrastructure in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
7c. Is seamless data exchange, integration or collaboration between different components or actors ensured and facilitated? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
8. Are key resources and infrastructure sustainable, environmentally sound, or socially responsible in terms of minimizing negative impacts on the environment, society, and public health? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9a. Has the BM established a way of managing, monitoring, and optimizing key resources and infrastructure in terms of performance metrics, analytics or feedback mechanisms? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of management, monitoring and optimization of key resources and infrastructure in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9c. Are key resources and infrastructure regularly monitored, measured, analyzed and is feedback regularly obtained? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9d. Does the chosen method of management, monitoring and optimization contribute to continuous improvement, innovation, or optimization of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10. To what extent do key resources and infrastructure meet the availability, quality, expectations or requirements of the service and its users as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
11. Are the key resources and infrastructure flexible and adaptable, scalable, updatable, and capable of being modified in terms of the need to adapt to changes in service demand, user requirements or technological advances? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
12a. Were possible barriers, limitations or risks related to resources and infrastructures, such as unexpected inflation, lengthy VO, supplier insolvency, etc. identified in the BM, and ways to appropriately address or overcome them proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
12b. Are there (have) there been any barriers, restrictions, or risks in connection with resources and infrastructures for which a suitable solution to eliminate negative impacts has not been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
13. Are key resources and infrastructure compliant with regulations and standards, certified or regulated to meet legal, regulatory or industry standards such as privacy, security, or interoperability requirements? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
14. Do key resources and infrastructure support the growth, expansion, or evolution of the service over time? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
15. Do key resources and infrastructure contribute to the reliability, efficiency, or effectiveness of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
16. Do key resources and infrastructure contribute to the financial sustainability or viability of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1. Were the budget costs identified in the BM, which needed to be spent in the process of providing the service? 1 | −1/+1 |
2. Are the budgeted costs amenable to possible adjustment or revision to optimize the affordability and inclusiveness of the service while maintaining financial viability? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3. Are budgeted costs effectively adjusted and revised to ensure cost competitiveness, profitability, or financial resilience? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4. Do budgeted costs consider potential changes in technology, regulatory requirements or other external factors that may affect the cost structure of services? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5. Are the costs associated with the new service higher, the same, or lower than the current alternative? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
6. Was there an opportunity to save or reduce budget costs and was it used? 1 | −1/+1 |
7. To what extent have the budgeted costs of the service been correctly estimated, projected or planned, including cost forecasting, budgeting, or financial modelling, as evidenced by thorough analysis and studies? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
8a. Has the method of monitoring, analysis and reporting of budget costs, including the processes of cost control, cost reduction and cost optimization, been established in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of monitoring, analysis and reporting of budget costs in the implementation phase, compared to the one set in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Are the budget costs of the service regularly monitored, analyzed, and evaluated? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
8d. To what extent is the service being operated within budget constraints and financial targets? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
9a. Was the method of management, optimization, and diversification of the budget costs of the service determined in the BM to reduce risks, ensure cost efficiency or financial sustainability of the service? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different method of managing, optimizing, and diversifying the budget costs of the service, compared to those specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. Are the budget costs of the service effectively managed, optimized and diversified? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9d. Compared to the service provided by the traditional system, are the sources of costs less, more or equally diversified? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
10a. Have operational controls, audits or reporting mechanisms been planned in BM to ensure that the service is operated in a transparent, compliant, and financially responsible manner? 1 | −1/+1 |
10b. Are there regular or planned operational controls, audits or reporting mechanisms? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10c. Are the services operated in a transparent, compliant, and financially responsible manner? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
11a. Has the BM established a way to project, plan or optimize the budgeted costs of the service to support future growth or replication efforts? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of projecting, planning, and optimizing the budget costs of the service in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
11c. Do the budgeted costs of the service consider the potential scalability, expansion, or replication of services to other areas or regions? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
12. Do the budgeted costs of the service reflect market dynamics, competition or trends in the relevant industry or market? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
13. Are cost management efforts integrated into the broader strategy, value proposition or social impact of services? 1 | −1/+1 |
14. Are the budgeted costs of the service in line with the overall strategy, value proposition or financial sustainability plan of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
15. Are the budgeted costs of the service in compliance with relevant laws, regulations or guidelines related to labor, procurement, or other operational aspects, as evidenced by operational controls, audits or reporting mechanisms? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1. Were the individual income streams from the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
2. Are pricing strategies, user fees and other revenue mechanisms amenable to possible adjustment or revision to maximize revenue generation while ensuring affordability and inclusiveness of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
3. Are revenue streams effectively adjusted, expanded, or diversified to take advantage of emerging opportunities and respond to changing market dynamics or mitigate potential risks and disruptions? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
4. Do service revenue streams consider potential changes in technology, regulatory requirements, or other external factors that may affect the service’s revenue-generating potential? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
5. Is the generated revenue associated with the new service higher, the same, or lower than the current alternative? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
6a. Were the recipients directly asked how much and in what way they are willing to pay for the service (for example, subscription, transactional, etc.)? 1 | −1/+1 |
6b. Were these findings included and considered in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
6c. To what extent does the service provided meet the price requirements of the recipients as evidenced by user feedback, market research or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6d. To what extent are the service’s revenue streams aligned with the needs, preferences, or willingness to pay off target users or customers, as evidenced by user feedback, market research, or satisfaction metrics? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
6e. Was it necessary to change the price additionally for there to be interest (or higher interest) in the service? 2 | −1/+1 |
7a. Has the method of implementation, monitoring and evaluation of revenue streams from the service, including processes for revenue forecasting, tracking, and reporting, been established in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
7b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different method of implementation, monitoring and evaluation of revenue streams from the service, compared to those set out in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
7c. Are revenue streams from the service regularly monitored and evaluated? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
7d. To what extent does the service generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, achieve profitability, or achieve financial sustainability? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
8a. Has the BM established a way of managing, optimizing and diversifying income streams to reduce risks or increase financial resilience? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of management, optimization, and diversification of income streams in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Are the service’s revenue streams diversified, including the number of revenue sources, their relative contribution to total revenue, and their potential risks or dependencies? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
8d. Compared to the service provided by the traditional system, are the sources of income less, more, or equally diversified? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
9a. Have financial controls, audits or reporting mechanisms been planned in the BM to ensure that the service is operated in a transparent, compliant, and financially responsible manner? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Are there regular or planned financial controls, audits or reporting mechanisms? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
9c. Is the service operated in a transparent, compliant, and financially responsible manner? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
10a. Has the BM established a method for designing, planning, and optimizing revenue streams from the service to support future growth or replication efforts? 1 | −1/+1 |
10b. In the implementation phase, was it necessary to change/use a different method of projecting, planning, and optimizing revenue streams from the service, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
10c. Are the revenue streams from the service commensurate with the potential scalability, expansion, or replication of the service to other areas or regions? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
11. Do service revenue streams reflect market demand, competition or industry or market trends? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
12. Are the revenue streams of the service in line with the overall strategy, value proposition or financial sustainability plan of the service? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
13. Are the service revenue streams in compliance with applicable laws, regulations or guidelines regarding pricing, invoicing, taxation, or other financial aspects? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Were positive environmental impacts of the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Are the actual positive environmental impacts associated with the service smaller, larger or the same as planned? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
2a. Is there an alternative service that would bring more positive environmental impacts? 2 | −1/+1 |
2b. Are the actual positive environmental impacts of the service smaller, larger, or the same as the current alternative? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
3a. Were the negative environmental impacts of the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
3b. Was it determined in the BM how these negative impacts will be eliminated as much as possible? 1 | −1/+1 |
3c. Has there been a planned reduction of negative environmental impact? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
4a. Is there an alternative service that would bring less negative impacts? 2 | −1/+1 |
4b. Are the actual negative environmental impacts of the service less, greater, or the same as the current alternative? 10 | −1/0/+1 |
5. Does the service contribute to the preservation, protection, and restoration of the environment, including initiatives such as promoting sustainable transport, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving natural resources, or increasing biodiversity? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
6. Does the service promote environmental awareness, education or engagement among users, stakeholders, or the wider community? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
7a. Has the BM established a way to assess, manage and optimize environmental impacts arising during the life cycle of the service, such as material sourcing, production, use and end-of-life management, to minimize environmental damage and promote sustainability? 1 | −1/+1 |
7b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of assessment, management, and optimization of environmental impacts in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
7c. Are there actually minimization of negative environmental impacts and promotion of sustainability, as evidenced by various analyses, metrics, etc.? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
8a. Has the BM established a way to integrate environmental aspects into the design, development, or operation of the service, including elements such as energy-efficient technologies, waste reduction strategies or water conservation measures? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. Was it necessary to change/use a different way of integrating environmental aspects in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Are environmental aspects effectively integrated into the design, development, or operation of the service? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
9a. Has the BM established a way of working with relevant environmental organisations, experts, or stakeholders to ensure that environmental impacts are properly assessed, resolved, or mitigated? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of cooperation in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. Are the outputs of this cooperation integrated into the overall BM or service sustainability plan? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
10a. Has the BM established a way to support circular economy principles, such as recycling, re-use, or waste reduction? 1 | −1/+1 |
10b. Was it necessary to change/use a different way of supporting the principles of the circular economy in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
10c. Are these principles effectively integrated into the value proposition of the service, supply chain management or other operational processes of the service? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
11a. Measurable criteria, (evaluative) threshold values, or KPI for achieved environmental positive/negative impacts? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. If so, to what extent were the measurable criteria, (evaluative) threshold values, or KPI achieved during retrospective evaluation? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
12a. Have potential environmental risks, vulnerabilities, or uncertainties, including those related to climate change, natural disasters, or other environmental factors, been taken into account in the BM and ways of appropriately addressing or overcoming them proposed? 1 | −1/+1 |
12b. Are there (have) been any risks, vulnerabilities or uncertainties related to environmental impacts for which a suitable solution has not been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
13. Was (Is) the service implemented and operated in accordance with relevant environmental regulations, standards, certifications, or best practices? 3 | −2/1/0/+1/+2 |
14. Is the service consistent with the wider environmental objectives, policies, or strategies of local, regional or national governments? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
Parameters | Evaluation |
---|---|
1a. Were the positive social impacts of the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
1b. Are the actual positive social impacts associated with the service smaller, larger or the same as planned? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
2a. Is there an alternative service that would bring more positive social impacts? 2 | −1/+1 |
2b. Are the actual positive social impacts of the service smaller, larger, or the same as the current alternative? 9 | −1/0/+1 |
3a. Were the negative social impacts of the service identified in BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
3b. Was it determined in the BM how these negative impacts will be eliminated as much as possible? 1 | −1/+1 |
3c. Has there been a planned reduction in the negative social impact? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
4a. Is there an alternative service that would bring less negative impacts? 2 | −1/+1 |
4b. Are the actual negative social impacts of the service smaller, larger, or the same as the current alternative? 10 | −1/0/+1 |
5. Does the service promote social inclusion, diversity, or equality, including measures to reduce the digital divide, ensure equal access to services or address potential bias or discrimination in the provision of services? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
6. Does the service promote digital literacy, skills development or capacity building among users, stakeholders, or the wider community? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
7a. Has the BM established a way of assessing, monitoring, reporting, or mitigating social impacts to ensure positive social outcomes and mitigate any negative social impacts? 1 | −1/+1 |
7b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of assessment, monitoring, reporting, or mitigating social impacts in the implementation phase, compared to the one specified in the BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
7c. Is there actually regular assessment, monitoring, reporting or mitigation of social impacts? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
8a. Has the BM established a way to integrate social aspects into the design, development, or operation of the service, including elements such as accessibility features for people with disabilities, measures to promote social justice or strategies to promote community involvement? 1 | −1/+1 |
8b. Was it necessary to change/use a different way of integrating social aspects in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
8c. Are social aspects effectively integrated into the design, development, and operation of the service? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
9a. Has the BM established a way of working with relevant social organisations, experts, or stakeholders to ensure that social impacts are properly assessed, addressed, or maximised? 1 | −1/+1 |
9b. Was it necessary to change/use a different method of cooperation in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
9c. Are the outputs of this cooperation integrated into the overall BM or social impact plan of the services? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
10a. Has the BM established a way to integrate social aspects into the user experience, user interface or service user engagement strategies? 1 | −1/+1 |
10b. Was it necessary to change/use a different way of integrating social aspects in the implementation phase, compared to the one stipulated in BM? 2 | −1/+1 |
10c. Are social aspects effectively integrated into the user experience, user interface or user engagement strategies of the service? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
11a. Measurable criteria, (evaluative) threshold values, or KPI for achieved social positive/negative impacts? 1 | −1/+1 |
11b. If so, to what extent were the measurable criteria, (evaluative) threshold values, or KPI achieved during retrospective evaluation? 4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 |
12a. Have potential social risks, vulnerabilities, or uncertainties, including those related to privacy, security, ethics, or social justice, been considered in the BM? 1 | −1/+1 |
12b. Are there (have been) any risks, vulnerabilities or uncertainties related to social impacts for which no suitable solution has been proposed and the service provided cannot (couldn’t) overcome them? 2 | −1/+1 |
13. Was (Is) the service implemented and operated in accordance with relevant social regulations, standards, or best practices? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
14. Is the service consistent with wider social goals, policies, or strategies of local, regional or national governments? 3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 |
References
- Hall, P. Creative cities and economic development. Urban Stud. 2000, 37, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmisano, S.J. Building a Smarter Planet, City by City; IBM: Armonk, NY, USA, 2010; Available online: https://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smarter_cities/article/shanghai_keynote.html (accessed on 1 August 2024).
- Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Meijers, E. City-ranking of European medium-sized cities. Cent. Reg. Sci. Vienna UT 2007, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez-Anez, V.; Fernández-Güell, J.M.; Giffinger, R. Smart City implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna. Cities 2018, 78, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasova, K.; Stofkova, K. E-government as a quality improvement tool for citizens’ services. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in Europe. In Creating Smarter Cities; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 65–82. [Google Scholar]
- Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Orús, C. City attachment and use of urban services: Benefits for smart cities. Cities 2016, 50, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 31, 183–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Lam, P.T. An evaluation of ICT benefits enhancing walkability in a smart city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 215, 104227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjørner, T. The advantages of and barriers to being smart in a smart city: The perceptions of project managers within a smart city cluster project in Greater Copenhagen. Cities 2021, 114, 103187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dameri, R.P.; Dameri, R.P. Smart city definition, goals and performance. Smart City Implement. Creat. Econ. Public Value Innov. Urban Syst. 2017, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Y. Impact of smart city planning and construction on economic and social benefits based on big data analysis. Complexity 2020, 2020, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strenitzerova, M.; Stalmachova, K. Customer requirements for urban public transport mobile application. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kováčiková, K.; Novák, A.; Kováčiková, M.; Sedláčková, A.N. Smart parking as a part of Smart airport concept. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 65, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckhoff, D.; Wagner, I. Privacy in the smart city—Applications, technologies, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 20, 489–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loučanová, E.; Šupín, M.; Čorejová, T.; Repková-Štofková, K.; Šupínová, M.; Štofková, Z.; Olšiaková, M. Sustainability and branding: An integrated perspective of eco-innovation and brand. Sustainability 2021, 13, 732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Townsend, A.M. Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia; WW Norton and Company: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Seo, J. Cyber attack scenarios on smart city and their ripple effects. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon), Jeju, Republic of Korea, 28–30 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Apostu, S.A.; Vasile, V.; Vasile, R.; Rosak-Szyrocka, J. Do Smart Cities Represent the Key to Urban Resilience? Rethinking Urban Resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivera, M.B.; Eriksson, E.; Wangel, J. ICT practices in smart sustainable cities-in the intersection of technological solutions and practices of everyday life. In EnviroInfo and CT for Sustainability 2015; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 317–324. [Google Scholar]
- McCord, C.; Becker, C. Sidewalk and Toronto: Critical systems heuristics and the Smart City. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1906.02266. [Google Scholar]
- Mergel, I.; Edelmann, N.; Haug, N. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 101385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraci, F.; Errigo, M.F.; Fazia, C.; Campisi, T.; Castelli, F. Cities under pressure: Strategies and tools to face climate change and pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čorejová, T.; Andrisková, I.; Al Kassiri, M. On the Spectrum Market Value as Production Factor for Smart Technologies. Procedia Eng. 2017, 187, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Repková Štofková, K.; Janošková, P. Analysis of Selected Smart Cities in the European Union. Int. J. Interdiscip. Theory Pract. 2021, 23, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
- Lytras, M.D.; Visvizi, A. Who uses smart city services and what to make of it: Toward interdisciplinary smart cities research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Bernarda, G.; Smith, A. Value Proposition Design: How to Create Products and Services Customers Want; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Liu, C.; Zhou, L.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; Sang, Z. Progress of Standardization of Urban Infrastructure in Smart City. Standards 2022, 2, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majerník, M.; Štofková, J.; Malega, P.; Barilová, B. Standardisation of the Social Responsibility System as a Tool for Business Sustainability. Qual. Innov. Prosper. 2022, 26, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walravens, N. The city as a platform. In Proceedings of the 2011 15th International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks, Berlin, Germany, 4–7 October 2011; pp. 283–288. [Google Scholar]
- Genzorova, T.; Corejova, T.; Stalmasekova, N. How digital transformation can influence business model, Case study for transport industry. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 40, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stalmachova, K.; Chinoracky, R.; Strenitzerova, M. Changes in business models caused by digital transformation and the COVID-19 pandemic and possibilities of their measurement—Case study. Sustainability 2021, 14, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loučanová, E.; Nosáľová, M. Eco-innovation performance in Slovakia: Assessment based on ABC analysis of eco-innovation indicators. BioResources 2020, 15, 5355–5365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loučanová, E.; Olšiaková, M.; Štofková, J. Open business model of eco-innovation for sustainability development: Implications for the open-innovation dynamics of slovakia. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walravens, N.; Ballon, P. Platform business models for smart cities: From control and value to governance and public value. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2013, 51, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Istyanto, N.P.; Nasrullah, M.; Fikri, M.A. Identification and Modeling of SI-LAUT: Information System for Indonesian Maritime Resources Using Penta-Helix Model. J. Inf. Syst. Inform. 2024, 6, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jompa, J.; Kadir, N.N.; Putri, A.P.; Moore, A.M. Opportunities for Strengthening the Indonesian Seaweed Penta-Helix Through Collaboration. In Tropical Phyconomy Coalition Development: Focus on Eucheumatoid Seaweeds; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 219–227. [Google Scholar]
- Anastuti, K.U.; Deka, R.E. Membangkitkan bisnis umkm melalui penta helix sebagai ekonomi progresif. J. Ilmu Manaj. (JIMMU) 2023, 8, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, M.; Baudier, P. Business model canvas acceptance among French entrepreneurship students: Principles for enhancing innovation artefacts in business education. J. Innov. Econ. Manag. 2017, 23, 159–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timeus, K.; Vinaixa, J.; Pardo-Bosch, F. Creating business models for smart cities: A practical framework. Public Manag. Rev. 2020, 22, 726–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timeus, K.; Vinaixa, J.; Pardo, F.; Ysa, T. Report on the business models of the lighthouse cities. Horizon 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Walravens, N. Mobile business and the smart city: Developing a business model framework to include public design parameters for mobile city services. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 7, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joyce, A.; Paquin, R.L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1474–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Business Model Foundry; Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Designing business models and similar strategic objects: The contribution of IS. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2013, 14, 237–244. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R.S. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind. Corp. Change 2002, 11, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stofkova, K.R.; Janoskova, P. Perception of the concept of smart city from the perspective of cities and municipalities of the Slovak Republic. SHS Web Conf. 2021, 129, 08018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinoracky, R.; Kurotova, J.; Janoskova, P. Measuring the impact of digital technologies on transport industry—Macroeconomic perspective. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Díaz, R.; Pérez-González, D. Implementation of social media concepts for e-government: Case study of a social media tool for value co-creation and citizen participation. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2016, 28, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, H.; Miah, S.J. Smart education literature: A theoretical analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 3299–3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosgrave, E.; Tryfonas, T.; Crick, T. The smart city from a public value perspective. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ICT for Sustainability, Stockholm, Sweden, 24–27 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz-Díaz, R.; Muñoz, L.; Pérez-González, D. Business model analysis of public services operating in the smart city ecosystem: The case of SmartSantander. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 76, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Díaz, R.; Muñoz, L.; Pérez-González, D. The business model evaluation tool for smart cities: Application to SmartSantander use cases. Energies 2017, 10, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Huang, R.; Wosinski, M. Smart Learning in Smart Cities; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 18–19. [Google Scholar]
- Quan, X.; Solheim, M.C.W. Public-private partnerships in smart cities: A critical survey and research agenda. City Cult. Soc. 2023, 32, 100491. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877916622000522 (accessed on 10 March 2023). [CrossRef]
- Calzada, I. Democratising smart cities? Penta-helix multistakeholder social innovation framework. Smart Cities 2020, 3, 1145–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blank, S. The Mission Model Canvas—An Adapted Business Model Canvas for Mission-Driven Organizations. 2016. Available online: https://steveblank.com/2016/02/23/the-mission-model-canvas-an-adapted-business-model-canvas-for-mission-driven-organizations/ (accessed on 21 October 2022).
- Walravens, N. Qualitative indicators for smart city business models: The case of mobile services and applications. Telecommun. Policy 2015, 39, 218–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballon, P. Business modelling revisited: The configuration of control and value. Info 2007, 9, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nenonen, S.; Storbacka, K. Business model design: Conceptualizing networked value co-creation. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2010, 2, 43–59. [Google Scholar]
- Stone, M.; Knapper, J.; Evans, G.; Aravopoulou, E. Information management in the smart city. Bottom Line 2018, 31, 234–249. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/BL-07-2018-0033/full/html (accessed on 20 November 2022). [CrossRef]
- Hanna, K.T. Public-Private Partnership. 2022. Available online: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/Public-private-partnership-PPP (accessed on 1 August 2024).
- Angelakoglou, K.; Nikolopoulos, N.; Giourka, P.; Svensson, I.-L.; Tsarchopoulos, P.; Tryferidis, A.; Tzovaras, D. A methodological framework for the selection of key performance indicators to assess smart city solutions. Smart Cities 2019, 2, 269–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiavone, F.; Paolone, F.; Mancini, D. Business model innovation for urban smartization. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 142, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirtz, B.W.; Langer, P.F. Public multichannel management—An integrated framework of off- and online multichannel government services. Public Organ. Rev. 2017, 17, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bencsik, B.; Palmié, M.; Parida, V.; Wincent, J.; Gassmann, O. Business models for digital sustainability: Framework, microfoundations of value capture, and empirical evidence from 130 smart city services. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 160, 113757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lechuga, A.G.; Robles, G.C.; Soto, K.C.A.; Ackerman, M.A.M. The integration of the business model canvas and the service blueprinting to assist the conceptual design of new product-service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 415, 137801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, T.; Severino, A.; Al-Rashid, M.A.; Pau, G. The development of the smart cities in the connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) era: From mobility patterns to scaling in cities. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012, 214, 481–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, B.N.; Khan, M.; Han, K. Integration of Big Data analytics embedded smart city architecture with RESTful web of things for efficient service provision and energy management. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 107, 975–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, T.; Akgün, N.; Ticali, D.; Tesoriere, G. Exploring Public Opinion on Personal Mobility Vehicle Use: A Case Study in Palermo, Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lourenço, V.; Mann, P.; Guimaraes, A.; Paes, A.; de Oliveira, D. Towards Safer (Smart) Cities: Discovering Urban Crime Patterns Using Logic-based Relational Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 8–13 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, M. Smart Technologies and Design for Healthy Built Environments; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Arena, F.; Pau, G.; Severino, A. V2X Communications Applied to Safety of Pedestrians and Vehicles. J. Sens. Actuator Networks 2019, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horrigan, J. Smart Cities and Digital Equity; National Digital Inclusion Alliance: Columbus, OH, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Strielkowski, W.; Veinbender, T.; Tvaronavičienė, M.; Lace, N. Economic efficiency and energy security of smart cities. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2020, 33, 788–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonetto, R.; Sychev, I.; Zhdanenko, O.; Abdelkader, A.; Fitzek, F.H. Smart Grids for Smarter Cities. In Proceedings of the IEEE 17th Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 10–13 January 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bohloul, S.M. Smart Cities: A Survey on New Developments, Trends, and Opportunities. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2020, 5, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, T.; Acampa, G.; Marino, G.; Tesoriere, G. Cycling Master Plans in Italy: The I-BIM Feasibility Tool for Cost and Safety Assessments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, F.; Prentice, C.; Wallis, J.; Patel, A.; Waxin, M.-F. An integrative study of the implications of the rise of coworking spaces in smart cities. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 8, 467–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Forrer, J.; Kee, J.E.; Newcomer, K.E.; Boyer, E. Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Adm. Rev. 2010, 70, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilsing, R.; Wilbik, A.; Grefen, P.; Turetken, O.; Ozkan, B.; Adali, O.E.; Berkers, F. Defining business model key performance indicators using intentional linguistic summaries. Softw. Syst. Model. 2021, 20, 965–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Athanasopoulou, A.; De Reuver, M. How do business model tools facilitate business model exploration? Evidence from action research. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elnasr, E.; Sobaih, A.; Ritchie, C.; Jones, E. Consulting the oracle? Applications of modified Delphi technique to qualitative research in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 886–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chráska, M. Základy Výzkumu v Pedagogice; VUP: Olomouc, Czech Republic, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Poeppelbuss, J.; Durst, C. Smart Service Canvas—A tool for analyzing and designing smart product-service systems. Procedia CIRP 2019, 83, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stalmašeková, N.; Genzorová, T.; Čorejová, T.; Gašperová, L. The impact of using the digital environment in transport. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paculík, D.; Papulová, Z. Low level of digitization and innovations in business models of companies in Slovakia. Poprad Econ. Manag. 2021, 536. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oliver-Schneider-8/publication/355203393_QUALITY_40_AN_OBSERVE_STUDY_OF_PREPAREDNESS_FACTORS_FOR_IMPLEMENTATION_INTO_ENTERPRISES/links/6167feaf3851f9599400d849/QUALITY-40-AN-OBSERVE-STUDY-OF-PREPAREDNESS-FACTORS-FOR-IMPLEMENTATION-INTO-ENTERPRISES.pdf#page=537 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
- Bertot, J.; Estevez, E.; Janowski, T. Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodson, E.; Vainio, T.; Sayún, M.N.; Tomitsch, M.; Jones, A.; Jalonen, M.; Börütecene, A.; Hasan, T.; Paraschivoiu, I.; Wolff, A.; et al. Evaluating social impact of smart city technologies and services: Methods, challenges, future directions. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2023, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Jaiswal, M.P. Classification of Smart City Research—A Descriptive Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 661–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanclay, F. Conceptualising social impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2002, 22, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trivellato, B. How Can ‘Smart’ Also Be Socially Sustainable? Insights from the Case of Milan. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2017, 24, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission; Directorate General for Energy. The Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS). In Energy Solutions for Smart Cities and Communities: Recommendations for Policy Makers from the 58 Pilots of the CONCERTO Initiative; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Specific Examples of the Smart City Concept | Characteristics | Authors |
---|---|---|
Cities with more effective decision-making based on big data | Advances in big data and connected devices have given cities access to previously unavailable information. It enables them to access and analyze vast amounts of information and easily derive meaningful and actionable insights, especially in high-risk environments. In particular, big data and the Internet of Things offer endless possibilities to enable stronger decision-making, which improves the lives of residents by reducing costs and improving services. | [67,68,69] |
Greater involvement of citizens and the government | Together with a bottom-up planning approach, these smart technologies help increase citizen engagement and trust in local government officials | [70] |
Safer communities | Various security devices can also provide complete monitoring of the health and safety of users or residents of cities and towns. | [71,72] |
Reduced environmental footprint | Various security devices can provide data to monitor air quality, ecological footprint, environment and identify the causes of pollution. | [63,73] |
Improvement of transport | Connected transport systems are meant to improve efficiency across the city. | [74] |
Greater digital equality | Smart city technology can create a fairer environment for citizens. | [75] |
New opportunities for economic development | By providing an open data platform with access to city information, businesses can make informed decisions by analyzing data from integrated smart city technologies. | [75] |
Effective public services | Smart technology networks enable two-way communication, help identify errors and increase efficiency. | [76,77] |
Improvement of infrastructure | When correlated with advanced design, Building Information Modeling, and city business models, smart technology can provide cities with predictive analytics to identify areas for development and better use and manage resources from the perspective of citizens. | [78] |
Increased workforce engagement | Implementing smart technologies helps reduce manual tasks. | [79] |
Research Questions | Number of Positively Evaluated Answers | Correlation Coefficient | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The most frequently used tool for creating a business model of public smart services is Business Model CANVAS | 98 | −0.8845 |
2 | Cities and municipalities need to evaluate the created business models of public smart services | 125 | −0.8375 |
Hypothesis H1 | |||
The need to evaluate the business models of public intelligence services increases the use of the business model of public intelligence services—the Business Model Canvas | |||
F-test | 0.8511 | ||
F critical value | 0.4160 | ||
Assessment of the normality of variables by F-test | The hypothesis of equality of variances is rejected | ||
Hypothesis testing t-Test for difference of variances | The test for unequal variances is valid | ||
Area minus | −1.9672 | ||
Area plus | 1.9672 | ||
t Stat | −1.5562 | ||
Hypothesis testing t-test for equality of variances | The hypothesis of equality of variances is accepted | ||
Pearson correlation coefficient | 0.8375 |
Blocks | Number of Evaluation Parameters/Sub-Parameters | Description | Parts | Appendix A |
---|---|---|---|---|
Setting the mission (goal) | 12 parameters/ 13 sub-parameters | Represents a clear definition of the goal public smart service. | Value proposition | Table A1 |
Value proposition | 13 parameters 22 sub-parameters | Describes the specific needs of network recipients. | Table A2 | |
Data | 15 parameters 38 sub-parameters | Deals with the analysis of what data is necessary for the provision of the service. | Table A3 | |
Network beneficiaries | 5 parameters 14 sub-parameters | Defines who will directly benefit from the value proposition. | Providing value | Table A4 |
Deployment channels | 14 parameters 35 sub-parameters | Solves the technological basis needed for the provision of public smart services. | Table A5 | |
Key actors | 9 parameters 26 sub-parameters | Identification of stakeholders who offer the best opportunities to access multiple resources necessary for the proper provision of public smart services. | Creating value | Table A6 |
Key activities | 14 parameters 30 sub-parameters | Describes all activities that need to be implemented for the proper provision, operation, and maintenance of a public smart service. | Table A7 | |
Relations with actors | 9 parameters 16 sub-parameters | Describes the links between key actors for the provision of public smart services. | Table A8 | |
Offer of key actors | 15 parameters 22 sub-parameters | Describes what each actor can offer in the framework of joint creation. | Table A9 | |
Key actor co-creation operation | 13 parameters 25 sub-parameters | Describes what types of operations each key actor can potentially provide. | Table A10 | |
Key resources and infrastructure | 16 parameters 28 sub-parameters | Describes what resources are necessary for the proper provision of a public smart service. | Table A11 | |
Budget costs | 15 parameters 25 sub-parameters | The budget cost building block mainly refers to the economic costs that will be incurred during the implementation of public smart services. | Triple bottom line | Table A12 |
Revenue stream | 13 parameters 27 sub-parameters | Describes all revenue streams associated with public smart services, including pricing strategies, user fees, revenue models, advertising, sponsorship, or other revenue generation mechanisms. | Table A13 | |
Environmental impacts | 14 parameters 29 sub-parameters | Mainly focused on comparing how the planned strategy will generate more environmental benefits than negative impacts. | Table A14 | |
Social impacts | 14 parameters 29 sub-parameters | It describes the impacts, both positive and negative, that a public smart service can have on residents and communities. | Table A15 |
Index | Evaluation | Description |
---|---|---|
1 | −1/+1 | (−1 if the answer is no; +1 if the answer is yes) |
2 | −1/+1 | (−1 if the answer is yes; +1 if the answer is no) |
3 | −2/−1/0/+1/+2 | (−2 no; −1 rather no; 0 medium value/can’t judge; +1 rather yes; +2 yes) |
4 | −3/−2/−1/0/+1 | (−3 for/at less than 25%; −2 for/at 25% to 49%; −1 for/at 50% to 74%; 0 for/at 75% to 89%; +1 for/at 90% up to 100%) |
5 | −1/0/+1 | (−1 if the answer is no; 0 if the question is not relevant (for example, the service is not an alternative to the current service or there was no need to perform the given action); +1 if the answer is yes) |
6 | −1/0/+1 | (−1 if the answer is yes; 0 if the question is not relevant (for example, the service is not an alternative to the current service or there was no need to perform the given action); +1 if the answer is no) |
7 | −4/−3/−2/−1/0/ +1/+2/+3/+4 | (−4 if the service is used 75% to 100% less than the current alternative; −3 for 50% to 74%; −2 for 25% to 49%; −1 for less than 25%; 0 if the service has no current alternative; +1 if it is used 1% to 24% more; +2 for 25% to 49%; +3 for 50% to 74%; +4 for 75% to 100%) |
8 | −1/0 | (−1 if the answer is no; 0 if the answer is yes) |
9 | −1/0/+1 | (−1 if the answer is lower/less; 0 if the answer is the same; +1 if the answer is higher/more) |
10 | −1/0/+1 | (−1 if the answer is greater; 0 if the answer is the same; +1 if the answer is less) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Janošková, P.; Bajza, F.; Repková-Štofková, K.; Štofková, Z.; Loučanová, E. Business Models of Public Smart Services for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177420
Janošková P, Bajza F, Repková-Štofková K, Štofková Z, Loučanová E. Business Models of Public Smart Services for Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177420
Chicago/Turabian StyleJanošková, Patrícia, Filip Bajza, Katarína Repková-Štofková, Zuzana Štofková, and Erika Loučanová. 2024. "Business Models of Public Smart Services for Sustainable Development" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177420