Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why are Rankings of ‘Smart Cities’ Lacking? An Analysis of Two Decades of e-Government Benchmarking

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems (EMCIS 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 402))

Abstract

This paper aims to discuss current approaches to smart city rankings following the main thesis that two decades of e-government benchmarking should be used as a source of inspiration on how to evaluate smart government. We use critical analysis of selected smart-city and two major e-government rankings for this purpose. As our findings show, smart city rankings are lacking for several reasons: there is no consensus on what a smart city is, there are no defined development stages, smart city rankings tend to use quantity indicators or concentrate on the supply-side, and they often suffer from dimension or company biases and often lack methodological transparency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jaeger, P.T.: The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon. Gov. Inf. Q. 20(4), 323–331 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Echeverria, J., Unceta, A.: Citizenship and participation in the European Electronic space. Arbor-Ciencia Pensam. Y Cult. 188(756), 725–732 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., Zotou, M., Tarabanis, K.: Evaluating eParticipation sophistication of regional authorities websites: the case of Greece and Spain. In: Electronic Participation: Proceedings of the 1st IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2009, vol. 5694. Linz, Austria, pp. 67–77, 07 December 2009

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bwalya, K.J., Mutula, S.M.: E-government: Implementation, Adoption and Synthesis in Developing Countries. Degruyter, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bremer, E.S.: Incorporation by reference in an open-government age. Harv. J. Law Publ. Policy 36(1), 131–210 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lemieux, V.L., Trapnell, S.E., Worker, J., Excell, C.: Transparency and open government: reporting on the disclosure of information. In: 5th Conference on E-Democracy Open Government (CeDEM 2015), vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 75–93, June 2015

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ho, A., Bender, K., Steenson, J., Roche, E.: Big data and local performance management: the experience of Kansas City, Missouri. In: Chen, Y.-C., Ahn, M.J. (eds.) Routledge Handbook on Information Technology in Government, pp. 95–107. Routledge, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Whitmore, A.: A statistical analysis of the construction of the United Nations e-Government development index. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(1), 68–75 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Waksberg-Guerrini, A., Aibar, E.: Towards a network government? A Critical Analysis of current assessment methods for e-government. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 330–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Baker, D.L.: Advancing e-government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks. Gov. Inf. Q. 26(1), 82–88 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T.: User-centered e-government: challenges and benefits for government Web sites. Gov. Inf. Q. 23(2), 163–168 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., Meijers, E.: Smart cities: ranking of European medium-sized cities, Vienna (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee, J., Lee, H.: Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(S1), S93–S105 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Papa, R., Galderisi, A., Vigo Majello, M.C., Saretta, E.: Smart and resilient cities a systemic approach for developing cross-sectoral strategies in the face of climate change. Tema-J. L. Use Mobil. Environ. 8(1), 19–49 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vázquez, D.G., Gil, M.T.N.: Sustainability in smart cities: the case of Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain) – a commitment to a new urban paradigm. In: Carvalho, L.C. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Development and Innovation Within Smart Cities, pp. 248–268. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernardino, S., Santos, J.F.: Building smarter cities through social entrepreneurship. In: Carvalho, L.C. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Development and Innovation Within Smart Cities, pp. 327–362. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Andersen, K.V., Henriksen, H.Z.: E-government maturity models: extension of the Layne and Lee model. Gov. Inf. Q. 23(2), 236–248 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lemke, F., Taveter, K., Erlenheim, R., Pappel, I., Draheim, D., Janssen, M.: Stage models for moving from e-government to smart government. In: Chugunov, A., Khodachek, I., Misnikov, Y., Trutnev, D. (eds.) EGOSE 2019. CCIS, vol. 1135, pp. 152–164. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39296-3_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Schellong, A.R.M.: Benchmarking EU e-government at the crossroads: a framework for e-government benchmark design and improvement. Transform. Gov. People, Process Policy 4(4), 365–385 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jovanovska, M.B.: Demarcation of the field of e-government assessment. Transylvanian Rev. Adm. Sci. (48), 19–36 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Young-Jin, S., Seang-tae, K.: e-Government concepts, measures, and best practices. In: Al-Hakim, L. (ed.) Global e-Government: Theory, Applications and Benchmarking, pp. 340–369. Idea Group Inc., Hershey (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Skargren, F.: What is the point of benchmarking e-government? An integrative and critical literature review on the phenomenon of benchmarking e-government. Inf. Polity 25, 67–89 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Janowski, T., Durkiewicz, J.: Towards synthetic and balanced digital government benchmarking. In: HICCS (2020). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/64000. Accessed 30 June 2020

  24. Potnis, D.D., Pardo, T.A.: Mapping the evolution of e-Readiness assessments. Transform. Gov. People, Process Policy 5(4), 345–363 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kunstelj, M., Jukić, T., Vintar, M.: Analysing the demand side of e-government: what can we learn from Slovenian users? In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 305–317. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Magoutas, B., Halaris, C., Mentzas, G.: An ontology for the multi-perspective evaluation of quality in e-government services. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 318–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Jansen, A., Ølnes, S.: Benchmarking eGovernment quality: whose quality are we measuring? In: Electronic Government and Electronic Participation: Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP WG 8.5 EGOV and ePart 2013, vol. 221. Koblenz, Germany, pp. 43–53 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Siskos, E., Malafekas, M., Askounis, D., Psarras, J.: e-Government benchmarking in European Union: a multicriteria extreme ranking approach. In: Collaborative, Trusted and Privacy-Aware e/m-Services. 12th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, pp. 338–348 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gonçalo P.D.: Policy matters? An analysis of outliers in the UN e-Government index. In: ECDG 2019 19th European Conference on Digital Government, pp. 10–18 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Das, A., Singh, H., Joseph, D.: A longitudinal study of e-government maturity. In: 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2011), pp. 1–12 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Máchová, R., Lněnička, M.: Reframing e-government development indices with respect to new trends in ICT. Rev. Econ. Perspect. 15(4), 383–411 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wahid, J.A., Shi, L., Saleem, K.: Incorporation of social media indicator in e-government index. In: 5th International Conference on Communication and Information Processing, pp. 201–209 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tassabehji, R., Hackney, R., Maruyama, T.: Evaluating digital public services: a contingency value approach within three exemplar developing countries. Inf. Technol. People 32(4), 1021–1043 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Janssen, M., van Veenstra, A.F.: Stages of growth in e-government: an architectural approach. Electron. J. e-Gov. 3(4), 193–200 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Boulos, M.N.K., Tsouros, A.D., Holopainen, A.: ‘Social, innovative and smart cities are happy and resilient’: insights from the WHO EURO 2014 International Healthy Cities Conference. Int. J. Health Geogr. 14 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L.: City indicators on social sustainability as standardization technologies for smarter (citizen-centered) governance of cities. Soc. Indic. Res. 128(3), 1193–1216 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Maheshwari, D., Janssen, M.: Reconceptualizing measuring, benchmarking for improving interoperability in smart ecosystems: the effect of ubiquitous data and crowdsourcing. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(S1), S84–S92 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jurevičienė, D., Biekšaitė, A.: Valuation of Lithuanian cities’s smartness. Econ. Cult. 17(1), 104–115 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Noori, N., De Jong, M., Hoppe, T.: Towards an integrated framework to measure smart city readiness: the case of Iranian cities. Smart Cities 3, 676–703 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Anthopoulos, L., Janssen, M., Weerakkody, V.: A Unified Smart City Model (USCM) for smart city conceptualization and benchmarking. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 12(2), 77–93 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Batlle-Montserrat, J., Blat, J., Abadal, E.: Local e-government benchlearning: impact analysis and applicability to smart cities benchmarking. Inf. Polity 21(1), 43–59 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Top 50 Smart City Governments. Eden Strategy Institute, ONG&ONG Pte Ltd. (2018). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3c517fec4eb767a04e73ff/t/5b513c57aa4a99f62d168e60/1532050650562/Eden-OXD_Top+50+Smart+City+Governments.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2019

  43. Hales, M., Pena, A.M., Peterson, E., Dessibourg-Freer, N.: A question of talent: how human capital will determine the next global leaders. 2019 Global Cities Report. ATKearney (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Bris, A., Chee, C.H., Lanvin, B.: Sart city index (2019). https://www.imd.org/globalassets/wcc/docs/smart_city/smart_city_index_digital.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019

  45. Bris, A., Chee, C.H., Lanvin, B.: Smart city index methodology (2019). https://www.imd.org/globalassets/wcc/docs/smart_city/smart_city_index_methodology_and_groups.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2019

  46. Batten, J.: Citizen centric cities. the sustainable cities index 2018. Arcadis (2018). https://www.arcadis.com/media/1/D/5/%7B1D5AE7E2-A348-4B6E-B1D7-6D94FA7D7567%7DSustainable_Cities_Index_2018_Arcadis.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2019

  47. Smart Cities Index 2019. EasyPark Group (2019). https://www.easyparkgroup.com/smart-cities-index/. Accessed 05 May 2019

  48. Berrone, P., Ricart, J.E.: IESE cities in motion index (2019). https://media.iese.edu/research/pdfs/ST-0509-E.pdf. Accessed 07 Dec 2019

  49. Holzer, M., Manoharan, A.P., Melitski, J., Moon, M.J.: Global E-Government Survey (2018-19). National Center for Public Performance, Boston (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Obi, T., Iwasaki, N.: A Decade of World e-Government Rankings. IOS Press BV, Amsterdam (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wauters, P., Kerschot, H.: Web-based survey on electronic public services: results of the second measurement: April 2002. Summary report. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (2002). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 Jun 2020

  52. van der Linden, N., eGovernment benchmark 2019: empowering europeans through trusted digital public services. Background report. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, and Politecnico di Milano (2019). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  53. Wauters, P., Colclough, G.: On-line availability of public services: how is Europe progressing? Web based survey on electronic public services. In: Report of the 6th Measurement. Capgemini (2006). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  54. eEurope - an information society for all. European Commission, COM(1999) 687 final (1999). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:l24221&from=EN. Accessed 15 June 2020

  55. Koussouris, S., Charalabidis, Y., Gionis, G., Tsitsanis, T., Psarras, J.: Building a local administration services portal for citizens and businesses: service composition, architecture and back-office interoperability issues. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 80–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  56. Wauters, P.: Benchmarking e-government policy within the e-Europe programme. Aslib Proc. 58(5), 389–403 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bavec, C., Vintar, M.: What matters in the development of the e-government in the EU? In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å. (eds.) EGOV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4656, pp. 424–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74444-3_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment. European Commission, COM(2005) 229 final (2005). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0229&from=EN. Accessed 15 June 2020

  59. Wauters, P., Nijskens, M., Tiebout, J.: The user challenge benchmarking the supply of online public services 7th measurement. Capgemini (2007). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  60. Colclough, G., Tinholt, D.: Smarter, faster, better egovernment. 8th benchmark measurement. CAPGEMINI, RAND EUROPE, IDC, SOGETI AND DTI (2009). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  61. Codagnone, C.: Benchmarking on-line public services. To develop and improve the eGovernment indicators, second year contract: final report. RSO SPA, IDC Italy (2008). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  62. Colclough, G., Tinholt, D., Lörincz, B.: Digitizing public services in Europe: putting ambition into action. 9th benchmark measurement. Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi (2010). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  63. Tinholt, D., van der Linden, N.: Delivering the European advantage? ‘How European governments can and should benefit from innovative public services’. Final Background Report. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, IS-practice (2014). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  64. Tinholt, D., van der Linden, N.: Public services online ‘digital by default or by detour?’ Assessing user centric eGovernment performance in Europe – eGovernment benchmark 2012. Final insight report. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti (2012). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  65. Tinholt, D., Lörincz, B.: 2011 eGovernment benchmark pilot on open government and transparency measuring the potential of eGovernment to foster open government and transparency in Europe. Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi (2011). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  66. van der Linden, N., Tinholt, D.: eGovernment benchmark 2017. Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in Europe. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, and Politecnico di Milano (2017). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  67. Tinholt, D., van der Linden, N.: Future-proofing eGovernment for a digital single market. Final insight report. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, and Politecnico di Milano (2015). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  68. Tinholt, D., van der Linden, N.: eGovernment benchmark 2016. A turning point for eGovernment development in Europe? Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, and Politecnico di Milano (2016). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  69. van der Linden, N., Tinholt, D.: eGovernment benchmark 2018: securing eGovernment for all. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, and Politecnico di Milano (2018). https://administracionelectronica.gob.es/pae_Home/pae_OBSAE/Posicionamiento-Internacional/Comision_Europea_OBSAE/benchmark-egovernment.html. Accessed 15 June 2020

  70. Ronaghan, S.A.: Benchmarking e-Government: a global perspective. United Nations, Division for Public Economics and Public Administration (2002). https://publicadministration.un.org/en/research/un-e-government-surveys. Accessed 30 June 2020

  71. Bertucci, G., Hafeez, S.: UN global e-Government survey 2003. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2003). https://publicadministration.un.org/en/research/un-e-government-surveys. Accessed 30 June 2020

  72. Bertucci, G., Hafeez, S.: UN global e-Government readiness report 2004. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2004). https://publicadministration.un.org/en/research/un-e-government-surveys. Accessed 30 June 2020

  73. Bertucci, G., Hafeez, S.: UN global e-Government readiness report 2005. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2005). https://publicadministration.un.org/en/research/un-e-government-surveys. Accessed 30 June 2020

  74. Bertucci, G.: United Nations e-Government Survey 2008. United Nations, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Qian, H.: United Nations e-Government Survey 2010. United Nations, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Qian, H., Kauzya, J.-M., Aquaro, V.: United Nations e-Government Survey 2012. United Nations, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Qian, H., Aquaro, V.: United Nations e-Government Survey 2014. United Nations, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zhu, J., Barthélemy, M.: United Nations e-Government Survey 2016. United Nations, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Aquaro, V., Barthélemy, M., Schweinfest, S.: United Nations e-Government Survey 2018. United Nations, New York (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Aquaro, V.: e-Government Survey 2020 Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Mora, L., Angelidou, M., Reid, A.: The current status of smart city research: exposing the division. In: Komninos, N., Kakderi, C. (eds.) Smart Cities in the Post-Algorithmic Era, pp. 17–35. Edward Elgar Pub. (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Barth, J., et al.: Informational urbanism. a conceptual framework of smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-50), Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, USA, pp. 2814–2823 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Albino, V., Dangelico, R.M., Berardi, U.: Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 22(1), 3–21 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Anthopoulos, L.G.: The rise of the smart city. In: Anthopoulos, L.G. (ed.) Understanding Smart Cities: A Tool for Smart Government or an Industrial Trick?, pp. 5–45. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57015-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Cohen, B.: The 3 generations of smart cities. Fast Company (2015). https://www.fastcompany.com/3047795/the-3-generations-of-smart-cities. Accessed 30 June 2020

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Journalism, Information and Book Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Mariusz Luterek

Authors
  1. Mariusz Luterek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariusz Luterek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digital Innovation, School of Business, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Marinos Themistocleous

  2. British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Maria Papadaki

  3. School of Strategy and Leadership, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Muhammad Mustafa Kamal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Luterek, M. (2020). Why are Rankings of ‘Smart Cities’ Lacking? An Analysis of Two Decades of e-Government Benchmarking. In: Themistocleous, M., Papadaki, M., Kamal, M.M. (eds) Information Systems. EMCIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 402. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63396-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63396-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-63395-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-63396-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation