Beyond standards and regulations: Obstacles to local open government data initiatives in Italy and France

Despite national and supranational directives and growing interest in the potential of data-driven analysis, the majority of local public administrations have failed to implement progressive open government data (OGD) agendas. The aim of this study was to collect anecdotal evidence about how local public administrations (PAs) in Italy and France have initiated OGD agendas, what difficulties they have encountered, and how they have tackled them. A literature review covering a wide range of legal, social and technical obstacles that hinder OGD agendas is combined with observations gleaned from 14 interviews about local OGD initiatives in Italy and France. While anecdotes are far from being a complete representation of reality, they may nuance our understanding of the dynamics involved in changing information management within public administrations. The study’s qualitative approach led to the emergence of three key results: the importance of cultural factors in organisational change; the need for further research about implementation costs, economic and social impact, and privacy issues; and the lack of efforts devoted to understanding the perspective of users

Enterprise Architecture Implementation Is a Bumpy Ride: A Case Study in the Norwegian Public Sector

Enterprise architecture (EA) is a widespread approach for the development of new digital solutions in a planned and controlled way for large and complex organisations. EA is also viewed as a prerequisite for the digitalisation of the public sector. However, public sector organisations struggle to implement EA programmes, and research has demonstrated that organisational and managerial issues are critical obstacles to EA implementation. This study aims to increase our understanding of EA implementation in the public sector by investigating the central challenges for EA initiatives and to trace the progress of current EA initiatives in the Norwegian public sector. An additional goal is to disclose some ways to improve the situation. We conducted three interpretive case studies in the hospital, higher education, and labour and welfare sectors. We have identified 28 challenges to the EA initiatives. We find that organisational and technical complexities, as well as a limited understanding of EA and lack of formal EA governance mechanisms, are significant obstacles. Among others, the lack of understanding of EA and its methodology will lead to problems with anchoring the EA approach in the organisation and facilitating the necessary EA arrangements to induce the promised benefits of EA, which are necessary requirements to establish the EA initiative’s legitimacy and foster the organisation’s willingness to implement change. Our study provides four lessons learned for planning and implementing EA initiatives, as follows: #1. It is advisable to take small steps. #2. The use of external consultants should be carefully considered. #3. Formal architectural governance mechanisms are important for legitimacy and enforced use. #4. Executive commitment and understanding of EA are crucial for achieving a sustainable EA initiative. Finally, we find a common evolution of the EA initiatives through the phases of optimism, resistance, decline and finally, reconsolidation of the most persistent ones.publishedVersio

Coordination for Policy in Transition Countries: Case of Croatia

The formulation and implementation of public policy depends on the coordination capacities. In recent decades the need for coordination has increased due to the fragmentation caused by NPM reforms, decentralisation processes, the proliferation of the cross-cutting issues, as well as increased globalisation, Europeanisation, and professionalization. The coordination problem in Croatian administration, similarly to other transition countries, is critically important but understudied. This paper is based on a preliminary research on coordination in Croatian public administration with regard to policy formulation and implementation of three policies – regional development policy, anticorruption policy and e-government policy, based on the interviews conducted with higher civil servants and public officials. A special emphasis is given to the role which various actors play in coordination, as well as the structures Government employs in order to coordinate. The research shows that the development of coordination instruments in Croatia suffers from inefficiencies and is greatly influenced by politically driven considerations

Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers

[EN] Nowadays, collaborative knowledge management (CKM) is well accepted as a decisive asset in the field of networked enterprises and supply chains. However, few knowledge management initiatives have been performed successfully because, in most cases, the barriers that hinder the CKM process are unknown and misunderstood. Currently, the research reveals different uni- and bi-dimensional barriers' classifications, however multi-dimensional approaches provide a better view of the complexity in the area of CKM. Therefore, this paper proposes the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers taking into account: (i) perspectives; (ii) levels and (iii) barriers blocks to provide a reference way to audit the CKM barriers, and thus, in further research, focus on the corrections and adjustments to guarantee the success while implementing a CKM project.Sanchis, R.; Sanchis Gisbert, MR.; Poler, R. (2020). Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers. Sustainability. 12(3):1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031279S125123Rajabion, L., Sataei Mokhtari, A., Khordehbinan, M. W., Zare, M., & Hassani, A. (2019). The role of knowledge sharing in supply chain success. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1222-1249. doi:10.1108/jedt-03-2019-0052Sanguankaew, P., & Vathanophas Ractham, V. (2019). Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018. Sustainability, 11(16), 4388. doi:10.3390/su11164388Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e‐government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548-567. doi:10.1108/17410390510624007Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746Yih‐Tong Sun, P., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90. doi:10.1108/13673270510590236Solli-Sæther, H., Karlsen, J. T., & van Oorschot, K. (2015). Strategic and Cultural Misalignment: Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Project Networks. Project Management Journal, 46(3), 49-60. doi:10.1002/pmj.21501Kukko, M. (2013). Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(1), 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2013.02.006Mazorodze, A. H., & Buckley, S. (2019). Knowledge management in knowledge-intensive organisations: Understanding its benefits, processes, infrastructure and barriers. SA Journal of Information Management, 21(1). doi:10.4102/sajim.v21i1.990Vuori, V., Helander, N., & Mäenpää, S. (2018). Network level knowledge sharing: Leveraging Riege’s model of knowledge barriers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(3), 253-263. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1557999Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115, 307-316. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.005General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda. (2001). Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045672Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. (2006). Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts, frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500103Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93-109. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131Brandt, D., & Hartmann, E. (1999). Editorial: Research topics and strategies in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 9(3), 241-243. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6564(199922)9:33.0.co;2-bKim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.xArgote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140-154. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.2.140Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016). A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1271-1292. doi:10.1002/job.2104Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative Alliances: Moving from Practice to Theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021886391271001Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 209-227. doi:10.1177/0021886391272004Scheff, J., & Kotler, P. (1996). Crisis in the Arts: The Marketing Response. California Management Review, 39(1), 28-52. doi:10.2307/41165875Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. doi:10.1086/210179Maitlo, A., Ameen, N., Peikari, H. R., & Shah, M. (2019). Preventing identity theft. Information Technology & People, 32(5), 1184-1214. doi:10.1108/itp-05-2018-0255Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M., & Turban, E. (2002). Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 163-176. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00142-7Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160. doi:10.1108/13673270910971897Yew Wong, K., & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-61. doi:10.1108/13673270410541033Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing for Requirement Engineeringhttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/28916Practical Tools and Methods for Corporate Knowledge Management—Sharing and Capitalising Engineering Know-How in the Concurrent Enterprisehttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-1999-12685Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 341-357. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.002Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2011). An experience‐based view of co‐opetition in R&D networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 136-154. doi:10.1108/14601061111124867Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2010). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1-2), 128-142. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.006McGaughey, S. L., Liesch, P. W., & Poulson, D. (2000). An unconventional approach to intellectual property protection: the case of an Australian firm transferring shipbuilding technologies to China. Journal of World Business, 35(1), 1-20. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(99)00031-0Ilvonen, I., & Vuori, V. (2013). Risks and benefits of knowledge sharing in co-opetitive knowledge networks. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 13(3), 209. doi:10.1504/ijnvo.2013.063049Martinez-Noya, A., Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2012). R&D Outsourcing and the Effectiveness of Intangible Investments: Is Proprietary Core Knowledge Walking out of the Door? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 67-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01086.xROSEN, B., FURST, S., & BLACKBURN, R. (2007). Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259-273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.007Hislop, D. (2005). The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 244-252. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500073Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2005). A culturally aware model of inter-organizational knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(3), 146-155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500064Balle, A. R., Steffen, M. O., Curado, C., & Oliveira, M. (2019). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in a science and technology park: the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2016-2038. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2018-0328Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management of risks in information technology projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 286-295. doi:10.1108/02635570410530702Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 138-148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095Solitander, M., & Tidström, A. (2010). Competitive flows of intellectual capital in value creating networks. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 23-38. doi:10.1108/14691931011013316Khamseh, H. M., & Jolly, D. (2014). Knowledge transfer in alliances: the moderating role of the alliance type. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(4), 409-420. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.63Corallo, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(4), 354-367. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.25Salvetat, D., Géraudel, M., & d’ Armagnac, S. (2013). Inter-organizational knowledge management in a coopetitive context in the aeronautic and space industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(3), 265-277. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.6Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 547-587. doi:10.1002/job.259Korbi, F. B., & Chouki, M. (2017). Knowledge transfer in international asymmetric alliances: the key role of translation, artifacts, and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1272-1291. doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2016-0501Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Slyke, D. M. V. (2001). Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372-388. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.372.10099Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39. doi:10.1177/002224298805200303Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The «real» success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9Santos, V. R., Soares, A. L., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2012). Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(1), 27-38. doi:10.1002/kpm.1379Tiwari, S. R. (2015). Knowledge Integration in Government-Industry Project Network. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), 11-21. doi:10.1002/kpm.1460Mariotti, F. (2007). Learning to share knowledge in the Italian motorsport industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(2), 81-94. doi:10.1002/kpm.275Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541-554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. den, Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123-144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00290.xKatz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.xGupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200004)21:43.0.co;2-iBarkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners Are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 845-864. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490122Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Enterprise Resilience Assessment—A Quantitative Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4327. doi:10.3390/su11164327Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (2010). The Impact of Organizational and National Cultural Differences on Social Conflict and Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00975.xRichards, D., Busch, P., & Venkitachalam, K. (2007). Ethnicity-based cultural differences in implicit managerial knowledge usage in three Australian organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 173-185. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500145Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (s. f.). Structure and Spontaneity: Knowledge and Organization. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, 44-67. doi:10.4135/9781446217573.n3Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of «Ba»: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. doi:10.2307/41165942Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2010). Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(3), 229-239. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.14Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2015). Information encountering on social media and tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Information Science, 42(4), 539-550. doi:10.1177/0165551515598883Bisbal, J., Lawless, D., Bing Wu, & Grimson, J. (1999). Legacy information systems: issues and directions. IEEE Software, 16(5), 103-111. doi:10.1109/52.795108Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework. The Information Society, 18(1), 47-64. doi:10.1080/01972240252818225Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.016Sieber, J. E. (1988). Data sharing: Defining problems and seeking solutions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 199-206. doi:10.1007/bf01073128Pauleen, D. J., & Wang, W. Y. C. (2017). Does big data mean big knowledge? KM perspectives on big data and analytics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 1-6. doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2016-033

D3.2 Cost Concept Model and Gateway Specification

This document introduces a Framework supporting the implementation of a cost concept model against which current and future cost models for curating digital assets can be benchmarked. The value built into this cost concept model leverages the comprehensive engagement by the 4C project with various user communities and builds upon our understanding of the requirements, drivers, obstacles and objectives that various stakeholder groups have relating to digital curation. Ultimately, this concept model should provide a critical input to the development and refinement of cost models as well as helping to ensure that the curation and preservation solutions and services that will inevitably arise from the commercial sector as ‘supply’ respond to a much better understood ‘demand’ for cost-effective and relevant tools. To meet acknowledged gaps in current provision, a nested model of curation which addresses both costs and benefits is provided. The goal of this task was not to create a single, functionally implementable cost modelling application; but rather to design a model based on common concepts and to develop a generic gateway specification that can be used by future model developers, service and solution providers, and by researchers in follow-up research and development projects.<p></p> The Framework includes:<p></p> • A Cost Concept Model—which defines the core concepts that should be included in curation costs models;<p></p> • An Implementation Guide—for the cost concept model that provides guidance and proposes questions that should be considered when developing new cost models and refining existing cost models;<p></p> • A Gateway Specification Template—which provides standard metadata for each of the core cost concepts and is intended for use by future model developers, model users, and service and solution providers to promote interoperability;<p></p> • A Nested Model for Digital Curation—that visualises the core concepts, demonstrates how they interact and places them into context visually by linking them to A Cost and Benefit Model for Curation.<p></p> This Framework provides guidance for data collection and associated calculations in an operational context but will also provide a critical foundation for more strategic thinking around curation such as the Economic Sustainability Reference Model (ESRM).<p></p> Where appropriate, definitions of terms are provided, recommendations are made, and examples from existing models are used to illustrate the principles of the framework

The Beginnings and Prospective Ending of “End-to-End”: An Evolutionary Perspective On the Internet’s Architecture

The technology of “the Internet” is not static. Although its “end-to- end” architecture has made this “connection-less” communications system readily “extensible,” and highly encouraging to innovation both in hardware and software applications, there are strong pressures for engineering changes. Some of these are wanted to support novel transport services (e.g. voice telephony, real-time video); others would address drawbacks that appeared with opening of the Internet to public and commercial traffic - e.g., the difficulties of blocking delivery of offensive content, suppressing malicious actions (e.g. “denial of service” attacks), pricing bandwidth usage to reduce congestion. The expected gains from making “improvements” in the core of the network should be weighed against the loss of the social and economic benefits that derive from the “end-to-end” architectural design. Even where technological “fixes” can be placed at the networks’ edges, the option remains to search for alternative, institutional mechanisms of governing conduct in cyberspace.

Application of Lifetime Electronic Health Records: Are we ready yet?

Integrated care concepts can help to diminish demographic challenges. Therefore, the use of eHealth solutions is recognised as an efficient approach. Lifetime electronic health records (LEHRs) are expected to increase continuity, effectiveness, efficiency and thus quality of the care process. With respect to these benefits, an overarching implementation of LEHRs is desirable but non-existent. Hence, the aim of the article is to analyse the current LEHR implementation readiness of EU member states to derive implications for further LEHR research and development. Therefore, a case study on Denmark, Germany and Italy was conducted. The analysis shows that all countries fulfil the technical requirements but Denmark has great experiences and willingness to implement advanced eHealth measures like LEHRs. First Italian pilot projects are quite promising as well. The article paves the way for LEHR implementation and there with for integrated care

Enhancing Enterprise Resilience through Enterprise Collaboration

Current environments, characterised by turbulent changes and unforeseen events, consider resilience as a decisive aspect for enterprises to create advantages over less adaptive competitors. Furthermore, the consideration of establishing collaborative processes among partners of the same network is a key issue to help enterprises to deal with changeable environments. In this paper both concepts, resilience and collaborative processes establishment, are associated in order to help organisations to handle disruptive events. The research objective is to identify collaborative processes whose positive influences assist enterprises against disruptions, reducing the effects of disturbances in dynamic environments.Andres, B.; Poler R. (2013). Enhancing Enterprise Resilience through Enterprise Collaboration. IFAC papers online. 7(1):688-693. doi:10.3182/20130619-3-RU-3018.00283S6886937

DIGISER. Digital Innovation in Governance and Public Service Provision

Digital Innovation Challenges In view of the increasingly intense pressures on the public sector to address the challenges of our time, governments and other public entities are gradually adopting digital innovation, seeking to promote quality public services. Digital technologies and capabilities create opportunities to re-organise public service inno- vation and delivery in ways that reduce cost and increase quality, proactiveness and citizen-centricity. Multilevel governance, networks and other collaboration systems (at local, regional, national and interna- tional level) are gaining importance as key drivers of this process of digital innovation and transformation. The link to the innovation ecosystem, including all sectors of activity, both private and public (e.g., academia, industry, business, citizens and governments) appears as fundamental in all phases of the creation, devel- opment, implementation and maintenance of public services and policy making. Information and communi- cation technologies are conceived as essential elements to support the creation and sustainability of these collaboration processes. In an era in which information gains relevance in the management of the territory and allows new power relations, the expectations of citizens are increasingly demanding and specific. Considering the develop- ments of recent years, such as the economic, social and health crises, the pressure placed on the resolution of global challenges is progressively transferred to the scope of cities. There are several elements that con- tribute to the importance of cities in the digital innovation transformation process namely buying- power, being closer to citizens and being able to work across different sectors. In fact, urban territories increasingly represent a greater number of citizens - in Europe, for example, they correspond to 75% of the population - have greater autonomy in management, worldwide they contribute to 80% of the global GDP and have the potential to provide a major contribution to the resolution of global challenges. The balance between change (promoted by the digital innovation strategies) and stability (driven by organi- sational inertia) needs to be handled carefully. The transformation process has to be based on a long-term strategy and to occur in a sustainable way, by focusing on learning experiences and knowledge and tech- nology transfer, while being sensitive to the local context to ensure improvement. At the European level, the Digital Transition has been considered a main goal for the next decade. The EU launched the European Green Deal and Europe Fit for the Digital Age, a twin initiative, which links green and digital transition. The vision for the EU ́s digital decade is reflected in the Digital Compass 2030 and includes 4 cardinal points: skills, government, infrastructure and Business. With the aim of having 100% of the key public services online by 2030, the digital compass ensures that digital will contribute in a positive way to improve citizens quality of life while reducing the resources spent. To support this vision, and by understanding the importance of community-led data-driven solutions and the potential of collaborative ap- proaches, several initiatives are being implemented. The Living-in.EU movement, for example, points out the European Way’ where multi-level governance and co-creation processes support the development of a cohesive digital Europe in the path towards digital transition. Another initiative contributing to this strategy is promoted by Open & Agile Smart Cities which is connecting cities through Minimal Interoperability Mech- anisms (MIMs) - “a set of practical capabilities based on open technical specifications that allow cities and communities to replicate and scale solutions globally”. The MIMs contribute to the creation of the European Single Market by providing a common technical ground for the procurement and deployment of urban data platforms and end-to-end solutions in cities