Open Access
Issue
ITM Web Conf.
Volume 38, 2021
International Conference on Exploring Service Science (IESS 2.1)
Article Number 02006
Number of page(s) 9
Section Conference Papers
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20213802006
Published online 07 May 2021
  1. J. B. Bullock, “Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy,” Am. Rev. Public Adm., vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 751–761, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. P. A. Busch and H. Z. Henriksen, “Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion,” Inf. Polity, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3–28, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. J. E. Fountain, Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  4. E. Barry and F. Bannister, “Barriers to open data release: A view from the top,” Inf. Polity, vol. 19, no. 1, 2, pp. 129–152, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. J. B. Bullock, R. A. Greer, and L. J. O’Toole Jr., “Managing risks in public organizations: A conceptual foundation and research agenda,” Perspect. Public Manag. Gov., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 75–87, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. H. Chesbrough and J. Spohrer, “A research manifesto for services science,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 35–40, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ng, R. Maull, and L. Smith, “Embedding the new discipline of service science,” in The science of service systems, Springer, 2011, pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
  8. K. A. Lyons, “Service Science in iSchools,” 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Tidd and F. M. Hull, Service innovation: Organizational responses to technological opportunities and market imperatives, vol. 9. World Scientific, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  10. H. De Vries, V. Bekkers, and L. Tummers, “Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda,” Public Adm., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 146–166, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  11. E. M. Rogers, U. E. Medina, M. A. Rivera, and C. J. Wiley, “Complex adaptive systems and the diffusion of innovations,” Innov. J. Public Sect. Innov. J., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–26, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. S. Borins, “Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 498–507, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  13. L. Brown and S. P. Osborne, “Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 186–208, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. R. L. Ackoff, “From data to wisdom,” J. Appl. Syst. Anal., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–9, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  15. J. Rowley, “The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 163–180, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  16. M. Jakobsen, O. James, D. Moynihan, and T. Nabatchi, JPART virtual issue on citizen-state interactions in public administration research. Oxford University Press US, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. T. Nabatchi, “Putting the ‘public’ back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 699–708, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Piotrowski, S. Grimmelikhuijsen, and F. Deat, “Numbers over narratives? How government message strategies affect citizens’ attitudes,” Public Perform. Manag. Rev., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1005–1028, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. F. Damanpour, “Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators,” Acad. Manage. J., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 555–590, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  20. R. M. Walker, “An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework,” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 591–615, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  21. R. A. Posner, “From the new institutional economics to organization economics: with applications to corporate governance, government agencies, and legal institutions,” J. Institutional Econ., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  22. J. R. Gil-Garcia, “Towards a smart State? Inter-agency collaboration, information integration, and beyond,” Inf. Polity, vol. 17, no. 3, 4, pp. 269–280, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  23. Peled, “Coerce, consent, and coax: A review of US congressional efforts to improve Federal Counterterrorism Information Sharing,” Terror. Polit. Violence, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 674–691, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. J. Lee, “Determinants of government bureaucrats’ new PMIS adoption: The role of organizational power, IT capability, administrative role, and attitude,” Am. Rev. Public Adm., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 180–202, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  25. H. Margetts and P. Dunleavy, “The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., vol. 371, no. 1987, p. 20120382, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. D. M. West, Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton University Press, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  27. J. Fishenden and M. Thompson, “Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: why public sector IT will never be the same again,” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 977–1004, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  28. P. Dunleavy, H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler, “New public management is dead— long live digital-era governance,” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 467–494, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  29. S. G. Grimmelikhuijsen and M. K. Feeney, “Developing and testing an integrative framework for open government adoption in local governments,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 579–590, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. J. N. Baldwin, R. Gauld, and S. Goldfinch, “What public servants really think of e-government,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 105–127, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  31. S. S. Dawes, “Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 377–383, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  32. S. Kim and J. Lee, “E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 819–828, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  33. J. A. Musso and C. Weare, “Implementing electronic notification in Los Angeles: citizen participation politics by other means,” Int. J. Public Adm., vol. 28, no. 7-8, pp. 599–620, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  34. C. J. Tolbert and K. Mossberger, “The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 354–369, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  35. M. Petychakis, O. Vasileiou, C. Georgis, S. Mouzakitis, and J. Psarras, “A state-of-the-art analysis of the current public data landscape from a functional, semantic and technical perspective,” J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 34–47, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. J. Thorsby, G. N. Stowers, K. Wolslegel, and E. Tumbuan, “Understanding the content and features of open data portals in American cities,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 53–61, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zuiderwijk and M. Janssen, “Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison,” Gov. Inf. Q., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 17–29, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  38. T. Nam, “Challenges and concerns of open government: A case of government 3.0 in Korea,” Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 556–570, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Williams, “On the release of information by governments: Causes and consequences,” J. Dev. Econ., vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 124–138, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  40. S. Grimmelikhuijsen, “Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust?,” Inf. Polity, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 173–186, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. S. Wang and M. K. Feeney, “Determinants of information and communication technology adoption in municipalities,” Am. Rev. Public Adm., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 292–313, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. L. Wood, P. Bernt, and C. Ting, “Implementing public utility commission web sites: Targeting audiences, missing opportunities,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 753–763, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  43. F. Damanpour and M. Schneider, “Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers,” J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 495–522, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. K. J. Klein and J. S. Sorra, “The challenge of innovation implementation,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1055–1080, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  45. H. De Vries, L. Tummers, and V. Bekkers, “The diffusion and adoption of public sector innovations: A meta-synthesis of the literature,” Perspect. Public Manag. Gov., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 159–176, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  46. R. M. Walker, “Internal and external antecedents of process innovation: A review and extension,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 21–44, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. T. Beshah, D. Ejigu, A. Abraham, P. Kromer, and V. Snasel, “Knowledge Discovery From Road Traffic Accident Data In Ethiopia: Data Quality, Ensembling And Trend Analysis For Improving Road Safety” Neural Netw. World, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 215–244, 2012, DOI: 10.14311/NNW.2012.22.013. [Google Scholar]
  48. Y. Zhang, W. Zhou, S. Yuan, and Q. Yuan, “Seizure detection method based on fractal dimension and gradient boosting,” Epilepsy Behav., vol. 43, pp. 30–38, Feb. 2015, DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.11.025. [Google Scholar]
  49. “1.11. Ensemble methods — scikit-learn 0.24.1 documentation.” https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/ensemble.html#gradient-boosting (accessed Jan. 30, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  50. G. Ciasullo, G. Lodi, A. Maccioni, A. Rotundo, and F. Tortorelli, Linee Guida Nazionali Per La Valorizzazione Del Patrimonio Informativo Pubblico (anno 2014). Technical report, Agenzia per l’ltalia Digitale (AgID), Presidenza del 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, “A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 119–139, 1997. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.