The indicators included in ISO 37120 and performance measurement in smart cities

• Authors: Kowalczyk Magdalena , Rącka Izabela

Title variants

PL

Wskaźniki zawarte w ISO 37120 a pomiar efektywności w inteligentnych miastach

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: Local government units are undergoing a shift in management practices driven by the implementation of the New Public Management (NPM) doctrine. One element of NPM is the measurement of performance in local government. As cities grow, the new concept of ‘smart cities’ is rapidly developing. However, it is difficult to determine how to measure the level of ‘smartness’. This paper focuses on measuring the performance of smart cities using the indicators included in ISO 37120. Methodology/approach: In the theoretical part, we overview the aims of performance measurement within NPM and the idea of smart cities. Meanwhile, the empirical part includes statistical data to analyse performance measurement using the indicators included in ISO 37120. Findings: Performance measurement is possible using the indicators included in ISO 37120. The indicators make it possible to compare the results of cities in various countries. Thus, standardising the indicators is the key to the development of smart city performance measurement. Originality/value: Our findings will be of value for future research about using ISO standards for the performance management of smart cities. Our research is also important for implementing NPM in local government. Research limitations: Due to a lack of data, the observation period is too short to make a more in-depth analysis.

PL

Cel: W jednostkach samorządu terytorialnego możemy zaobserwować zmiany w metodach zarządzania, które są wynikiem wdrażania doktryny Nowego Zarządzania Publicznego (NPM). Jednym z elementów NPM jest pomiar osiągnięć w samorządzie terytorialnym. Obecnie w gminach miejskich szybko rozwija się nowa koncepcja „inteligentnych miast”. Trudno jest jednak określić, jak zmierzyć poziom „inteligencji” miast. Niniejszy artykuł koncentruje się na problemie pomiaru efektywności inteligentnych miast przy użyciu wskaźników zawartych w normie ISO 37120. Metodyka/podejście badawcze: W części teoretycznej omówiono cele pomiaru efektywności w ramach NPM oraz idee inteligentnych miast. Część empiryczna zawiera wyniki analizy statystycznej wskaźników zawartych w normie ISO 37120. Wnioski: Pomiar efektywności jest możliwy przy użyciu wskaźników zawartych w normie ISO 37120. Wskaźniki te umożliwiają porównanie wyników miast w różnych krajach. Standaryzacja wskaźników jest kluczem do rozwoju pomiaru efektywności inteligentnych miast. Oryginalność: Przedstawione wyniki będą miały wartość dla przyszłych badań nad wykorzystaniem norm ISO do efektywnego zarządzania inteligentnymi miastami. Przeprowadzone badania są również ważne dla wdrażania NPM w samorządach lokalnych. Ograniczenia: Ograniczeniem artykułu jest zbyt krótki okres obserwacji, aby można było dokonać bardziej wnikliwej analizy, wynikający z braku dostępu do danych.

Keywords

EN

smart cities; local government; ISO 37120; performance measurement

PL

inteligentne miasta; samorząd lokalny; ISO 37120; pomiar efektywności

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce (SKwP), Zarząd Główny, Rada Naukowa
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2024
• Issue: 48(2)
• Pages: 55-72

Contributors

author

Kowalczyk Magdalena

• Poznań University of Economics and Business

author

Rącka Izabela

• Calisia University

References

• Albino V., Berardi U., Dangelico R. (2015), Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives, “Journal of Urban Technology”, 22 (1), pp. 3–21; https://doi.org/10.1080/1 0630732.2014.942092.
• Angelidou M. (2014), Smart city policies: A spatial approach, “Cities”, 41, pp. 3–11; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007.
• Barbato G., Turri M. (2017), Understanding public performance measurement through theoretical pluralism, “International Journal of Public Sector Management”, 30 (1), pp. 15–30; https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2315681.
• Bifulco F., Tregua M., Amitrano C., DʼAuria A. (2016), ICT and Sustainability in smart cities management, "International Journal of Public Sector Management", 29, 2, pp. 132–147; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0132.
• Bogt H.J. (2008), Management accounting change and new public management in local government: a reassessment of ambitions and results – an institutionalist approach to accounting change in the Dutch public sector, “Financial Accountability and Management”, 24 (3), pp. 209–241; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2008.00451.x.
• Brusca I., Montesinos V. (2016), Implementing performance reporting in local government: a cross – countries comparison, “Public Performance and Management Review”, 39 (3), pp. 506–534; https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137768.
• Budziewicz-Guźlecka A. (2017), Selected aspects of smart city on the example of Szczecin, “Informatyka Ekonomiczna”, 4 (46), pp. 20–32; DOI: 10.15611/ie.2017.4.02.
• Capdevila I., Zarlenga M.I. (2015), Smart city of smart citizens? The Barcelona case, “Journal of Strategy and Management”, 8 (3), pp. 266–282; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-03-201 5-0030.
• DallʽOʼ G., Bruni E., Panza A., Sarto L., Khayatian F. (2017), Evaluation of cities’ smartness by means of indicators for small and medium cities and communities: a methodology for Northern Italy, “Sustainable Cities and Society”, 34, pp. 193–202; http://dx.doi.org/1 0.1016/j.scs.2017.06.021.
• De Vries, M., Nemec, J. (2013), Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths, “International Journal of Public Sector Management”, 26, pp. 4–16; https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551311293408.
• Ghobadian A., Ashworth J. (1994), Performance measurement in local government – concept and practice, “International Journal of Operations and Production Management”, 14 (5), pp. 35–51; https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411103041003003.
• Goh S.C. (2012), Making performance measurement systems more effective in public sector organizations, “Measuring Business Excellence”, 16 (1), pp. 31–42; https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041211204653.
• Greiling D. (2005), Performance measurement in the public sector: The German experience, “International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement”, 54 (7), pp. 551–567; https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400510622223.
• Haras A., Zimmer M. (2015), Normalizacja wspiera rozwój „inteligentnych miast”, “Wiadomości PKN. Normalizacja”, 3.
• Hayer den G. (2011), New public management: A strategy for democratic police reform in transitioning and developing countries, “Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management”, 34 (3), pp. 419–433; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639511111157492.
• Hood C. (1991), A public management for all seasons, “Public Administration”, 69, pp. 3–19; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.
• Huovila A., Bosch P., Airaksien M. (2019), Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for smart sustainable cities: what indicators and standards to use and when? “Cities”, 89, pp. 141–153; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.029.
• Janik A., Ryszko A., Szafraniec M. (2019), Smart and sustainable cities: in search of comprehensive theoretical framework, “Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology Organization and Management”, Series No 140, pp. 109–132; http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2019.140.10.
• Kowalczyk M. (2018), Mierniki niefinansowe w pomiarze dokonań jednostek samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, Poznań.
• Kuwaiti M. (2004), Performance measurement process: definition and ownership, “International Journal of Operations and Production Management”, 24, 1–2, pp. 55–78; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570410510997.
• Lebas M.J. (1995), Performance measurement and performance management, “Interantional Journal of Production Economics”, 41, pp. 23–35; https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-5273(95)00081-X.
• Lom M. (2020), Smart city model based on systems theory, “International Journal of Information Management”, 56, pp 1–11; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102092.
• Magbadelo O. (1996), Africa Re-configured: A theoretical analysis, “Indian Journal of Politics”, XXX (1–2), pp. 1–16; https://doi.org/10.1177/002088170304000203.
• Mavrić, J., Bobek V. (2015), Measuring urban development and city performance, [in:] Bobek V. (ed.), Perspectives on Business and Management, IntechOpen, London, chapt. 5.
• Mattoni B., Pompei L., Losilla J.C., Bisegna (2020), Planning smart cities: comparison of two quantitative multicriteria methods applied to real case studies, “Sustainable Cities and Society”, 60, pp. 1–13; DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102249.
• Miltiads D.L., Visvizi A., Chopdar P.Kr., Sarirete A., Alhalabi W. (2020), Information management in smart cities: turning end usersʼ views into multi-item scale development validation, and policy – making recommendations, “International Journal of Information Management”, 56, pp. 1–10; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102146.
• Mixon F.G., Treviño L.J. (2010), The modern economic theory of bureaucracy as a precursor to new public management, “Humanomics”, 26, 4, pp. 249–258; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08288661011090857.
• Moullin M. (2007), Performance measurement definitions: linking performance measurement and organizational excellence, “International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance”, 20 (3), pp. 181–183; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526860710743327.
• Moustaka V., Vakali A., Maitis A., Anthopoulos L.G. (2020), City DNA dynamics: a model for smart city maturity and performance benchmarking, WWW ʼ20: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020, April 2020, pp. 829–833; http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3386584.
• Mora L., Bolici R., Deakin M. (2017), The first two decades of smart city research: a bibliometric analysis, “Journal of Urban Technology”, 24 (1), pp. 3–27; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123.
• Navarro-Galera A., Ortiz-Rodriguez D., López-Hernández (2008), Identify barriers to the application of standardized performance indicators in local government, “Public Management Review”, 10 (2), pp. 241–262; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719030801928706.
• Nyhan R.C., Martin L.L. (1999), Comparative performance measurement. A primer on data envelopment analysis, “Public Productivity and Management Review”, 22 (3), pp. 348–364; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380708.
• Parker Ch. (2000), Performance measurement, “Work Study”, 49 (2), pp. 63–67.
• Pollanen R.M. (2005), Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context, “International Journal of Public Sector Management”, 18 (1), pp. 4–24; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513550510576125.
• Richter U.H., Dow K.E. (2017), Stakeholder theory: a deliberative perspective, “Business Ethics a European Review”, 26, pp. 428–442; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/beer.12164.
• Ryba M. (2017), Czym jest koncepcja smart city, a zatem dlaczego powinniśmy je nazywać miastem sprytnym [What is a ʽsmart cityʼ concept and how we should call in Polish], “Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu”, 467, pp. 82–90; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.15611/pn.2017.467.07.
• Siverbo S. (2014), The implementation and use of benchmarking in local government: a case study of the translation of a management accounting innovation, “Financial Accountability and Management”, 30 (2), pp. 121–149; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/faam.12031.
• Steele R. (2014), ISO 37120 standard on city indicators – how they help city leaders set tangible targets, including service quality and quality of life; https://www.clc.gov.sg/documents/lectures/2014/clc-2014-rob-steele-terry-hill.pdf.
• Stone J., Knapper, G., Evans G., Aravopoulou E. (2018), Information management in the smart cities, “The Bottom Line”, 31 (3/4), pp. 234–249; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BL-07-2018-0033.
• Szołno O. (2016), Wybrane aspekty pomiaru efektywności i skuteczności jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, “Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego”, Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia, 6, pp. 91–99; http://dx.doi.org/10.18276/frfu.2016.84/1-08.
• The role of local governments in territorial economic development (2016), UCLG Policy Paper, www.bogota2016.uclg.org, pp. 1–32.
• Trends in smart city development – National League of cities – center for city solutions and applied research (2016); https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2017-01/Trends%20in%20Smart%20City%20Development.pdf, pp. 1–23.
• Vandercruysse L., Buts C., Dooms M. (2020), A typology of smart city services: the case of data protection impact assessment, “Cities”, 104, pp. 1–15; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102731.
• Van Vinden W., van den Berg L., Pol P. (2007), European cities in the knowledge economy: towards in typology, “Urban Studies”, 44 (3), pp. 525–549; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980601131886.
• Warnecke D., Wittstock R., Teutberg F. (2019), Benchmarking of European smart cities –a maturity model and web-based self – assessment tool, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 10 (4), pp. 654–684; http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2018-0057.
• White J.M. (2020), Standardising the city as an object of comparison: the promise, limits and perceived benefits of ISO 37120, “Telematics and Informatics Journal”, pp. 1–11; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101515.
• Whitfield M. (2017), Measuring the performance of sustainable communities, “Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment”, 36 (4), pp. 41–77.
• Winkowska J., Szpilko D., Pejić S. (2019), Smart city concept in the light of the literature review, “Engineering Management in Production and Services”, 11 (2), pp. 70–86: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/emj-2019-0012.
• Xiao Ch., Ye J., Esteves R.M., Rong Ch. (2016), Using Spearmanʼs correlation coefficients for exploratory data analysis on big dataset, “Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience”, 28, pp. 3866–3878; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpe.3745.
• Yahia N.B., Eljaoued W., Bellamine Ben Saoud N., Colomo-Palacios R. (2019), Towards sustainable collaborative networks for smart cities co-governance “International Journal of Information Management”, 56, pp. 1–16; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.11.005.
• ISO 37120 (2014), Sustainable development of communities. Indicators for city services and quality of life, pp. 1–111, https://www.iso.org/standard/68498.html
• ISO 37120 (2018), Sustainable cities and communities – Indicators for city services and quality of life, pp. 1–5, https://www.iso.org/standard/68498.html