City 5.0: citizen involvement in the design of future cities

City 5.0: Citizen involvement inthedesign offuture cities JörgBecker1· FriedrichChasin2· MichaelRosemann3· DanielBeverungen4· JenniferPriefer4· JanvomBrocke5· MartinMatzner6· AdeladelRioOrtega7· ManuelResinas7· FlaviaSantoro8· MinseokSong9· KangahPark9· ClaudioDiCiccio10 Received: 29 January 2022 / Accepted: 11 November 2022 / Published online: 27 April 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract A citizen-centric view is key to channeling technological affordances into the development of future cities in which improvements are made with the quality of citizens’ life in mind. This paper proposes City 5.0 as a new citizen-centric design paradigm for future cities, in which cities can be seen as markets connecting service providers with citizens as consumers. City 5.0 is dedicated to eliminating restrictions that citizens face when utilizing city services. Our design paradigm focuses on smart consumption and extends the technology-centric concept of smart city with a stronger view on citizens’ roadblocks to service usage. Through a series of design workshops, we conceptualized the City 5.0 paradigm and formalized it in a semi-formal model. The applicability of the model is demonstrated using the case of a telemedical service offered by a Spanish public healthcare service provider. The usefulness of the model is validated by qualitative interviews with public organizations involved in the development of technology-based city solutions. Our contribution lies in the advancement of citizen-centric analysis and the development of city solutions for both academic and professional communities. Keywords Citizen involvement· Smart city· City 5.0· Restrictions· Future cities JEL Classification O18 Responsible Editor: Simon Trang *Jörg Becker bec[email protected].de 1 Information Systems, University ofMuenster (WWU), Leonardo-Campus 3, 48149Muenster, Germany 2 Information Systems andSystems Engineering, University ofCologne, Pohligstr. 1, 50969Cologne, Germany 3 Information Systems, Queensland University ofTechnology (QUT), 2 George St, BrisbaneCityQLD4000, Australia 4 Business Information Systems, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, 33098Paderborn, Germany 5 Information Systems andBusiness Process Management, University ofLiechtenstein, Fuerst-Franz-Josef-Strasse, 9490Vaduz, Liechtenstein 6Digital Industrial Service Systems, University ofErlangen–Nuremberg (FAU), Schlossplatz 4, 91054Erlangen, Germany 7Computer Languages andSystems, University ofSeville, C. San Fernando, 4, 41004Sevilla, Spain 8 Applied Informatics, Federal University oftheState ofRio de Janeiro, R. Sao Francisco Xavier, 524 - Maracana, RiodeJaneiro, RJ20550-013, Brazil 9Industrial andManagement Engineering, Pohang University ofScience andTechnology (POSTECH), 77 Cheongam-Ro, Nam-Gu, Gyeongbuk37673Pohang, SouthKorea 10 Computer Science, Sapienza University ofRome, Piazzale Aldo Moro, 5, 00185Roma, Italy 1 3 Citizen involvement throughtheCity 5.0 paradigm “To look at citizens’ restrictions that are not created by the city itself but are present because the citizen is an individual (with all that comes with it) is a fascinating approach to me.” [Chief Digital Officer, City of Paderborn, P:51] When public administrations use technology to create services intended to benefit citizens, success is not assured. Such initiatives can fail to improve the well-being of citizens or may even create entirely new technological barriers. A citizen does not benefit from a technological solution per se. The benefit comes rather from improving the citizen’s liveability within the environment. This is best illustrated by a private–public partnership initiative in Queensland, Australia. Using streaming and broadcasting technologies, a collaboration of local government and private organizations was able to increase cultural access by enabling citizens across the vast state of Queensland to view theater performances in Brisbane from 16 locations up to 1000km away (Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory (CMD), 2019). This solution emerged from the desire to overcome spatial constraints faced by citizens of one of the most urbanized countries in the world. Queensland is five times the size of Japan and seven times that of the UK. As a result, Queensland citizens have limited access to events in the capital city of Brisbane. In addition, many citizens are unable to afford high-quality cultural events, which therefore tend to cluster in economically strong cities. To overcome these limitations, the Queensland Performance and Arts Centre (QPAC), with the support of the Queensland government and local private organizations, provides regular simulcasts, bringing prestigious performances (e.g., international ballet performances) held in Brisbane to the Queensland region. The service brought cultural events to citizen groups beyond those who could afford a ticket to the actual performance. Providing urban residents with the means and resources for a “good life” and offering adequate options to citizens in remote areas is a major concern for improving the human habitat (Portmann etal., 2018). Access to a comprehensive range of high-quality public goods and services contributes to citizens’ quality of life along various dimensions of quality of life (e.g., infrastructure, health care, and education) (Economist Intelligence, 2019; Giap etal., 2012). A city’s public goods are provided to citizens in a non-exclusive manner and without rivalry among citizens (The Global Economy, 2021). In the attempt to improve the quality of life and expand the range of public goods and services within a city, technology is known to be an enabler with hundreds of initiatives aimed at introducing smart technologies in urban environments (Anthopoulos etal., 2016). Technologies can create digital platforms for accessing public goods and services that otherwise would remain unknown to citizens. Furthermore, public access to technologies themselves can contribute to an increased quality of life (e.g., free-of-charge Internet access) (Waters, 2016). Therefore, technology has a threefold role in improving citizens’ quality of life: by (a) enabling the creation of new technology-based public goods and services, (b) facilitating access to existing public goods and services, and (c) becoming part of the public goods and services portfolio offered to the citizens. Putting technology centricity at the core of Smart City initiatives is known to have limitations in moving towards better cities (Hollands, 2008). Despite the technological advances within Smart City programs, citizens still face restrictions in accessing public goods and services. In response, research highlights the importance of moving beyond a technology focus to create citizen-centric solutions for future cities and their governance (D’Onofrio etal., 2019). However, multiple interpretations and manifestations of citizen centricity exist (e.g., Lee etal., 2014; Trencher, 2019; Yetis & Karakose, 2020), leading to a lack of conceptual clarity and guidance for organizations when implementing technology-based yet citizen-centric city initiatives (Curry etal., 2018; Azzam etal., 2019; Zhou etal., 2019). In addition to technology centricity, an equally important barrier to taking stock of available technological advances is arguably provider centricity. The dominant issue in adopting Smart City solutions is a provider-centric understanding of the problem space which ignores how citizens engage with these solutions. Thus, a shift away from provider centricity is essential if the quality of life (in the city) is to be prioritized rather than seeing the service quality from a technological standpoint (Lee etal., 2014). Any roadblocks to required city services compromise the citizen’s quality of life. Services may not be accessible due to high costs, inadequate location, and scarce availability at the time required. There is a demand to study how technologies could be used to overcome specific restrictions in the context of a city, as digital technologies have proven to be powerful solutions to overcoming restrictions in many parts of our broader life—e.g., elimination of cost to search (Google), time restrictions (e-government), or location (live streaming). Against this backdrop, this paper addresses the research question of how the paradigm of technology-enabled elimination of restrictions in accessing city services can be conceptualized to enable the creation of new solutions. 1 The reference format is a leading alphabetic code of the interview partner followed by a section of the transcribed interview. Electronic10 Page2of21 We answer the question by proposing a new conceptualization called City 5.0. We demonstrate its applicability and evaluate its usefulness for the analysis and development of technology-based solutions for accessing public goods and services. The paradigm of City 5.0 was first captured with the definition of a City 5.0 as “a liveable city that is (re)modelled with the aim of eliminating restrictions for its citizens by using digitalization for the provision of public goods and services” (Rosemann etal., 2021). However, City 5.0 has remained a rather vague concept, which has to date compromised its applicability. Therefore, we present a conceptualization of City 5.0 that focuses on capturing the interrelationships among its components in a framework. We then apply this framework to an example of citizen-centric and technology-based innovation in the public sector to demonstrate its applicability. Finally, we evaluate the framework’s usefulness through qualitative interviews with international members of the public sector. Positioning City 5.0 insmart city research City 5.0 is a paradigm that emerged against the background of extensive research on the concept and shortfalls of smart cities (Rosemann etal., 2021). City 5.0 builds upon and enhances a citizen-centric perspective of smart cities and hence requires an understanding of the scope of extant smart city research. There exists an ongoing discourse both in academia and practice about what a “smart city” actually entails (Chourabi etal., 2012; Hollands, 2008; Joss etal., 2019; Nilssen, 2019). This discourse is complicated by the fact that a smart city can be viewed as a Soft City (Sim, 2019), Human Smart City (Oliveira & Campolargo, 2015), or Digital City (Cocchia, 2014) depending on the chosen perspective. The initial introduction of the term in the 1990s had a strong technological focus on the applications of ICT in cities. Since then, in the course of progressing research (Dameri & Cocchia, 2013; Hosseini etal., 2018), two perspectives on smart cities have emerged: technology- and people-oriented perspectives (Brandt etal., 2018; Marrone & Hammerle, 2018). The technology-oriented perspective refers to the use of ICT to support city activities and to provide the city with digital infrastructure. In this case, the focus is on enhancing prosperity, competitiveness, and effectiveness (Marrone & Hammerle, 2018). For example, according to Arrowsmith (2014), a smart city is a city that “has deployed or is currently piloting the integration of ICT solutions across three or more different functional areas of a city.” For Washburn and Sindhu, (2009, p. 2) a smart city implies “the use of smart computing technologies to make the critical infrastructure components and services of a city – which include city administration, education, healthcare, public safety, real estate, transportation, and utilities – more intelligent, interconnected, and efficient.” Smart computing technologies include software systems, server infrastructure, network infrastructure, and client devices (Washburn & Sindhu, 2009). Another central concept related to a smart city within this context is big data, in which the data assets, including real-time and near-real-time data streams from city infrastructures and sensor networks, enable the development of data-driven urban systems and services (Caird & Hallett, 2019). By contrast, the people-oriented perspective put emphasis on human capital and prioritizing citizens’ needs (Marrone & Hammerle, 2018). The ultimate goal is to improve social, economic, and environmental sustainability, fostering inclusion, citizen participation, and liveability (Chourabi etal., 2012; Dameri & Cocchia, 2013; Hollands, 2008; Rosemann etal., 2021). In this respect, research has studied not only the role of ICT in smart cities but also the role of human capital/ education, social and relational capital, and environmental awareness as crucial drivers of urban growth (Deakin, 2013). For instance, Komninos etal. (2015) argue that smart city applications should provide fresh and more effective ways of changing routines (daily activities of citizens, organizations, and governments). Calls for more robust citizen-centric approaches have led to research that attempts to integrate the different perspectives on smart cities. Trencher (2019) argues that attention should be given to the emergence of what has been called the “Smart City 2.0,” a people-centric approach where smart technologies tackle social problems, address residents’ needs, and foster collaborative participation. Thus, the objectives of the technology and experiments with technologies should be to mitigate or solve social challenges, to enhance citizens’ well-being, and to improve public services. Anthopoulos etal. (2016) state that smart cities are intelligent digital ecosystems established in the urban space that are not limited to information and communication technology (ICT) and emphasize citizens’ involvement in the identification, proposal, and design of “smart solutions.” More recently, the “4.0” suffix has been used to describe the integrated, contemporary use of digital systems in various contexts. Concepts such as Industry 4.0, Banking 4.0, or Health 4.0 (Lasi etal., 2014) describe smart environments which facilitate the low-cost production of a wide variety of personalized products and services. We consciously chose the term City 5.0 to focus on the transition from 4.0 to 5.0. The notion of 5.0 is captured in prior research (Rosemann etal., 2021; Kowalkiewicz & Dootson, 2019) and expands the concept’s scope to include smart consumption and the dedicated use of technologies to address remaining constraints in the use of goods and Page3of21 10 services. In the context of a city, smart consumption looks more at how citizens can gain value from consuming public goods and services rather than focusing on production and implementation from the provider’s perspective. In this respect, City 5.0 directly connects to the notion of Industry 5.0 used by the European Commission (Breque etal., 2021, p.14), where “a human-centric approach [..] puts core human needs and interests at the heart of the production process. Rather than asking what we can do with new technology, we ask what the technology can do for us.” The idea of human centricity in Industry 5.0 fully aligns with the notion of City 5.0, wherein technology essentially has to be human-centric by resolving restrictions faced by citizens. Restrictions are inherently bound to humans (citizens) and represent issues relevant to them by capturing aspects that constrain citizens’ perception of liveability. As a paradigm, City 5.0 responds to this by implementing the idea of human centricity, which it seeks to ingrain through design as part of the resulting city solutions. Consistent with the European Commission’s notion of 5.0, a human-centric approach in cities puts core human needs and interests at the heart of city management. Rather than asking what we can do with new technology (in smart cities), we ask what the city can do for the citizens (eliminating restrictions). With its focus on constraint-free liveability, the City 5.0 design paradigm connects to the understanding of wellbeing. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines well-being as a result of local material conditions, quality of life, and sustainability (OECD, 2020). This implies the existence of initiatives to improve health, education, and social services, as well as enabling citizen participation, promoting positive environmental impacts, reducing vulnerability, and improving security. Striving for quality of life also requires improving work, housing, and infrastructure using information and communication technologies. However, Willis (2019) suggests that this focus on citizens has to date only resulted in a limited number of studies looking at how citizens are involved in and benefit from different smart city technologies. Thus, City 5.0 is a step towards the “liveable” city—a concept related to the arguably less tangible concept of a “happy city” (Brdulak & Brdulak, 2017). City 5.0 does not contradict or neglect existing research on smart cities, but represents an additional lens as it extends the scope from a provider-centric view (how smart city technologies improve a city’s objectives—e.g., smart lights reduce electricity costs) to a citizen-centric view (how technologies overcome constraints for a citizen—e.g., suburban working hubs eliminate the need to enter a congested city). Similar to the notion of Six Sigma with its idealized state of quality to the extent that only 3.4 errors occur per one million opportunities, City 5.0 asks for an idealized city “free of constraints” for its citizens. Method To answer our research question, we use a twofold approach. First, building a conceptualization requires assembling knowledge within a discourse universe, incorporating “all of the entities or elements that (a) are of interest and (b) may include (i) many entity worlds and (ii) entities that are not yet perceived or considered” (Weik, 2000). In other words, we need to identify the characteristics of this discourse universe, the entities in the universe, and the relationships among the entities. Therefore, we had to first understand the relevant concepts and then represent them in a comprehensive way. To this end, we conducted a series of workshops to gather knowledge from experts, where participants discussed their understanding and the perceived importance of constraints within city contexts. We then evaluated the conceptual model within real settings in which the discourse universe could be observed. Workshops were conducted with a set of senior researchers from different academic fields (Appendix 1). All researchers had a long-standing record of projects and publications in information systems, business process management, and service science. They were selected on the basis of their expertise, recognition in academia and industry, and geographical diversity. They collectively brought together the necessary expertise to elicit, discuss, and reflect on the conceptualization. Co-authors of this work were among the workshop participants. The strategy adopted was to start with discussions in small groups before then involving the whole team of experts. The first workshop was conducted with the participation of three experts (#1, #2, and #3 in the table in Appendix 1) during the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2019). The goal was to identify and discuss the current restrictions in our individual projects that prevented citizens from consuming or co-creating a public service. The result was the derivation of the initial concepts. The following workshops were conducted online at the beginning of 2020 with a combination of different participants in the group. The goal was to establish the different views on the issues related to public goods and services offered by governments and the relationships with technology and smart cities. The result was the jointly developed working draft of the City 5.0 design paradigm. The concluding workshop counted on the participation of a bigger group (twelve participants from the table in Appendix 1). The goal was to consolidate the initial concepts, explicating and discussing different perspectives on restrictions in the form of a brainstorming session. This group then conceptualized restrictions on public services in more detail and identified strategies on how to manage them. The development was supported by input collected from twelve 10 Page4of21 public administrations in the network (see Appendix 2). The goal was to determine the essence of a restriction, with participants proposing relevant components to model City 5.0. Afterwards, a discussion among the group members revealed whether these components would be helpful and have an appropriate level of abstraction for the model. The participants carefully kept the components exclusive and exhaustive. We modeled the City 5.0 design paradigm with all its proposed elements and their relationships in a conceptual Entity Relationship Model (ERM) diagram following a constructivist approach. ERMs are used frequently as a means to model business environments (Scheer, 2013) for guiding and documenting conceptual work in interdisciplinary teams (Becker etal., 2010; Figl & Recker, 2016; Rosemann & Green, 2002). We then discussed the resulting model further and refined it repeatedly over 7months until a consensus was achieved. The core of these activities was using the model as a boundary-spanning device to model and analyze particular restrictions found in our projects, leading us to instantiate, evaluate, and extend the model. Using this approach, we were able to add, rework, and eliminate concepts in our ERM until saturation was reached. Thus, while the concept was initially introduced based on the specific theoretical viewpoints of individuals, our consensusoriented interpretivist research approach promoted the diversity of our viewpoints, which is an established epistemic theory of truth for conceptual modeling (Becker & Niehaves, 2007). To evaluate the resulting conceptual model, we performed in the second step qualitative semi-structured interviews with members of the international public sector domain (Table1) who have experience in using technology to create new public services or improve access to public goods. For the evaluation of our framework, we focused on the well-established concept of artifact usefulness (Prat etal., 2015). Specifically, we selected a qualitative approach as it represents the most common technique to evaluate usefulness (Prat etal., 2015). After being presented with the pre-written introduction to the conceptual framework of City 5.0, the interviewees answered a set of semi-structured questions regarding the framework’s usefulness that probed its benefits, challenges, and completeness. Subsequently, the interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed by the author team. Conceptualization ofCity 5.0 Our vision of a city does not focus on technology applications as a means to an end. Instead, it sets the elimination of the citizens’ restrictions in accessing public goods and services as the aim. For an effective elimination of restrictions to take place, understandable, deployable, and assessable conceptualization of City 5.0 is required. A formalized conceptualization must entail constituents of the City 5.0 design paradigm and their relationships. We chose a variation of the Entity Relationship Model (ERM) approach (Chen, 1976) as the modeling technique for our conceptual model. ERM allows for the semi-formal expression of relevant City 5.0 constituents (entity types) and their interrelation (relationship types) in a standardized way. Previous research used ERM for conceptualization, especially in the domain of ontology modeling (e.g., Rosemann & Green, 2002). Figure1 illustrates a fragment of our model, which we use in the following to provide insights into the ERM notation and rationale. We then explain each of the components. Entity types are drawn as rectangular boxes and represent collections of individual objects or notions (instances) that are categorized with the same representative class (e.g., citizen, liveability, owner, and constraint in the figure). Relationship types indicate associations between two or more entities and are graphically denoted as diamonds linked to entity types, the links being depicted by means of solid connecting lines. For example, distinct citizens can group and create networks (see the diamond connecting the citizen entity to itself). A restriction prevents a citizen group from achieving a desired quality of life or accessing public services. A restriction is thus a ternary relationship associating the citizen, constraint, and liveability entities, as we can see in Fig.1. The three elements (liveability, citizen, constraint) constitute a restriction. Hence, Table 1 List of the interviewees for the evaluation of the conceptual framework of City 5.0 Organization Country Interviewee position Duration in minutes City of Songdo (SDPMC) [SD] South Korea Representative Director and CEO 41 Spanish Ministry of Health [S] Spain Director of Healthcare Information Systems 74 IT Provider of the Municipality of São Paulo (PRODAM) [SP] Brazil Director of Innovation and Organizational Architecture 45 City of Muenster [M] Germany Head of Smart City Muenster 42 City of Paderborn [P] Germany Chief Digital Officer 45 Page5of21 10 a restriction is relevant and operationalizable if it is connected to a given liveability aspect lacking in a specific citizen group because of a specific constraint. Therefore, each individual restriction that has to be eliminated in the course of a City 5.0 initiative is a combination of the aforementioned entities. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens affected by the disease faced the constraint of late access to therapies because of the high demand for medical services, thereby affecting perceived liveability in terms of health. Notice that the restriction diamond is surrounded by a rectangle. This additional visual element denotes a reinterpreted relationship type (also known as associative entity), meaning that the relationship can be reified (i.e., instantiated as a conceptual object per se) and have associations with other entities. In other words, the associative entity has a dual nature: it behaves as a relationship type and as an entity type. Note, moreover, that it is associated with an owner responsible for addressing it. Also, it is important to highlight that there can be a trade-off when it comes to restrictions (see the relation from and to the restriction entity in Fig.1). For example, eliminating a restriction in connection to the safety of a citizen group by using citizen movement tracking can create a new restriction in connection to the infrastructure, discouraging citizens from entering tracked areas. Entity types can be specified on a more granular level via the specialization/generalization association, graphically depicted as a triangle. For example, a constraint collectively generalizes a concept that can be further specialized as an availability, awareness, or accessibility constraint, as depicted at the bottom of Fig.1. Note that some elements of ERM (e.g., attributes and cardinalities) are not used in our diagrams as they are required to represent fine-granular details and additional rules on the creation, update, and deletion of instances. Here, we focus solely on the conceptual representation of entities and their relationships (i.e., relevant concepts of the City 5.0 paradigm and the relationships between them, such as citizens facing constraints represented as two connected entity types— citizen and constraint—through a relationship type). See Appendix3 for more details on the adopted variant of ERM, we refer the reader to Appendix 3. Fig. 1 A fragment of the City 5.0 conceptual model Fig. 2 Constraint section of the City 5.0 conceptual model 10 Page6of21 In the following, we first take a closer look at the constituting elements of the model—constraints, liveability, governance, and restriction management—to then develop our holistic model consisting of these elements. Constraints Constraints are factors that can lower the performance of a system (Goldratt & Cox, 2016). In the context of a city system, citizens face restrictions when their liveability is impacted by a constraint. A constraint is an “abstract class” that only becomes relevant if it is experienced by a citizen group as a compromise of its perceived liveability. Access to public goods and services can be constrained for a group of citizens in three different ways: as availability, awareness, or accessibility constraint (see Fig.2). The reason for separating constraints into three categories is that we aim to identify a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive representation of different types of constraints on a most abstract level, excluding those that do not fit one of the categories. First, an existing public good or service can be known to the citizen group yet be accessible only in unreachable geographic areas (spatial constraint), at unsuitable times (temporal constraint), beyond the group’s purchasing power (economic constraint), or being subject to individual constraints (e.g., citizens being physically or cognitively impaired). Table2 elaborates upon and provides examples of the respective constraint types following Rosemann etal. (2021). Addressing accessibility constraints thus implies striving towards the introduction of public goods for everyone, everywhere, at all times, and on any budget. Second, a public good or service can be accessible, yet a citizen group can lack awareness of its existence. Addressing the awareness constraints implies reversing the prevailing paradigm where citizens have to discover public goods and services. Instead, public goods and services have to “discover” the citizens and to make them aware of their existence. For instance, location-based security notifications and alerts of environmental hazards, bomb threats, or car traffic restrictions (e.g., permission to use only electric vehicles in selective city areas) are examples of services discovering the citizen and hence addressing the awareness constraints. Third, the non-existence of a required public good or service represents an availability constraint. Examples would be the failures to provide trusted public data cloud to store data, freely accessible high-speed 5G networks, or public alert systems that notify citizens in times of crisis immediately. When facing this constraint, a required public good or service is not available to every citizen group. Addressing the availability constraint means introducing new public goods and services. Strikingly, the academia and practice have focused on this type of constraint looking for new services, yet often approach this challenge from the provider Table 2 Four availability constraints based on Rosemann etal. (2021) Spatial accessibility constraints Cities tend to grow rapidly, and lack of space creates bottlenecks. Related restrictions include long distances that must be traveled to work and competition for space (e.g., during peak hours). Long distances from homes to jobs are a physical restriction (Wachs & Kumagai, 1973), which is often explained with reference to the concept of “geography of opportunity” (Galster & Killen, 1995; Rosenbaum, 1995). Studies have shown that a geographical mismatch between a citizen’s home and job contributes to unemployment and creates dependence on public support programs (Opp, 2017; Osterman, 1991; Rosenbaum, 1995). Geographic information systems enable the examination of spatial characteristics in detail (e.g., through network analysis and accessibility mapping) and thus reveal novel perspectives on spatial constraints. Initiatives to overcome such constraints include distributed government offices that allow public servants to work at co-working spaces and “consume” public services closer to their homes/offices. Another example is the emergence of autonomous vehicles that will allow shorter distances between cars, leading to denser use of space Temporal accessibility constraints A city that is only “on” at certain times (e.g., public transport, shopping, government services) comes with temporal restrictions. These restrictions increasingly compromise liveability when global working models are used. The regulation of opening hours for retailers or governmental offices sets temporal restrictions that require new digital, self-serving solutions like the Amazon Go store and robotic public services Economic accessibility constraints Charges for consuming services in a city have an exclusive impact on citizens who cannot afford these services. For example, entering the City of London during peak hours is an expensive undertaking and an economic constraint for some citizens. The provision of free Wi-Fi services in public parks is an example of eliminating economic constraints, as is free public transportation in Tallinn (Estonia), and Luxembourg. Economic restrictions can inhibit innovation and business since barriers like poor or absent Internet connections can impede economic opportunities (Waters, 2016) Individual accessibility constraints A citizen’s physical and cognitive abilities can prevent him or her from using public goods and services. A physically impaired person can be restricted in reaching the location where he or she can consume a public good or service, and public services that require a certain level of cognitive ability can pose a barrier to cognitively impaired citizens. Digital technologies can help to eliminate these restrictions by introducing navigation aids for the physically impaired and specialized digital interfaces and digital assistants that lower the cognitive bar required for using public goods and services. It must be noted that lack of skill or knowledge in using digital technologies is part of individual accessibility constraints Page7of21 10 perspective with the aim of solving a pre-conceptualized citizens’ constraint. Liveability Liveability is the degree to which a place is suitable or good for living in. A constraint that is experienced by a citizen group has to be related to a specific aspect of liveability (Fig.3) in order to represent a restriction for a citizen group. In the following, we explain the rationale leading to our representation of liveability in the form of five distinct categories. In academic and practical literature, the identification of which aspects determine the liveability in a city has been mainly undertaken in the context of city indicators, which are “quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive measures that enable information on a complex phenomenon, such as the dynamic urban environment, to be simplified into a form that is relatively easy to use and understand” (Huovila etal., 2019). Its use can be traced back to the early 90s and the definition of a sustainability agenda called Agenda 21 at the UNCED meeting in Rio de Janeiro (Kitchin etal., 2015). The following decade saw the emergence of other quality-of-life indices, such as the Mercer’s annual quality of life survey, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index, and the Global Liveable Cities Index. These indices aim at providing a ranking of cities based on the aggregation of several factors related to liveability, such as economic vibrancy, environmental friendliness, domestic security, sociocultural conditions, and political governance (Giap etal., 2014). In parallel, the concept of smart city has given rise to additional categorizations that put more emphasis on the relevance of ICT and social participation in the context of a citizen’s quality of life. Some examples are the European Smart Cities Ranking (Giffinger etal., 2007) and the Bilbao Smart Cities Study (United Cities & Local Governments, 2012). Finally, several sets of city indicators have been published by such major international standardization bodies related to smart cities and sustainability as ISO 37120, ISO 37122, ITU-T 4901, 4902 and 4903, ETSI, or UN SDG 11 + (Huovila etal., 2019). The liveability aspects covered by these performance frameworks can be grouped into the five categories proposed in Rosemann etal. (2021): stability, safety, and public governance; healthcare and social services; employment and economy; infrastructure, housing, and environment; and culture and education. In our synthesis, we aim for a high-level aggregation to reduce the complexity of the model while allowing for all aspects of liveability to be mapped to one of the categories. Table3 summarizes these categories and provides examples. A relationship between a citizen group, a constraint, and a liveability aspect represents a restriction, which equates to a problem to be addressed through the collaboration of citizens, public administration, researchers, and private service providers. Permutations of constraints and liveability aspects define the scope of what City 5.0 initiatives can and should address. For instance, a City 5.0 initiative can focus on the identification of all four types of accessibility constraints (economic, spatial, temporal, and individual) that can influence the citizens’ situation with infrastructure, housing, and environment. Governance Governance addresses the structure and responsibilities of entities involved in eliminating citizens’ restrictions in accessing public goods and services. Restrictions have owners that can be either public or private entities. Owners have two roles. First, they assess the restrictions by identifying the restriction itself (which includes answering Fig. 3 Liveability section of the City 5.0 conceptual model 10 Page8of21 the questions “who is constrained?” “through which constraint?” and “which liveability aspect is constrained?”) and gauging the comparative impact of the restriction on liveability. Second, owners are responsible for addressing the restrictions and using the assessments to create priorities in restriction elimination initiatives. However, being responsible for the restrictions, owners do not necessarily eliminate or resolve restrictions on their own. Instead, the resolution can be performed by all kinds of dedicated collaborations. An abstraction from specific collaboration scenarios can be a Living Lab. The labs are the response to the complexity of the restrictions and the need for academic, professional, and public administration members cooperating with the citizens to eliminate a restriction. Actors participating in Living Labs are coordinated by restriction owners. Finally, technology can be used as a means to eliminate restrictions, likely in combination with other actions. This particular configuration of the governance-related concepts is primarily rooted in reflections upon current practice of public administrations, which often collaborate with industry. Such collaborations enable public administrations to compensate for the potential lack of skills and knowledge needed to create effective technology-based solutions. Figure4 illustrates the governance aspects of the conceptual framework of City 5.0. Restriction management The nature of restrictions can vary as a combination of a constraint, citizen group, and liveability. As Fig.5 illustrates, we discern restrictions as either actual (AR) or perceived (PR). We observe that whenever a public good or service is available and accessible yet a restriction is perceived, it does not mean that the restriction is irrelevant. On the contrary, such a restriction is concrete and relevant for the affected citizen group. For instance, safety measures adopted by public services might not counteract the perception that streets are unsafe if there have been isolated incidents so serious that they overshadow the average. Nevertheless, the way a perceived restriction is treated is different from the management of an actual restriction. For instance, a perceived restriction of being spatially constrained in accessing a good or service can in fact be an awareness constraint, and the good or service at hand can actually be accessible in the corresponding geographic area. To overcome such a restriction, introducing new public goods and services is unnecessary. Therefore, the management of restrictions requires the identification of the restriction’s nature in order to address the restriction through either perception management (PM) or constraint management (CM). Table 3 Five liveability aspects based on Rosemann etal. (2021) Stability, safety, and public governance (short: safety) This category represents basic human needs and encompasses the prevalence of petty and violent crime, (traffic) accidents, the threat of terror, military conflict, and civil unrest/conflict. A shake-up of social harmony by conflict, e.g., can endanger stability. Here, public governance aims to provide effective policy and to act transparently and with accountability. A fair and efficient justice system fosters a society’s stability. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), like the number of civil protection alarms, measure this dimension of liveability Healthcare and social services (short: health) Access to basic medical support (general practitioners, pharmacies) within a reasonable time and at a reasonable distance, along with advanced healthcare services like special medical support centers fosters citizens’ health. Social services, which refer to the social infrastructure communities need, comprise childcare, youth services, community centers, public toilets, outdoor public seating, and post offices. An example of a typical KPI is the availability and quality of healthcare services per capita Employment and economy (short: employment) The employment and economy dimension refers to open, business-friendly policies in the public domain, such as available space for new businesses and incentive schemes for entrepreneurs. Economic activities also depend on the local availability of viable, highly qualified employees. Employment and income are examples of KPIs, as they lead to growing or declining economic opportunities Infrastructure, housing, and environment (short: infrastructure) Infrastructure refers to a mixture of land use, which can include the following: transport networks, housing, and open spaces like playgrounds and public parks; road network, public (intermodal) transport, international transport, and travel connections; affordable, quality housing; reliable energy, water, and telecommunications, including high-speed Internet connectivity; and the environment, such as resilience to extreme weather conditions, green spaces, cleanliness of public areas, and low pollution. Examples of KPIs in this dimension are the average distance to well-connected transportation hubs and access to affordable housing that has access to all essential services Culture and education (short: culture) The culture and education dimension comprises sporting and cultural facilities and the availability of private and public education. Accessibility to and availability of educational opportunities refer not only to primary and secondary schooling, but also to tertiary education and learning centers for adults, including senior citizens. The provision of vibrant, cultural services catering for the demands of all facets of the local population is another indicator of cultural well-being. Exemplary KPIs to measure this category are access to affordable education, culture, and entertainment for the majority of the population Page9of21 10 ideas collected and structured in the model stem from common research areas. For example, the concept of “trade-off” is a term from risk management and the notion of “owner,” which has been integrated to take actions to actually resolve constraints, is similar to that of a risk owner. Thus, these views represent non-overlapping perspectives on the concepts. However, we acknowledge that participants from other backgrounds may have come up with other ideas and so produced a different-looking model. Although the conceptualization yields numerous benefits, the City 5.0’s transferability into practice needs to be considered. There is a question of how existing smart city initiatives can benefit from the City 5.0 design paradigm. As already highlighted in the section dedicated to positioning City 5.0 within smart city research, City 5.0 does not require abandoning smart city-oriented thinking. Instead, it represents a design paradigm that frames the concept of smart city within a citizen-centric viewpoint—a perspective that goes beyond the capabilities of ICT to contribute to the development of future cities. This also leads us to the view that City 5.0 has the potential to bear immediate implications for existing smart city initiatives. By placing citizens’ restrictions in their ability to access public goods and services at the center of attention, existing solutions might need adjustments. It is likely that many existing smart city solutions lack the link to the relevant restrictions when put under scrutiny. We observe that our study paves the way for a number of future endeavors. The retrospective analysis of successful initiatives in terms of their proximity to the City 5.0 paradigm and the evaluation of the framework by experts in the public sector are the foundation for future research. The need for initiatives that are explicitly based on City 5.0 calls for field studies and experiments to be conducted. Although the theoretical connection between the elimination of restrictions and citizens’ wellbeing is well grounded, observable improvements of liveability as a product of City 5.0-based initiatives will strengthen the power of the paradigm and facilitate its adoption. Academic, industrial, and governmental projects that use the City 5.0 lens to create new restriction elimination solutions will generate the data necessary for a subsequent analysis. Furthermore, since the City 5.0 conceptualization considers both private and public bodies to be responsible for restrictions (and their elimination), the balance between them creates an important area of investigation. The issue emerges especially when restrictions that citizens face potentially fall into the responsibility area of private organizations. In such cases, private organizations can contribute to transforming commercial services into public services. In recent decades, we have already observed how private organizations can create public goods. For instance, Wikipedia represents a case where information—the lack of which leads to potential restrictions—is made a public good. Although underrepresented, such transformations of commercial goods and services into public ones through private organizations taking ownership of citizens’ restrictions represent a promising area of future research. This approach could potentially play an important role in easing the pressure on public finances caused by increasing the offering of goods and services. Finally, we would like to point out an interesting phenomenon we observed during our research. In the course of our investigation, we realized that some restrictions could emerge when an existing public good or service starts to lose its characteristic as a public good or service by creating rivalry among citizens. For instance, in the case of SAS, the temporal restriction of not being able to access health services can be interpreted as a restriction emerging from the service demand itself, as it raises to the point at which it creates rivalry between citizens despite the non-exclusivity of the service. Dedicated studies are required to understand the ability of digital technologies to address the problem of public goods and services losing their public status through the emergence of rivalry. Conclusion This article conceptualized and demonstrated applications of City 5.0, namely, the design paradigm of a liveable city that is (re)modelled with the aim of eliminating restrictions for citizens by using digitalization for the provision of public goods and services. The nexus of the proposed conceptualization is restriction as a combination of a constraint (e.g., accessibility of a particular service), a citizen group (e.g., a specific subset of citizens), and a specific liveability aspect that matters to the citizen group (e.g., safety). It illustrates how restrictions can be managed and how the governance of the restrictions is organized. City 5.0 represents a design paradigm required for achieving a wider involvement of citizens. It enforces the understanding of the restrictions in accessing public goods and services that citizens face before implementing any technology-enabled city solutions. The application of the City 5.0 design paradigm contributes to homogenizing the governance of future cities by aligning the efforts of public administrations, private organizations, and researchers around the aim of eliminating restrictions faced by citizens in accessing public goods and services. The work represents a contribution towards improving citizens’ quality of life and their inherent involvement in designing future cities. 10 Page16of21 Appendix1 Table5 Table 5 List of researchers participated in the workshops #Name Department Research expertise (somehow related to smart city topics) Iterations involved 1 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Information Modeling Hybrid Value Creation Business Process Management E-Government Retail Information Systems 4 2 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Knowledge Management Sustainability through Innovations in IS 4 3 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Corporate innovation Revenue resilience 4 Process management and trust management Creation of compelling future worlds with today’s possibilities that make current practices obsolete 4 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Strategy and organizational design Digital innovation and transformation Management of collaboration in digital world 2 5 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors IT-supported services Business process management Design-oriented information systems 2 6 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Conceptual modeling Knowledge graphs Open government 1 7 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Service Science Smart service systems Business Process Management 3 8 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Smart service systems Smart grid Geographic information systems Geospatial analysis 3 9 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Business analytics Business information system Business process management Process mining Block chain Industrial AI 2 10 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Process mining Digital twin healthcare process Smart city Urban computing 2 11 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Process mining Declarative modeling Blockchain 2 12 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Analysis and management of service level agreements Business process management Key performance indicators Cloud-based enterprise systems 3 13 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Business Process Management Business Process Modelling, Monitoring and Analysis Process Performance Measurement Process Performance Indicators 3 14 Anonymized for the review process because of the senior researchers’ involvement as co-authors Business Process Management Knowledge Management Collaborative systems Digital transformation 3 Page17of21 10 Appendix2 Table6 Appendix3 ERM notation Purpose ofconceptual ERM models An Entity-Relationship Model (ERM) is a tool for representing a conceptual (data) model. A conceptual (data) model formally records relevant objects (entities) and relationships between them of the observed field on a conceptual level. Attributes can further specify the objects and relationships. Fundamental elements ofanERM Element Description Entity An informational representation of a real or artificial/ abstract object (also: instance of an entity type), does not have a direct equivalent in the ERM Entity type Collection or typing of similar entities to a set (resp. class), illustrated by a rectangle in the ERM Relation Relationship between two entities; does not have a direct equivalent in the ERM Relationship type Typing of the relationship between two entity types at which one entity type can be related to itself (e.g., hierarchy), illustrated by a diamond in the ERM Edge Connects the entity types and relationship types; edges cannot be drawn between similar nodes (e.g., two entity types), illustrated by horizontal and vertical lines in the ERM Attribute Assigns typed characteristics to an entity type or a relationship type; attributes can be annotated by an elliptical node on an entity type or a relationship type Cardinality States how often an entity of an entity type A can be in a relation with an entity of an entity type B, if A and B are connected by a relationship type Subsumption orgeneralization/specialization As we apply ERM for classifying certain aspects of restrictions, we make extensive use of subsumption to concretize these aspects. Our focus is not on describing data models to be implemented in databases but on facilitating classifications. We identified two types of relationships between granularities within entities that could be captured with the Enhanced Entity-Relationship (EER) Model depicted by Elmasri and Navathe (Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2011, Chapter8). In the following figure, you can detect both notations: the left side depicts the notation we apply, and on the right side, we show the corresponding EERM diagram. Both models show that each Restriction is either classified as an Actual or Perceived restriction. There is total participation, i.e., each restriction can be classified this way. If there are multiple relationships of this type, they all apply. For example, in the following figure with both notations, entity A is either of sub-type B or C, and either of sub-type D or E. In Fig.6, an instance of Restriction Management could entail, e.g., Perception Management and Discover. Table 6 List of collaborating public administrations #Name Country 1 Public Administration of the City of Vienna Austria 2 Public Administration of the City of Nuremberg Germany 3 Public Administration of the City of São Paulo Brazil 4 Public Administration of the City of Paderborn Germany 5 Public Administration of the City of Brisbane Australia 6 Public Administration of the City of Muenster, Germany Germany 7 Public Administration of the City of Pohang South Korea 8 Public Administration of the City of Melbourne Australia 9 Public Administration of the City of Latina Italy 10 Public Administration of the City of Songdo South Korea 11 Liechtenstein Center for Digital Capital Creation Liechtenstein 12 Andalusian Health Service Spain 10 Page18of21 Relationship types asentity types Some relationships play a crucial role in our notation. Restrictions in particular show a dual nature of being an entity of their own and showing relations between entities. Hence, our notation resembles this by showing it as a relationship and an entity, e.g., Restriction in Fig.1. These relationship entities can be read as being an entity for edges that connect to relationships and as a relationship for edges that connect to entities. All other characteristics of the Chen notation and our extensions apply. Hierarchies Hierarchies set entities into a superordinate/subordinate relationship. This produced a tree structure. An element can be subordinated to one element (of the same type) at most, but an element can be superordinate to an arbitrary number of elements of the same type. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Anthopoulos, L., Janssen, M., & Weerakkody, V. (2016). A Unified Smart City Model (USCM) for smart city conceptualization and benchmarking. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 12(2), 77–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ 978-1- 5225- 7030-1. ch011 Arrowsmith, L. (2014). Smart cities: Business models, technologies, and existing projects. Information Technology Services of IHS Technology Azzam, A., Aryan, P. R., Cecconi, A., Di Ciccio, C., Ekaputra, F. J., Fernández, J. D., ... & Thurner, T. (2019). The CitySPIN Platform: A CPSS Environment for City-Wide Infrastructures. In CPSS@ IOT (pp. 57–64). Becker, J., & Niehaves, B. (2007). Epistemological perspectives on IS research: A framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information Systems Journal, 17(2), 197–214. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1365- 2575. 2007. 00234.x Becker, J., Beverungen, D. F., & Knackstedt, R. (2010). The challenge of conceptual modeling for product-service systems: Status-quo and perspectives for reference models and modeling languages. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 8, 33–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10257- 008- 0108-y Brandt, T., Ketter, W., Kolbe, L. M., Neumann, D., & Watson, R. T. (2018). Smart cities and digitized urban management. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60(3), 193–195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 018- 0537-1 Brdulak, A., & Brdulak, H. (2017). Happy city-how to plan and create the best livable area for the people. Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 49899-7 Breque, M., De Nul, L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a Sustainable, Human-centric and resilient European industry. Luxembourg, LU: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https:// ec. europa. eu/ info/ publi catio ns/ indus try- 50_ en.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Caird, S. P., & Hallett, S. H. (2019). Towards evaluation design for smart city development. Journal of Urban Design, 24(2), 188– 209. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13574 809. 2018. 14694 02 Chen, P. P. S. (1976). The entity-relationship model—Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 1(1), 9–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 320434. 320440 Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2289–2297). IEEE Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In: Dameri, R., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (Eds.), Smart city. Progress in IS (pp. 13–43). Springer, Cham. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 06160-3_2 Curry, E., Hasan, S., Kouroupetroglou, C., Fabritius, W., & ul Hassan, U., & Derguech, W. (2018). Internet of things enhanced user experience for smart water and energy management. IEEE Internet Computing, 22(1), 18–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ MIC. 2018. 01158 1514 D’Onofrio, S., Habenstein, A., & Portmann, E. (2019). Ontological design for cognitive cities: The new principle for future urban management. In Driving the Development, Management, and Sustainability of Cognitive Cities (pp. 183–211). IGI Global. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ 978-1- 5225- 8085-0. CH008 Dameri, R. P., & Cocchia, A. (2013). Smart city and digital city: Twenty years of terminology evolution. X Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS (ITAIS 2013), 1, 8. Deakin, M. (2013). Smart cities: Governing, modelling and analysing the transition - Google Books. Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03076 224 Economist Intelligence. (2019). The global liveability index 2019. https:// www. eiu. com/n/ theglobal- livea bilityindex- 2019/.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Figl, K., & Recker, J. (2016). Process innovation as creative problem solving: An experimental study of textual descriptions and diagrams. Information and Management, 53(6), 767–786. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. im. 2016. 02. 008 Galster, G. C., & Killen, S. P. (1995). The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10511 482. 1995. 95211 80 Page19of21 10 Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1993). Design patterns: Abstraction and reuse of object-oriented design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/3- 540- 47910-4_ 21 Giap, T. K., Thye, W. W., Yam, T. K., Low, L., & Aw, E. L. G. (2012). Ranking the liveability of the world’s major cities: The global liveable cities index (GLCI). In Ranking the Liveability of the World’s Major Cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index (GLCI). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1142/ 8553 Giap, T. K., Thye, W. W., & Aw, G. (2014). A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: The global liveable cities index. In World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development (pp. 176–196). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ WRSTSD. 2014. 065677 Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart cities - Ranking of European medium-sized cities. In Centre of Regional Science, Vienna UT. https:// www. smart cityranki ng. eu/ downl oad/ city_ ranki ng_ final. pdf.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2016). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement. Routledge. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, Progressive or Entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303– 320. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13604 81080 24791 26 Hosseini, S., Frank, L., Fridgen, G., & Heger, S. (2018). Do not forget about smart towns: How to bring customized digital innovation to rural areas. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60(3), 243–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 018- 0536-2 Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities, 89, 141–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. CITIES. 2019. 01. 029 Joss, S., Sengers, F., Schraven, D., Caprotti, F., & Dayot, Y. (2019). The smart city as global discourse: Storylines and critical junctures across 27 cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(1), 3–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10630 732. 2018. 15583 87 Kamlah, W., Lorenzen, P., & Robinson, H. (1984). Logical propaedeutic: Pre-school of reasonable discourse. Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. P., & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 6–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21681 376. 2014. 983149 Komninos, N., Bratsas, C., Kakderi, C., & Tsarchopoulos, P. (2015). Smart city ontologies: Improving the effectiveness of smart city applications. Journal of Smart Cities, 1(1), 31–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18063/ JSC. 2015. 01. 001 Kowalkiewicz, M., and Dootson, P. 2019. Government 5.0: The future of public services. QUT Chair in Digital Economy. https:// eprin ts. qut. edu. au/ 133743/.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H.-G., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 6, 239–242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 014- 0334-4 Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M. C. (2014). Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 80–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2013. 08. 033 Marrone, M., & Hammerle, M. (2018). Smart cities: A review and analysis of stakeholders’ literature. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 60, 197–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 018- 0535-3 Nilssen, M. (2019). To the smart city and beyond? Developing a typology of smart urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 98–104. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2018. 07. 060 Oliveira, Á., & Campolargo, M. (2015, January). From smart cities to human smart cities. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2336–2344). IEEE. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ HICSS. 2015. 281 Opp, S. M. (2017). The forgotten pillar: A definition for the measurement of social sustainability in American cities. Local Environment, 22(3), 286–305. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13549 839. 2016. 11958 00 Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Better Life Initiative: Measuring Well-Being and Progress. https:// www. oecd. org/ sdd/ OECD- Better- Life- Initi ative. pdf.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Osterman, P. (1991). Welfare participation in a full employment economy: The impact of neighborhood. Social Problems, 38(4), 475– 491. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 800566 Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 5885. 2012. 00977_2.x Portmann, E., Tabacchi, M. E., Seising, R., & Habenstein, A. (2018). Designing cognitive cities. Springer International Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 00317-3 Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., & Akoka, J. (2015). A taxonomy of evaluation methods for information systems artifacts. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(3), 229–267. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07421 222. 2015. 10993 90 Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory (CMD). (2019). Bolshoi ballet epic reaches across Queensland in free simulcast. https:// www. arts. qld. gov. au/ news/ bolsh oiballet- epicreach esacross- queen slandin- freesimul cast.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Rosemann, M., & Green, P. (2002). Developing a meta model for the Bunge–Wand–Weber ontological constructs. Information Systems, 27(2), 75–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0306- 4379(01) 00048-5 Rosemann, M., Becker, J., & Chasin, F. (2021). City 5.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63, 71–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 020- 00674-9 Rosenbaum, J. E. (1995). Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux program. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 231–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10511 482. 1995. 95211 86 SAS. (2020a). Andalucía Crea un Asistente Virtual para Informar Sobre el Coronavirus, Junta de Andalucía. https:// www. sspa. junta deand alucia. es/ servi cioan daluz desal ud/ todasnotic ia/ andal uciacrea- unasist entevirtu alpara- infor marsobre- elcoron avirus.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. SAS. (2020b). El SAS Impulsa la Consulta Telefónica para Pacientes de Atención Primaria, Junta de Andalucía. https:// www. junta deand alucia. es/ presi dencia/ por ta voz/ salud/ 151320/ Atenc ionPr imaria/ SAS/ Servi cioAn daluz deSal ud/ citas/ consu ltas/ coron avirus/ Covid 19.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. SAS. (2020c). Salud Responde Incrementa el Número de Horas de Operación ante el Aumento de la Demanda, Junta de Andalucía. https:// www. junta deand alucia. es/ organ ismos/ salud yfami lias/ actua lidad/ notic ias/ detal le/ 242401. html.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Scheer, A. W. (2013). Architektur integrierter Informationssysteme: Grundlagen der Unternehmensmodellierung. Springer-Verlag. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 642- 97403-8 Sim, D. (2019). Soft city: Building density for everyday life. Island Press. The Global Economy. (2021). Public Services Index - Country Rankings.https:// www. thegl obale conom y. com/ ranki ngs/ public_ servi ces_ index.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Trencher, G. (2019). Towards the smart city 2.0: Empirical evidence of using smartness as a tool for tackling social challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 117–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2018. 07. 033 United Cities and Local Governments. (2012). Smart cities study: International study on the situation of ICT, innovation and 10 Page20of21 knowledge in cities. https:// issuu. com/ uclgc glu/ docs/ smart_ cities_ 2017_ en.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. United Nations. (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. https:// www. un. org/ devel opment/ desa/ en/ news/ popul ation/ 2018- revis ion- of- worldurban izati onprosp ects. html.Accessed 15 Nov 2022. Wachs, M., & Kumagai, T. G. (1973). Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(5), 437–456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0038- 0121(73) 90041-4 Washburn, D., Sindhu, U., Balaouras, S., Dines, R. A., Hayes, N., & Nelson, L. E. (2009). Helping CIOs understand “smart city” initiatives. Growth, 17(2), 1–17. Waters, J. (2016). Accessible cities: From urban density to multidimensional accessibility. In Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Accessible, Green and Fair (1st ed., pp. 11–60). Bristol University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 51952/ 97814 47332 855. ch002 Weik, M.H. (2000). Discourse universe. In: Computer Science and Communications Dictionary. Springer, Boston, MA. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/1- 4020- 0613-6_ 5215. Willis, K. S. (2019). Whose right to the smart city? Emerald Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 978-1- 78769- 139- 12019 1002 Yetis, H., & Karakose, M. (2020). A cyber-physical-social system based method for smart citizens in smart cities. 2020 24th International Conference on Information Technology (IT) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ IT488 10. 2020. 90706 85 Zhou, Y., Yu, F. R., Chen, J., & Kuo, Y. (2019). Cyber-physical-social systems: A state-of-the-art survey, challenges and opportunities. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(1), 389–425. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ COMST. 2019. 29590 13 Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Page21of21 10