Advertisement

SCRAN’s Development of a Trans-national Comparator for the Standardisation of E-government Services

  • Mark Deakin
Chapter
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the SmartCities inter-Regional Academic Network set up to support the development of e-gov(ernment) services across the North Sea. It pays particular attention to SCRAN’s configuration of the triple helix and the web-services assembled to support the development of a trans-national comparator for the standardisation of eGov services as transformative business-to-citizen developments. It suggests these trans-national developments are significant for the reason they reveal university involvement in such ventures need not be a top-down exercise in the generation of intellectual capital, or creation of wealth, but can be a bottom-up action in building the social capital required for eGov services to regulate the production of knowledge.

Keywords

Social Capital Civil Society Business Model Knowledge Production Triple Helix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge. Oxon: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deakin, M. (2009). The IntelCities community of practice: the eGov services model for socially-inclusive and participatory urban regeneration programmes. In C. Riddeck (Ed.), Research strategies for eGovernment service adoption. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Deakin, M., & Allwinkle, S. (2005). The IntelCities eLearning platform, knowledge management system and digital library for semantically interoperable e-Governance Services. In P. Cunningham (Ed.), Innovation and the knowledge economy: Issues, applications and case studies. Washington: ISO Press.Google Scholar
  4. Deakin, M., & Allwinkle, S. (2006). The IntelCities community of practice: the e-learning platform, knowledge management system and digital library for semantically-interoperable e-governance services. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 6(3), 155–162.Google Scholar
  5. Deakin, M. & Allwinkle, S. (2007). Urban regeneration and sustainable communities: The role of networks, innovation and creativity in building successful partnerships. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(1), 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., & Campbell, F. (2006a). The IntelCities e-Learning platform, knowledge management system and digital library for semantically rich e-governance services. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 2(8), 31–38.Google Scholar
  7. Deakin, M., Allwinkle, S., & Campbell, F. (2006b). The IntelCities community of practice: the eGov services for socially-inclusive and participatory urban regeneration programmes. In P. Cunningham (Ed.), Innovation and the knowledge economy: Issues, applications and case studies. Washington: ISO Press.Google Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government Innovation in Action. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Ed.). (2002). Universities and the global knowledge economy NIP: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations continuum. London: International Publishing Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jauhiainen, J., & Suorsa, K. (2008). Triple helix in the periphery: the case of Multipolis in Northern Finland. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jensen, C. & Tragardh, B. (2004) Narrating the triple helix concept in weak regions: Lessons from Sweden. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(5), 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, L., Tan. X., & Trimmi, S. (2006). Current practices of leading e-government countries. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 100–104.Google Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modelled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2008). Assessing local e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Electronic Governance Research, 4(4), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riemer, K., & Klein, S. (2008). Is the V-form the next generation organisation? An analysis of challenges, pitfalls and remedies of ICT-enabled virtual organisations based on social capital theory. Journal of Information Technology, 23(2), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: A review of the evidence. Environment and Planning C, 23(1), 98–1414.Google Scholar
  20. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administration, in EU countries. Online Information Review, 29, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Torres, L., Vicente, P., & Basilio, A. (2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Learning Communities, Academic DevelopmentEdinburgh Napier UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations