Smart Public Services: Using Smart City and Service Ontologies in Integrative Service Design

  • Ari-Veikko AnttiroikoEmail author
  • Nicos Komninos
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 35)


This chapter discusses the preconditions for the development of public smart city services by grounding their design on service-dominant logic. The aim is to pinpoint the critical aspects of the service-dominant approach in the public sector context and smart city development, and on that basis provide an analytical picture of how the instances of smart city development can potentially enhance the ability of public organizations to create public value within service-dominant logic. Methodologically, we rely on an ontological analysis that clarifies the core components of both service-dominant logic and the smart city concept. Our findings show that critical intersecting areas, which are vital in utilizing smart city tools in service-dominant logic-oriented public service development, include people’s involvement, knowledge function, smart services, and the service ecosystem. We assert that service design should be based on mechanisms that facilitate resource integration and user involvement within service ecosystems rather than on stand-alone solutions. Cyber-physical systems have a key role in such a process, especially regarding information-intensive services. The development of cyber-physical systems for public services at the core of the public service ecosystem provides a strategic tool for service transformation that opens up a horizon for a major advance in value co-creation in the public domain.


Ontology Service ecosystem Public value Integration Public service Smart city Service-dominant logic 


  1. Al Ajeeli, A. T., & Al-Bastaki, Y. A. L. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of research on E-services in the public sector: E-government strategies and advancements. Information science reference. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  2. Alford, J. (2015). Co-production, publicness and social exchange: Extending public service-dominant logic. Paper for International Research Society for Public Management 2015 Conference, University of Birmingham, 30 March–1 April 2015. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from
  3. Allen, P. (2015, August 25). Update of Service-Dominant Logic—2015. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from
  4. Alter, S. (2008). Service system fundamentals: Work system, value chain, and life cycle. IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anthopoulos, L. G., & Vakali, A. (2012). Urban planning and smart cities: Interrelations and reciprocities. In F. Alvarez et al. (Eds.), The future internet: Future internet assembly 2012: From promises to reality. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7281, pp. 178–189). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antonsen, M., & Beck Jørgensen, T. (1997). The ‘publicness’ of public organizations. Public Administration, 75(2), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2016). City-as-a-platform: The rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability, 8, 922. Scholar
  9. Anttiroiko, A.-V., & Caves, R. W. (2016). Urban planning 3.0: Impact of recent developments of the web on urban planning. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Mobile computing and wireless networks: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 439–460). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anttiroiko, A.-V., Valkama, P., & Bailey, S. J. (2014). Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for smart services. AI & Society, 29(3), 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Apte, U., & Mason, R. (1995). Global disaggregation of information-intensive services. Management Science, 41(7), 1250–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barile, S., Saviano, M., Polese, F., & Di Nauta, P. (2012). Reflections on service systems boundaries: A viable systems perspective: The case of the London Borough of Sutton. European Management Journal, 30(5), 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Basole, R. C., & Rouse, W. B. (2008). Complexity of service value networks: Conceptualization and empirical investigation. IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Batina, R. G., & Ihori, T. (2005). Public goods: Theories and evidence. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Battarra, R., Gargiulo, C., Pappalardo, G., Boiano, D. A., & Oliva, J. S. (2016). Planning in the era of information and communication technologies. Discussing the “label: Smart” in South-European cities with environmental and socio-economic challenges. Cities, 59, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, K., Ryan, N., & Parker, R. (2000). New modes of service delivery in the public sector: Commercialising government services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(3), 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chesbrough, H. (2005). Toward a science of services. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 16–17.Google Scholar
  19. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., … Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In R. H. Sprague Jr. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2289–2297). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  20. CISCO. (n.d.). Smart+Connected Traffic. CISCO. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
  21. Cohen, B. (2012). What Exactly is a Smart City., 09/19.2012. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from
  22. Coursey, D., & Bozeman, B. (1990). Decision making in public and private organizations: A test of alternative concepts of “publicness”. Public Administration Review, 50(5), 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Denhardt, J., & Denhardt, R. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  24. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferrario, R., & Guarino, N. (2009). Towards an ontological foundation for services science. In J. Domingue, D. Fensel, & P. Traverso (Eds.), Future Internet—FIS 2008. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5468). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. E. (2015). User co-production of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration, 30(2), 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fragidis, G., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). Towards an ontological foundation of service dominant logic. In M. Snene, J. Ralyté, & J. H. Morin (Eds.), Exploring services science. IESS 2011. Lecture notes in business information processing (Vol. 82). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2017). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring 2017 Edition. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from Scholar
  29. Gallaher, M. P., Link, A. N., & Petrusa, J. E. (2006). Innovation in the US service sector. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Glushko, R. J. (2010). Seven contexts for service system design. In P. P. Maglio, C. Kieliszewski, & J. Phohrer (Eds.), Handbook of service science (pp. 219–249). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haque, M. S. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hilton, T., Hughes, T., & Chalcraft, D. (2012). Service co-creation and value realization. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13–14), 1504–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holcombe, R. G. (2000). Public goods theory and public policy. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huston, S., Rahimzad, R., & Parsa, A. (2015). ‘Smart’ sustainable urban regeneration: Institutions, quality and financial innovation. Cities, 48, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kannan, P. K., & Chang, A.-M. (2013). Beyond citizen engagement: Involving the public in co-delivering government services. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from
  37. Komninos, N. (2015). The age of intelligent cities: Smart environments and innovation-for-all strategies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Komninos, N. (2016). Smart environments and smart growth: Connecting innovation strategies and digital growth strategies. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 7(3), 240–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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), 1–16.Google Scholar
  40. Lazer, D., Mergel, I., Ziniel, C., & Neblo, M. (2009). Networks, hierarchies, and markets: Aggregating collective problem solving in social systems. HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP09-017, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from
  41. Loutas, N., Peristeras, V., & Tarabanis, K. (2011). The public service ontology: A formal model for describing domain-specific semantics. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies, 6(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maglio, P., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information System and e-Business Management Journal, 7, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maglio, P. P., Kieliszewski, C. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (2010). Handbook of service science. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mikusz, M. (2015). Towards a conceptual framework for cyber-physical systems from the service-dominant logic perspective. Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico, 2015. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from
  45. Mitchell, W. J. (1996). City of bits: Space, place and the infobahn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Moore, M. (2002). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Murgante, B., & Borruso, G. (2013). Cities and smartness: A critical analysis of opportunities and risks. In B. Murgante et al. (Eds.), Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2013. Proceedings, Part III, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7973, pp. 630–642). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In The Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 282–291). Retrieved May 10, 2014, from Scholar
  49. Nambisan, S., & Nambisan, P. (2013). Engaging citizens in co-creation in public services: Lessons learned and best practices. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from
  50. Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2011). Market, network, hierarchy: Emerging mechanisms of governance in business process management. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, & Y. Tan (Eds.), Electronic Government. EGOV 2011. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6846). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2012). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Papa, R., Gargiulo, C., & Gladeris, A. (2013). Towards and urban planners’ perspective on smart city. TeMA, 1, 5–17.Google Scholar
  55. Paton, R. A., & McLaughlin, S. A. (2008). Service innovation: Knowledge transfer and the supply chain. European Management Journal, 26, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pesch, U. (2008). The publicness of public administration. Administration & Society, 40(2), 170–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peters, B. G. (2011). Reform begets reform: How governments have responded to the new public management. In A.-V. Anttiroiko, S. J. Bailey, & P. Valkama (Eds.), Innovations in public governance (pp. 110–121). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  58. Peters, C., Maglio, P., Badinelli, R., Harmon, R. R., Maull, R., Spohrer, J. C., … Moghaddam, Y. (2016). Emerging digital frontiers for service innovation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 39, article 8. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from Scholar
  59. Piro, G., Cianci, I., Grieco, L. A., Boggia, G., & Camarda, P. (2014). Information centric services in smart cities. The Journal of Systems Software, 88, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Qiu, R. (2014). Service science: The foundations of service engineering and management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Rutgers, M. R. (2003). Tracing the idea of public administration: Towards a renaissance of public administration? In M. R. Rutgers (Ed.), Retracing public administration (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  62. Scott, P. G., & Falcone, S. (1998). Comparing public and private organizations. An exploratory analysis of three frameworks. American Review of Public Administration, 28(2), 126–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Service dominant logic and its implications for tourism management: The co-production of innovation in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 32(2), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. P. (2008). The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. P. (2010). Toward a science of service systems value and symbols. In Handbook of Service Science. Service science: Research and innovations in the service economy (pp. 157–194). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stirton, L., & Lodge, M. (2004). Transparency mechanisms: Building publicness into public services. Journal of Law and Society, 28, 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stout, M. (2012). Competing ontologies: A primer for public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., & Mitchell, J. (Eds.). (1998). Markets, hierarchies and networks: The coordination of social life. First Published 1991. Reprint. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Tuurnas, S. P., Stenvall, J., Rannisto, P.-H., Harisalo, R., & Hakari, K. (2015). Coordinating co-production in complex network settings. European Journal of Social Work, 18(3), 370–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. URENIO. (2012a). Smart+Connected Traffic. ICOS. Intelligent City Software and Solutions. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
  72. URENIO. (2012b). Improve My City. ICOS. Intelligent City Software and Solutions. Retrieved July 9, 2017, from
  73. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Service dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vassilakis, C., & Lepouras, G. (2006). Ontology for E-government public services. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of E-commerce, E-government, and mobile commerce (Vol. I–II, pp. 865–870). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walsh, K. (1995). Public services and market mechanisms: Competition, contracting and the new public management. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wand, Y., Storey, V. C., & Weber, R. (1999). Relationship construct in conceptual modeling. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(4), 494–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weerakkody, V., & Reddick, C. G. (Eds.). (2012). Public sector transformation through E-government: Experiences from Europe and North America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Weigand, H. M., Johannesson, P., Andersson, B., & Bergholtz, M. (2009). Value-based service modeling and design: Toward a unified view of services. In P. van Eck, J. Gordijn, & R. Wieringa (Eds.), CAiSE 2009. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5565, pp. 410–424). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  82. Wieland, H., Polese, F., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). Toward a service (eco)systems perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 3(3), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zefferer, T. (2016). Möglichkeiten Ontologie-Basierter Konzepte Im E-Government [Possibilities for Ontology-Based Concepts in E-Government]. Version 1.0—30.04.2016. Wien: A-SIT, Zentrum für sichere Informationstechnologie—Austria. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from
  84. Zysman, J., Feldman, S., Murray, J., Nielsen, N. C., & Kushida, K. (2011). The new challenge to economic governance: The digital transformation of services. In A.-V. Anttiroiko, P. Valkama, & S. J. Bailey (Eds.), Innovations in public governance (pp. 39–67). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.URENIO Research, Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations