4.7 Review

Exploring knowledge management perspectives in smart city research: A review and future research agenda

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.015

Keywords

Knowledge management; Smart cities; Literature review; Policy implications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The emerging role of smart cities as information hubs and knowledge repositories has attracted increasing attention in academic research, focusing on knowledge sharing and co-learning among cities. A systematic review of 82 peer-reviewed publications identified five main themes in smart city studies, forming the basis for future research agenda. The paper also proposes knowledge-driven policy recommendations to contribute towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
There is a growing body of literature calling for work on the emerging role of smart cities as information hubs and knowledge repositories. This article reviews the existing smart city literature and integrates knowledge management perspectives to provide an overview of future research directions. By demonstrating the multi-stakeholder relationships involved in smart city development, it takes a crucial step towards looking into the role of knowledge management in future smart city research. Eighty-two peer-reviewed publications were analyzed covering smart city studies in various research domains. The systematic review identifies five different themes: strategy and vision, frameworks, enablers and inhibitors, citizen participation, and benefits. These themes form the basis for developing a future research agenda focused on knowledge sharing and co-learning among cities via three research directions: socio-technical approaches, knowledge sharing perspectives and organizational learning capabilities. The paper also proposes a series of knowledge-driven policy recommendations to contribute towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available