Büyükşehir Belediyelerinde Dijital Olgunluğun Belirlenmesi: Sakarya ve Kocaeli Büyükşehir Belediyeleri Örneği

Abstract

Belediyelerdeki dijital dönüşüm, hizmet sunumunun iyileştirilmesi, operasyonel verimliliğin artırılması ve vatandaş katılımının teşvik edilmesi açısından hayati öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışma, Sakarya ve Kocaeli Büyükşehir Belediyelerinin dijital dönüşüm sürecine odaklanarak, kurumların dijital olgunluk düzeylerini belirleyen faktörleri ve bu faktörlerin etkilerini tespit etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu araştırmada, dijital olgunluğu kurumsal bağlamda derinlemesine ve bütünsel bir şekilde araştırmak ve büyükşehir belediyeleri örneğini gerçek dünya bağlamında analiz etmek için vaka çalışması tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Belediyelerin dijital girişimlerine, politikalarına ve çevrimiçi platformlarına ait veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden, belgelerden ve gözlem notlarından elde edilmiştir. Veriler MAXQDA nitel analiz yazılımı kullanılarak tek vaka ve çapraz durum analizi teknikleri ile analiz edilmiş ve yorumlanmıştır. Her iki belediye de dijital dönüşüm çabalarında önemli ilerlemeler kaydetmiş olsa da, iyileştirilmesi gereken önemli boşluklar ve alanlar bulunmaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, liderlik bağlılığı, organizasyon kültürü, teknik altyapı, veri yönetimi ve vatandaş katılımı dahil olmak üzere dijital olgunluğu etkileyen hayati faktörlere işaret etmektedir. Teknolojik altyapı, dijital hizmetler, veri yönetimi, siber güvenlik gibi çeşitli boyutları değerlendiren bütünsel ve kapsamlı modeller, belediyelerde dijital olgunluk bileşenlerinin anlaşılması için uygun bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Uygun teknolojik altyapı ve veri yönetimi uygulamalarından, kullanıcı dostu e-devlet hizmetlerine ve yetkin bir iş gücüne kadar her unsur, dijital olgunluğun artırılması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Belediyeler, kapsamlı dijital stratejiler, kullanıcı odaklı tasarım ve paydaşlarla işbirliği yoluyla dijital dönüşümün karmaşıklığının üstesinden gelebilirler.

Keywords

• Büyükşehir Belediyeleri
• Dijital Olgunluk
• Dijital Dönüşüm

Determining Digital Maturity in Metropolitan Municipalities: The Example of Sakarya and Kocaeli Metropolitan Municipalities

Abstract

Digital transformation in municipalities is vital for improving service delivery, increasing operational efficiency and encouraging citizen participation. This study aims to determine the factors that determine the digital maturity levels of institutions and the effects of these factors by focusing on the digital transformation process of Sakarya and Kocaeli Metropolitan Municipalities. In this research, case study design was used to investigate digital maturity in an in-depth and holistic way in the institutional context and to analyze the case of metropolitan municipalities in a real-world context. Data on municipalities' digital initiatives, policies and online platforms were obtained from semi-structured interviews, documents and observation notes. Data were analyzed and interpreted using single-case and cross-case analysis techniques using MAXQDA qualitative analysis software. While both municipalities have made significant progress in their digital transformation efforts, there are significant gaps and areas for improvement. Research findings point to vital factors influencing digital maturity, including leadership commitment, organizational culture, technical infrastructure, data management and citizen engagement. Holistic and comprehensive models that evaluate various dimensions such as technological infrastructure, digital services, data management, and cyber security provide a suitable framework for understanding digital maturity components in municipalities. Each element, from appropriate technological infrastructure and data governance practices to user-friendly e-government services and competent workforce, is critical to raising digital maturity. Municipalities can overcome the complexities of digital transformation through comprehensive digital strategies, user-centered design, and collaboration with stakeholders.

Keywords

• Metropolitan Municipalities
• Digital Maturity
• Digital Transformation

References

1. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
2. Alford, J., Hartley, J., & Yates, S. (2019). Digital governance in English local government: An initial exploration. Public Money and Management, 39(6), 417-426.
3. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016
4. Biryukov, A. P., Brikoshina, I. S., & Geokchakyan, A. G. (2022, January). Management System Formation for Projects and Programs Implementation in the Digitalization Context. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Smart Nations: Global Trends In The Digital Economy, Volume 2 (pp. 50-56). Springer International Publishing.
5. Blaikie, N. (2018). Confounding issues related to determining sample size in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 635-641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454644
6. Braga Tadeu, H. F., de Castro Moura Duarte, A. L., Taurion, C., & Jamil, G. L. (2019). Digital transformation: Digital maturity applied to study Brazilian perspective for Industry 4.0. In J. L. García Alcaraz, L. R. Cadavid, R. G. González-Ramírez, G. L. Jamil, & M. G. Chong Chong (Eds.), Best practices in manufacturing processes. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99190-0_1
7. Budding, T., Faber, B., & Gradus, R. (2018). Assessing electronic service delivery in municipalities: Determinants and financial consequences of e-government implementation. Local Government Studies, 44(5), 697-718.
8. Carter, L., & Weill, P. (2019). Digital transformation: A roadmap for navigating the disruption of digital age. Harvard Business Review Press.

9. Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2016). Smart cities governance: The need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315611103
10. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
11. Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703503
12. Clarke, R. A., & Knake, R. K. (2019). The fifth domain: Defending our country, our companies, and ourselves in the age of cyber threats. Penguin Press.
13. Çallı, B. A., & Çallı, L. (2021). Relationships between digital maturity, organizational agility, and firm performance: An empirical investigation on SMEs. Business and Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(2), 486-502. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i2.1786
14. Debeljak, A., & Dečman, M. (2022). Digital transformation of Slovenian urban municipalities: A quantitative report on the impact of municipality population size on digital maturity. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 15(2), 25-51.
15. Díaz-Díaz, R., Muñoz, L., & Pérez-González, D. (2019). The digital transformation of city hall: Exploring the influence of external factors. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 467-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.04.003
16. Doğu Marmara Kalkınma Ajansı (2024, April 11). Doğu Marmara Kalkınma Ajansı Bölgesinde Dijital Dönüşüm. https://ka.gov.tr/sayfalar/dogu-marmara-kalkinma-ajansi-dijitallesme--4-86
17. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., & Duan, Y. (2017). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 591-598.
18. European Commission (2024, March 23). General Data Protection Regulation. https://gdpr-info.eu
19. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2007). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 386-387.
20. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Nam, T. (2016). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity, 21(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150354
21. Guetterman, T. C. (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2), Art. 25
22. Hartl, E., & Hess, T. (2019). The role of cultural values for digital transformation: Insights from a delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 83-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.025
23. Heeks, R. (2018). Digital divides in municipalities worldwide: Why do they persist and what can be done? Information Polity, 23(1), 1-17.
24. Helbig, N., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004
25. Hofmann, S., & Ogonek, N. (2018). Different but still the same? How public and private sector organisations deal with new digital competences. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 16(2), 127-135.
26. Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). Smart cities: Advances in research-An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.004
27. Janssen, M., Wimmer, M. A., & Deljoo, A. (2017). Policy practice and digital science: Integrating complex systems, social simulation, and public administration in policy research. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 477-493.
28. Kafel, T., Wodecka-Hyjek, A., & Kusa, R. (2021). Multidimensional public sector organizations' digital maturity model. Administratie si Management Public, 37, 27-40.
29. Kurniya, M. A., & Andriani, M. (2023). Organizational framework development: Formulating strategy to increase digital maturity. Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan dan Kemasyarakatan, 17(2), 1296-1312.
30. Laaber, F., Florack, A., Koch, T., & Hubert, M. (2023). Digital maturity: Development and validation of the digital maturity inventory (DIMI). Computers in Human Behavior, 143, 107709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107709
31. Lafioune, N., Desmarest, A., Poirier, É. A., & St-Jacques, M. (2023). Digital transformation in municipalities for the planning, delivery, use and management of infrastructure assets: Strategic and organizational framework. Sustainable Futures, 6, 100119.
32. Likhtin A. A. (2022). Key aspects of the implementation of the digital municipality project at the North-Western Institute of Management of RANEPA. Administrative Consulting, 9, 163-173.
33. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
34. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language: Methodology and design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Mashau, N. L., Kroeze, J. H., & Howard, G. R. (2022). Key factors for assessing small and rural municipalities’ readiness for smart city implementation. Smart Cities, 5(4), 1742-1751.
36. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
37. Minh, H. P., & Thanh, H. P. T. (2022). Comprehensive review of a digital maturity model and proposal for a continuous digital transformation process with digital maturity model integration. Sistemas ve Gestão, 17(1), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.20985/1980-5160.2022.v17n1.1789
38. Moon, M. J., & Norris, D. F. (2015). Does managerial networking matter? How different dimensions of network ties relate to managerial performance in organizational change. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 799-810.
39. Nerima, M., & Ralyté, J. (2021, May). Towards a digital maturity balance model for public organizations. In International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (pp. 295-310). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
40. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
41. Ochoa-Urrego, RL., & Peña-Reyes, JI. (2021). Digital maturity models: A systematic literature review. In Schallmo, D. R. A., & Tidd, J. (Eds.) Digitalization management for professionals (pp. 71-85). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69380-0_5
42. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2024, February 15). Digital government maturity: Key issues. https://goingdigital.oecd.org/en/indicator/58
43. Petrovčič, A., Tominc, P., & Korošec, N. (2018). Determinants of local e-participation: Comparing municipal websites in Slovenia. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 523-533.
44. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
45. Rodriguez-Bolivar, M. P. (2015). Transforming city governments for successful smart cities. Springer.
46. Salviotti, G., Gaur, A., & Pennarola, F. (2019). Strategic factors enabling digital maturity: An extended survey. MCIS 2019 Proceedings, 15, 1-13. https://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2019/15
47. Sharkov F. I., & Miller D. G. (2024) Transformation of digital technologies in local government. Communicology, 12(1), 108-121.
48. Sorokina, N., Shelomovska, O., Sorokina, L., & Romaniukha, M. (2022). Current challenges to the digitalization of higher education in Ukraine. In E-learning in the Transformation of Education in Digital Society (pp. 29–47). Studio Noa.
49. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
50. Tutar, H. (2023). Nitel araştırma deseni belirleme ölçütleri ve gerekçelendirilmesi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 334-355. https://doi.org/10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1190123
51. Tutar, H., & Erdem, A. T. (2022). Örnekleriyle bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve SPSS uygulamaları. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
52. Van De Walle, S., & Estevez, E. (2018). Open data policies in European cities: The state of the art. Information Polity, 23(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170067
53. Van der Hoogen, A., Fashoro, I., Calitz, A. P., & Luke, L. (2024). A digital transformation framework for smart municipalities. Sustainability, 16(3), 1320.
54. Venkateswaran, V., & Jyotishi, A. (2017, December). Digital strategy performance differential between government and private sector: A new institutional economics perspective. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research (ICCIC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
55. West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x
56. Yıldız, S. (2021). Development of a digital maturity model for small and medium sized enterprises: A case study in Turkey [Master's thesis, Boğaziçi University]. http://digitalarchive.boun.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/123456789/18110/b2719935.035993.001.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
57. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.