Head uudistamist!


“One approach to conceptualizing smart cities is to view them as municipality-based platforms with surrounding innovation ecosystems (Appio, Lima, & Paroutis, 2019). The platform serves as the core structure and several city constituents – such as citizens, research institutions and private” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 1)  […] “companies – form the surrounding ecosystem. This approach to organizing has been labelled ‘government as a platform’ (O’Reilly, 2010, p. 13), with municipal governments serving as providers of digital technologies and city-related data with the aim of facilitating data-driven urban services and digital entrepreneurship (Barns, 2016; Barns, Cosgrave, Acuto, & Mcneill, 2017).” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 2)

Uurimisküsimus ja eesmärk:

“To address this issue, we ask the following question: How do urban platforms and ecosystems affect the bureaucratic governance of municipal governments? More broadly, we aim to examine ‘the extent to which decentralized management approaches [such as platforms] alter, replace, or reinforce bureaucratic authority systems’ (Lounsbury & Carberry, 2005, p. 515).” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 2)


“Digital platforms are the most ‘revealing instantiation’ (Mikołajewska-Zając et al., 2022, p. 1130) of this new relationship and can be defined as: Evolving organizations or meta-organizations that: (1) federate and coordinate constitutive agents who can innovate and compete; (2) create value by generating and harnessing economies of scope in supply or/and in demand; and (3) entail a technological architecture that is modular and composed of a core and a periphery. (Gawer, 2014, p. 1245)” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 3)

Meeldetuletuseks, bürokraatia ideaaltüüp:

“Weber (1921/1976) introduced the ideal type of bureaucratic organization in his seminal work Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. He claimed that bureaucracies are technically superior to other organizations. Their rational and machine-like operations allow them to attain the highest degree of efficiency through precision, stability, reliability, unambiguity and strict subordination (Weber, 1946, p. 214).” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 4)

Tehnoloogia kasutamisega kaasnenud uued tähendused:

“Interestingly, while Weber regards technology as the ‘pacemaker for bureaucratization’ (1946, p. 213), digital technology has generated a shift towards networked organizational structures that foster knowledge-based work (Greenwood & Lawrence, 2005).” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 4)


“We followed the multiple-case methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Specifically, we selected seven relevant cases and collected data from various sources within each case. We then undertook an in-depth within-case analysis for each case, followed by cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989).” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 5)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“In our study of seven European municipal governments, we outlined a process of how digital technologies affect municipal bureaucracy. We revealed how lower-echelon bureaucrats served as both change agents and preservers of bureaucracy by institutionalizing change without contradicting key bureaucratic principles.” (Lekkas and Souitaris, 2022, p. 21)

Lekkas, C.-K., & Souitaris, V. (2022). Bureaucracy Meets Digital Reality: The Unfolding of Urban Platforms in European Municipal Governments. Organization Studies, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221130857