Mapping Digital Transformation of Municipalities through the Lens of Institutional Isomorphism

Abstract

This paper examines the role of institutional isomorphism in influencing digital transformation (DT) within municipalities. It addresses the gap in understanding how coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures shape municipal strategies and operations as they adopt and implement digital technologies. Through a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, the study identifies key actors in municipal DT and maps out the domains of action in which institutional pressures are influential. The findings indicate that municipal DT can be seen as a bridging-issues field, where coercive pressures often stem from regulatory mandates requiring compliance with digital standards, where mimetic pressures arise from the need to emulate successful digital practices, and where normative pressures are related to professional standards and expectations within the administrative context. The study concludes that institutional pressures significantly dictate the pace and direction of digital innovation within municipalities. Understanding these pressures is crucial for municipal leaders to effectively manage and implement DT initiatives that are both compliant and innovative. Recommendations for future research include empirical studies to validate theoretical models and explore the variability in DT across different municipalities by considering their unique environments and challenges.

Full text

www.ijonses.net
Mapping Digital Transformation of
Municipalities through the Lens of
Institutional Isomorphism
Marcel Patalon
South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Anja Wyczisk
South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Germany
To cite this article:
Patalon, M. & Wyczisk, A. (2024). Mapping digital transformation of municipalities through
the lens of institutional isomorphism. International Journal on Social and Education
Sciences (IJonSES), 6(4), 600-635. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.701
International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES) is a peer-reviewed scholarly online
journal. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are
responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher
shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research
material. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any
financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations regarding the submitted work.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences
2024, Vol. 6, No. 4, 600-635
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.701
600
Mapping Digital Transformation of Municipalities through the Lens of
Institutional Isomorphism
Marcel Patalon, Anja Wyczisk
Article Info
Abstract
Article History
Received:
22 April 2024
Accepted:
01 September 2024
This paper examines the role of institutional isomorphism in influencing digital
transformation (DT) within municipalities. It addresses the gap in understanding
how coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures shape municipal strategies and
operations as they adopt and implement digital technologies. Through a systematic
literature review and thematic analysis, the study identifies key actors in municipal
DT and maps out the domains of action in which institutional pressures are
influential. The findings indicate that municipal DT can be seen as a bridging-
issues field, where coercive pressures often stem from regulatory mandates
requiring compliance with digital standards, where mimetic pressures arise from
the need to emulate successful digital practices, and where normative pressures
are related to professional standards and expectations within the administrative
context. The study concludes that institutional pressures significantly dictate the
pace and direction of digital innovation within municipalities. Understanding these
pressures is crucial for municipal leaders to effectively manage and implement DT
initiatives that are both compliant and innovative. Recommendations for future
research include empirical studies to validate theoretical models and explore the
variability in DT across different municipalities by considering their unique
environments and challenges.
Keywords
Digital transformation
Institutional theory
Institutional isomorphism
Municipalities
Introduction
Digital transformation (DT) is imperative for municipalities to utilize technology in enhancing operational
efficiency, service delivery, and citizen engagement, thus necessitating a strategic approach to digital innovation
(Favoretto et al., 2022; Rêgo et al., 2022). Beyond aspiring to become smart cities, municipalities are tasked with
formulating comprehensive digital strategies that address citizens' immediate to long-term needs in areas such as
retail, education, and public administration (Cone et al., 2022; Cordes & Musies, 2021). This endeavor requires
municipalities to consider the multifaceted societal, political, economic, and technological environments in which
they operate (Mahula et al., 2022; Mergel et al., 2019; Popescu & González, 2022; Volberda et al., 2021). Despite
the growing importance of DT, there remains a significant gap in the understanding of how municipalities navigate
the complex interplay between institutional forces during the DT process. Specifically, there is limited research
on how institutional isomorphism—comprising coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures—shapes the
strategies and actions of municipal actors in adopting and implementing digital technologies (Dillard et al., 2004;

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
601
Mignerat & Rivard, 2009; Teo et al., 2003). This paper aims to fill this gap by exploring the influence of
institutional isomorphism on municipal DT, identifying key actors, and examining their roles and interactions
within the domains of municipal DT. To address this research gap, we conducted a systematic literature review
and a thematic analysis to (1) identify the groups of actors shaping and influencing municipal DT; to (2) delineate
the domains of action of DT within municipalities; and to (3) elucidate the links between these actors and domains
of action, with a particular emphasis placed on institutional isomorphism. Our primary research objective is to
deepen the understanding of the links between institutional pressures and municipal actors in aligning DT. We
also contribute to the existing body of literature pertaining to applying institutional theory in studies on DT and
organizational science, including future research possibilities. We also provide a bridging-issues field approach
for municipal DT as a possibility for studying the impact of institutional pressures. This paper is organized as
follows: Initially, it establishes a theoretical framework by discussing DT, institutional theory, organizational
fields, bridging-issues field, and institutional isomorphism. The methodology section details the phases of design,
conduct, data abstraction and analysis, and structuring and mapping. We employ a systematic literature review, a
thematic analysis, and a focal action set approach to synthesize findings. Finally, the study concludes by
discussing its results, acknowledging limitations, and suggesting research questions for future investigations into
the institutionalization of DT in municipalities.
Theoretical Background
In the current era of DT, municipalities are at the forefront of a transformative journey. This journey is
characterized by the integration of digital technologies into every aspect of municipal operations, thereby inducing
strategic, operational, and structural shifts within municipalities. A rich body of scholarly discourse on DT
provides a robust theoretical foundation, thus enabling municipalities to navigate this complex terrain with greater
clarity and purpose. The discussion begins with Bharadwaj et al. (2013), who define DT as organizational changes
driven by digital technologies and business models with the goal of improving performance. This initial definition
emphasizes the strategic nature of DT, emphasizing technology as a driver of superior organizational performance,
which is crucial for municipalities seeking efficiency and effectiveness. Building upon this strategic framework,
Fitzgerald et al. (2014) introduce a practical perspective on DT, defining it as a process aimed at enhancing an
entity's performance or reach by improving business processes with innovative digital technologies. This
outcome-oriented perspective of DT, focusing on performance improvement and reach expansion, is essential for
municipalities aiming to augment service delivery and citizen engagement. Westerman et al. (2014) provide
further insights into the concept of DT as the use of technology to significantly improve enterprise performance
or reach. This definition of DT as a tool for enhancing performance and gaining a competitive advantage can serve
as a useful model for municipalities looking to optimize public services through digital technologies. Progressing
to a more operational- and organizational-change perspective, Matt et al. (2015) describe DT as the profound
transformation of business and organizational activities to fully leverage digital technologies. Their
comprehensive focus on transformation across the organization resonates with the holistic changes municipalities
must undertake in their digitalization efforts. Schallmo et al. (2017) further enrich the discussion by offering a
structured approach to understanding DT. They emphasize the transformation of business models, processes, and
customer interactions through digital technologies. They highlight the need for innovative and adaptive strategies

Patalon & Wyczisk
602
for municipalities in the digital age. McConnell (2018) expands the scope of DT to include not just the adoption
of digital technologies but also a fundamental transformation of business models, processes, and organizational
culture. This shift towards a more agile, innovative, and customer-centric approach of operating underscores the
importance of cultural and process-oriented transformation in municipalities, aligning with the goals of enhanced
citizen-centric governance. Finally, Vial (2019) synthesizes the extensive literature on DT, conceptualizing DT
as a process in which digital technologies induce disruptions, thus necessitating strategic organizational responses.
This comprehensive view encapsulates the transformative impact of digital technologies on municipal strategies
and structures, advocating for adaptive and responsive governance models. In this context, DT requires a thorough
reassessment of how technology, personnel, and processes are integrated in order to significantly improve
organizational performance. From an institutional theory perspective, DT can be viewed as a radical institutional
change that introduces novel actors, structures, practices, values, and beliefs (Hinings et al., 2018).
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory suggests that organizations, including municipalities, are influenced by a complex interplay
between regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements that promote stability and homogeneity (Scott,
2009). Originating from the seminal work of Meyer and Rowan (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983), this
theory has significantly advanced our understanding of institutional development and pressures (Beckert, 2010).
Municipalities, as social systems, are influenced by institutional forces that dictate legitimate behavior based on
societal norms and expectations, thus influencing the practices and strategies within municipalities (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). To understand an organization's actions in this context, it is crucial to
consider the organizational field and the critical actors within it (Scott, 2008). These actors, e.g., regulators,
professional associations, and media, constitute the institutional infrastructure in this field. They interpret, convey,
and monitor compliance with the sociocultural rules that enforce organizational legitimacy (Hinings et al., 2018;
Scott, 2008). Compliance with this infrastructure ensures legitimacy—a crucial factor for organizational
operations (Suchman, 1995). As municipalities strive to integrate digital technologies into their operations, they
encounter various institutional pressures that shape their strategies and approaches (Bennich, 2024). This dynamic
interaction between DT efforts and institutional influences underscores the importance of examining how
municipalities adapt and innovate within their given institutional infrastructure. Nowadays, the application of
institutional theory to the challenge of DT in municipalities is supported by empirical evidence. For instance,
studies have found that institutional pressures play a significant role in shaping DT efforts in the public sector.
Latif et al. (2020) examined the role of institutional pressures in the adoption of e-government services in
municipalities, with an emphasis on the significance of coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures as influential
factors. A similar study by Sousa et al. (2022) highlighted how institutional pressures influence the adoption and
maintenance of e-government services. Municipalities operating within this institutional environment face
different pressures to adopt digital structures and practices in order to maintain legitimacy and ensure
organizational survival (Berthod et al., 2018). Sociocultural beliefs play a crucial role in shaping the adoption of
innovations and in driving organizational change (Hartl & Hess, 2017). The study of DT from an institutional
perspective revolves around understanding how institutional arrangements emerge and diffuse within fields and
organizations (Siltaloppi et al., 2016). Researchers must address how these new ideas gain legitimacy and spread

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
603
within and across organizational fields (Hinings et al., 2018).
Organization Fields
The concept of organizational fields has been a focal point for understanding the collective dynamics of
organizations within a shared institutional environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). DiMaggio and Powell (1983)
describe organizational fields as aggregates of organizations constituting recognized areas of institutional life,
including key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other similar organizations.
This initial definition highlighted the emergence of homogeneity within fields through processes of institutional
isomorphism, setting the stage for further explorations into the mechanics of field dynamics and their influence
on organizational behavior. Building on this foundation, Scott (1995) expanded the understanding of
organizational fields by incorporating cognitive, normative, and regulative pillars. This expansion not only
included the organizations themselves but also the institutional logics and practices that inform their behavior and
interactions, thereby broadening the scope of influences considered within an organizational field.
This work emphasized the interconnectedness of these elements, illustrating how shared logics and practices
define field boundaries and influence organizational conduct within those boundaries. Hoffman’s (1999)
introduction of a dynamic perspective on organizational fields marked a shift towards understanding how
environmental and social issues shape and redefine these fields. His work emphasized the fluidity of fields and
the influence of broader societal concerns on field formation and change, highlighting the evolving nature of
organizational fields in response to external pressures. Wooten and Hoffman (2008) further explored the evolution
of organizational fields, focusing on the mechanisms such as framing, theorization, and diffusion that underlie
field evolution and the emergence of new fields. Their analyses provided insight into the processes contributing
to the dynamic restructuring of fields, reflecting the role of broader societal concerns in shaping the organization
of fields. Adding to the conversation, Lawrence et al. (2011) emphasized the agency of actors within fields to
engage in institutional work, thereby playing active roles in the creation, maintenance, and disruption of
institutional norms and practices. This perspective sheds light on the capacities of field participants to significantly
influence the institutional landscape, challenging deterministic views of field dynamics and highlighting the role
of human agency. The emergence of new organizational fields and the role of institutional logics, as discussed by
Lounsbury and Ventresca (2003) and further elaborated upon by Thornton et al. (2012), refined the concept of
organizational fields.
These works highlighted how innovative practices and dominant logics within fields drive evolution and change,
thus facilitating a more dynamic understanding of fields as spaces in which multiple logics may intersect, compete,
or evolve. Building on these constructs, Zietsma et al. (2017) provide a nuanced examination of organizational
fields, distinguishing between "exchange fields" characterized by transactional relationships among actors and
"issue fields" unified by shared concerns or issues that unify field participants beyond mere transactions. The
researchers note the emergence of organizational fields in response to societal, technological, and regulatory
shifts, thereby emphasizing the fluidity and evolution of these fields driven by changing actor compositions,
evolving interactions, and emerging challenges. This perspective is invaluable for recognizing the dynamism

Patalon & Wyczisk
604
inherent in institutional fields and the potential for new fields to emerge from the confluence of existing ones.
Bridging-Issues Fields
In this context, Zietsma et al. (2017) introduce the bridging-issues field, a concept that encapsulates fields formed
around issues that span traditional boundaries and necessitate collaboration across diverse sets of actors. Bridging-
issues fields are emblematic of complex interdependent problems that cannot be neatly contained within existing
organizational or institutional boundaries. DT in municipalities epitomizes a bridging-issues field, as it
encompasses a spectrum of technological, regulatory, and societal challenges and opportunities that transcend
traditional municipal operational boundaries (Besson & Rowe, 2012; Zietsma et al., 2017). DT necessitates a
reimagining of service delivery, citizen engagement, and infrastructural development, making it a quintessential
issue that bridges multiple fields, including technology, governance, and public administration (van der Hoogen
et al., 2024; Zietsma et al., 2017). Moreover, DT in municipalities brings together a diverse array of actors, from
government officials and technology providers to citizens and regulatory bodies, all of whom must collaborate to
navigate the complexities of integrating digital technologies into municipal governance (David et al., 2023;
Kurkela et al., 2019). This convergence of actors, issues, and interests underscores the bridging nature of the field,
as it necessitates cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration to achieve transformative outcomes (Zietsma
et al., 2017). Building on the comprehensive exploration of organizational fields, particularly the concept of
bridging-issues fields, we can now proceed to our first research question: What characterizes the bridging-issues
field of digital transformation within municipalities? Municipal DT spans technological, regulatory, and societal
domains, thereby creating a complex field in which traditional boundaries are crossed and redefined. This setting
allows us to examine the interactions and pressures among diverse actors such as public administrators, technology
providers, regulatory bodies, and citizens. These interactions form the bridging-issues field, a field in which
different sectors collaborate to transform municipal governance and service delivery. By characterizing this
bridging-issues field, we aim to identify the defining domains and key actors to provide insights that can guide
effective and inclusive DT in public organizations. Following our exploration into the defining features of this
field, we shift focus towards the links between key municipal actors and the institutional pressures they face.
Institutional Isomorphism
According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), organizations adopt similar practices in the face of institutional
pressures in order to maintain legitimacy. Deephouse (1996) supports this, noting the push for homogeneity to
maintain legitimacy, particularly in the public sector, in which adherence to established norms is prevalent. The
public sector's tendency towards homogeneity is further documented by Ashworth et al. (2007), Decramer et al.
(2012), and Lowndes and Wilson (2003), who observe widespread conformance to accepted behaviors. DiMaggio
and Powell (1983) describe three types of isomorphism—coercive, mimetic, and normative—that underlie this
trend. Each type can overlap and interact, but each is rooted in distinct environmental conditions and they
collectively influence public sector innovation and practices (Lowndes & Wilson, 2003). Coercive isomorphism
occurs when an organization faces formal or informal pressures from more powerful entities upon which they
depend, such as critical sources, customers, governing bodies with legislative power, or other social entities

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
605
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Heugens & Lander, 2009; Latif et al., 2020). This pressure prompts the organization
to align with certain practices to fulfill the demands of these influential stakeholders (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Harcourt et al. (2005) differentiate between competition-driven pressures and those resulting from regulatory
mandates. The former pertain to maintaining a competitive edge, while the latter involve adhering to legal
standards. Organizations face pressures to adapt in order to avoid exclusion or penalties (Windolph et al., 2014).
They do so by aligning their operations with those upon which they depend (Radaelli, 2000). In municipal DT,
coercive pressures are often regulatory (Kvashina et al., 2021). For instance, Germany's "Online Access Act"
mandates that public administration offer most services digitally by the end of 2022 (German Federal Ministry of
the Interior and Community, 2023). Similarly, Spain's "Digital Spain Agenda 2025" aims to enable 50% of public
services through mobile applications by 2025 (Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformatión Digital,
2020). This underscores the fact that coercive isomorphism compels municipalities to adopt digital standards due
to regulatory mandates, emphasizing the need for compliance and legitimacy. Mimetic isomorphism is a response
to organizational uncertainty and ambiguity (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It leads entities to imitate successful
practices to address unclear goals, shifting public expectations, and rapidly evolving technology (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983; Mizruchi & Fein, 1999). This approach helps organizations, including municipalities, facing
complex environments by adopting proven digital technologies, strategies, or e-governance models from peers
(Choi et al., 2018; Frennert, 2021). Although there is no guarantee of efficiency, the purpose of this imitation is
to gain legitimacy and manage uncertainties effectively (Palad, 2022; Radaelli, 2000). DiMaggio and Powell
(1983) note that adoption of these measures can be spontaneous or facilitated by consulting firms or staff changes,
highlighting its role as a strategic choice under technological and administrative pressures (Bennich, 2024).
In the field of DT, municipalities must adapt and contextualize practices to their unique local circumstances,
thereby potentially driving innovation by tailoring and improving upon the original practices (Battilana &
D'Aunno, 2009; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Thus, mimetic isomorphism strategically guides municipalities
through DT, thereby encouraging innovation and legitimacy by adopting and adapting best practices of peers.
Normative isomorphism shapes organizations through professionalization and standardization (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983). Driven by formal education and professional networks, it instills normative standards and cognitive
frameworks, ensuring a uniform approach across organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Gong & Xiao, 2017;
Meyer et al., 1993). Beyond efficiency, standardized practices seek legitimacy within professional realms (Austin,
1998; Meyer et al., 1993), with universities, professional associations, and socialization processes collectively
playing key roles in legitimizing occupational norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Radaelli, 2000).
Higher education and professional training are crucial for municipal DT, as they equip public administrators with
the skills necessary for digital integration (Weber et al., 2024). Adhering to international standards such as the
ISO 37120 series, which set benchmarks for city services and quality of life, highlights the importance of
professional norms in guiding digital progress (International Organization for Standardization, 2018). Standards
for digital advancements and innovations are disseminated through educational institutions and professional
networks. Universities and industry conferences serve as key forums for sharing these innovations (Gil-Garcia et
al., 2015). Professional bodies, such as the Smart Cities Council and the Digital Government Society, also promote
knowledge exchange on DT among municipalities, thereby promoting mutual learning from the successes and

Patalon & Wyczisk
606
challenges experienced by others (Meijer & Bolívar, 2016). Municipalities adopt e-government services, open
data, and smart technologies under the influence of prevailing norms, as described by Anthopoulos (2015) and
Kitchin (2014).
For instance, Amsterdam and New York are committed to sustainability, citizen engagement, and innovation. This
commitment is driven by normative pressures to enhance service delivery and foster efficient citizen–government
interactions (Anthopoulos, 2015; Kitchin, 2014). Normative isomorphism drives organizations towards
standardization and supports municipalities in achieving digital excellence. It integrates professional norms and
standards into municipal operations, thereby ensuring that digital efforts are legitimate and meet global best
practices and thus influencing the future of urban governance. This theoretical background leads us to our second
research question: Which groups of actors within municipalities face institutional pressures during the digital
transformation process? By identifying these actors, we aim to understand the institutional factors that shape DT
in municipalities using DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) seminal work on institutional isomorphism as a basis for
our research (see Table 1). This transition highlights how the initial exploration of the bridging-issues field sets
the stage for a deeper dive into the roles and challenges of key actors, creating a cohesive narrative that guides
our research forward.
Table 1. Institutional Isomorphism and Institutional Factors based on DiMaggio and Powell (1983)
Institutional isomorphism
Institutional factors
Coercive
Formal regulations
Inter-organizational dependence
Cultural expectations
Mimetic
Technological uncertainty
Goal ambiguity
Environmental change
Normative
Formal education
Professional network
Methodology
Literature reviews serve as research guides, identifying trends, gaps, intersections, directions, and issues within a
broader research context. Consequently, they establish the foundations for future research trajectories (Seuring &
Gold, 2012). Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are recognized as important scholarly contributions as they
map, consolidate, synthesize, and refine dispersed knowledge in a specific field, thus playing a crucial role in
advancing theoretical frameworks (Khirfan et al., 2020). They also diverge from traditional state-of-the-art
reviews in terms of thoroughness, stringency, and structure (Snyder, 2019). Additionally, SLRs represent an
independent research method (Okoli, 2015). As stated by Avenier (2010), analyzing the concepts used in the
literature through a deductive approach followed by an inductive analysis involving a theory-driven formulation
of categories is a crucial step in generalizing the findings relevant to our research questions. Therefore, our
research follows Snyder's (2019) semi-systematic literature review framework, refined according to the

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
607
recommendations of vom Brocke et al. (2009) and Webster and Watson (2002). This approach enables us to
examine a broad range of existing literature in a structured and deductive manner (Webster & Watson, 2002).
Furthermore, we improve upon the procedure outlined by Snyder (2019) through the incorporation of a content
analysis-based evaluation of research articles. This modification is achieved through an inductive approach that
encompasses thematic analysis as introduced by Braun and Clarke (2006). According to Kassarjian (1977),
content analysis should follow a distinct, intentional, and structured process. In line with this principle, we have
adopted Snyder's (2019) four-phase model, which includes design, conduct, data abstraction, and analysis, as well
as structuring and mapping. The following sections explain how we have adjusted these phases to align with our
specific research inquiries.
Design
The field of DT in municipalities is often discussed in relation to smart cities. To establish a foundation, we refer
to the Smart City Charter (SCC) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety. This document outlines key principles for the development of smart cities, including
a citizen-centric approach, sustainability, innovation, and collaborative governance. Additionally, the charter
contains recommendations for implementing these guidelines and is an important resource for public agencies and
municipalities (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, 2017). By adopting this charter as the
backbone of our SLR, we ensured that our analysis centered on sociotechnical aspects of urban environments,
encompassing the multifaceted nature of DT in municipalities (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und
Raumforschung, 2017). To gather pertinent literature, we utilized the SCC's tag cloud, which emphasizes four key
areas influencing DT: big data, local economy, governance, and digital integration/inclusion (Bundesinstitut für
Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, 2017; vom Brocke et al., 2009). Acknowledging municipalities as complex
systems, we expanded our search to include "digital transformation" and synonyms thereof, ensuring a holistic
view of DT's impact on municipal structures and processes. The inclusion of "smart city" as a search term aligns
with global trends towards integrating digital technologies for improved urban governance and citizen wellbeing,
highlighting the critical role of technology in urban development. Thus, our search string, based on the SCC and
refined through a targeted selection of terms, ensures that we do not miss crucial literature relevant to the
organizational dimensions of DT in municipalities (vom Brocke et al., 2009): Digitisation OR Digitalisation OR
Digitization OR Digitalization OR “Digital Transformation” AND Cit* OR Municipalit* OR “Smart Cit*” AND
“Big Data” OR “Local Econom*” OR Governance OR “Digital Integration” OR “Digital Inclusion”
Conduct
The SLR is based on a search in Scopus and IEEE Xplore. Both databases provide access to high-quality peer-
reviewed scientific articles. Scopus is a comprehensive database that covers research output from various fields,
including technology and social sciences. IEEE Xplore focuses on specialized literature in the field of engineering
and technology, making it relevant to our research objective as it ensures access to leading information systems
journals and conferences. To establish a timeframe for our SLR, we considered English-language conference
proceedings and journal articles published between January 2017 (publishing date of the SCC) and July 2022

Patalon & Wyczisk
608
(date of the SLR). The initial search yielded 9,626 results in both databases. Thereof, 31 duplicates were identified
and excluded, and nine incomplete datasets were deemed unusable. The results were then refined using filters
offered by the databases including "smart cities," "organizational aspects," and "public administration." This
process resulted in a final set of 1,360 articles. We deductively analyzed the titles and abstracts of this definitive
collection of articles based on our specific inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2) (vom Brocke et al., 2009).
Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion
Exclusion
Pertaining to the conceptualization process of DT
Conceptual emphasis is on smart cities with a
deficient focus on DT
Incorporating considerations of institutional change
Lacking on organizational logic
Addressing organizational aspects
Addressing specific technologies only
The dataset was reduced significantly via this process, to 80 articles. We conducted a comprehensive review of
all these articles in full-text form, focusing on the established criteria. After obtaining our results, we engaged in
discussions with researchers from related and adjacent research fields within our department. The purpose of these
discussions was to examine our findings and their implications. After this process, we identified and removed 61
papers that did not align with the content and objectives of our study. In the end, we identified 19 articles as
pertinent literature (Webster & Watson, 2002). Backward and forward searches for these papers yielded no further
results (Webster & Watson, 2002). Figure 1 identifies our review process for this research (Moher et al., 2010).
Figure 1. Systematic Literature Review Process according to Moher et al. (2010)

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
609
According to Cooper (1988), our selection offers a comprehensive view of the abstract nature of DT in
municipalities, as presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Results of the Systematic Literature Review
Reference
Area of study
Categories
Context
Abdalla et al.
(2019)
Management of smart
city initiatives
Smart cities, urban
management,
technological challenges
Challenges in
implementing smart city
initiatives, including
technical and governance
issues
Anthony Jnr et
al. (2021)
Enterprise architecture
framework for smart
cities
Smart cities, pervasive
systems, enterprise
architecture
Integration and
management of digital
services and platforms
for urban smart
transformation
Canedo et al.
(2020)
Digitization and
automation of public
services
Digital government,
public service
automation, citizen
engagement
Perception of Brazilian
citizens towards
digitization and
automation of public
services and its impacts
Chiriac et al.
(2021)
Digitalization of public
services in Romania
Digital transformation,
public administration, e-
government
Advancements and
challenges in
digitalization of
Romania's public service
Datta (2020)
Digital transformation in
Italian public
administration
Digital government,
public administration
reform, technology
management
Digital transformation
initiatives in Italian
public administration,
focusing on challenges
and impacts
Dobrolyubova
(2021)
Digital transformation in
public administration
Digital governance, e-
government, public
administration
evaluation
Assessment of outcomes
of digital transformation
in public administration,
evaluation of benefits
and risks

Patalon & Wyczisk
610
Reference
Area of study
Categories
Context
Dorofeeva et al.
(2019)
Smart cities
infrastructure in Russia
Urban planning, smart
cities, infrastructure
development
Influence of regional
infrastructure on the
development of smart
cities in Russia
Hatuka and Zur
(2020)
Smart cities and smart
social urbanism
Urban planning, smart
cities, sociotechnological
ecosystems
Interaction between
digital companies and
municipalities in
developing smart city
strategies
Leão and Canedo
(2018)
Digitization of public
services
Digital government,
citizen engagement,
public service
digitization
Methodologies and best
practices for digitizing
public services with a
focus on citizen
participation
Leão et al.
(2018)
Digitization of
government services
E-government, service
digitization, process
mapping
Improvement and
standardization of
digitizing government
services with societal
involvement
Kuhlmann and
Heuberger
(2021)
Digital transformation in
local public
administration
E-government,
administrative reforms,
local government
analysis
Examination of the
impact and challenges of
digital transformation in
local governments in
Germany
Lytras and
Serban (2020)
E-government in smart
cities in the EU
E-government, smart
cities, regulatory impact
Role of EU regulations
in shaping e-government
services within smart
cities
Pereira et al.
(2020)
Governance innovations
and digital
transformation in smart
cities
Smart cities, digital
governance, public value
generation
Interplay between smart
city technologies and
governance innovations
for public value creation

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
611
Reference
Area of study
Categories
Context
Reis et al. (2021)
ICT governance in smart
cities
Applied computing,
computing in
government, e-
government
Focus on ICT
governance practices in
Brazilian smart cities in
the context of digital
transformation
Runardotter et al.
(2020)
Digital participation and
inclusion in rural areas
Digital transformation,
digital inclusion, public
administration
Challenges in achieving
inclusive digital
participation in rural
areas
Semyachkov
(2020)
Social media's role in
smart city development
smart cities, social
media, urban
development
Impact of citizen activity
in social networks on
smart city development
processes
Tangi et al.
(2021)
E-maturity in local
governments
E-government, local
government studies,
public administration
technology
Assessment of digital
advancement in local
governments, factors
influencing e-maturity,
impact on service
delivery
Todorut and
Tselentis (2018)
Digitization in public
administration
Digital governance, e-
government, public
administration reform
The impact of digital
technologies on the
modernization of public
administration and
public value creation
Yudatama et al.
(2017)
IT governance
implementation
IT governance,
organizational
management, success
factors
Examination of benefits
and barriers as critical
success factors in IT
governance
implementation
Data Abstraction and Analysis
We employed a thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke (2006) to systematically analyze and interpret

Patalon & Wyczisk
612
meanings and patterns within our dataset. This method was specifically chosen for its effectiveness in uncovering
nuanced themes crucial to understanding the complex institutional dynamics of DT in municipalities. The
robustness of thematic analysis facilitated a comprehensive exploration of intricate datasets, making it ideal for
our research objectives (Nowell et al., 2017). Each article was thoroughly analyzed to extract and understand the
detailed content, focusing on the authors' research questions, methodologies, key arguments, and primary
constructs, as recommended by Thorpe et al. (2005) and Braun and Clarke (2006). We tagged and sorted identified
phrases into groups based on thematic relevance (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Following Braun and Clarke (2006),
we used a mind-mapping approach to generate and develop codes into themes. This meticulous process ensured
that our coding scheme was solidly grounded in the theoretical frameworks of the articles (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
Figure 2 illustrates a developed thematic mind map showing one main theme.
Figure 2. Exemplary Thematic Mind Map
We utilized a customized Excel workbook for data organization and analysis. This setup, equipped with templates
and formulas, allowed for efficient categorization and consistent thematic tracking, thereby enhancing and
centering our analytical precision and trustworthiness (Richards & Hemphill, 2018). Discrepancies in theme
identification were consequently addressed through structured discussions among our research team (Richards &
Hemphill, 2018). If needed, a third-party expert was consulted to maintain the objectivity and integrity of our
findings, in alignment with best practices for qualitative research (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015). Throughout the study,
we continuously refined our thematic framework, incorporating emerging themes and adapting our coding schema
as needed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This iterative process, supported by regular cross-referencing of the results,
ensured the accuracy and consistency of our thematic designations, as emphasized by Braun and Clarke (2006).
This approach not only aligns with our research objectives but also significantly deepens our understanding of the
bridging-issues field that characterizes DT.

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
613
Results
Thirteen overarching main themes emerged from this iterative process. These were refined, categorized, and
synthesized in accordance with the method proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The emerging themes were
classified into three groups of actors (GOAs), i.e., government & administration, citizens, and business &
economy, and ten domains of actions (DOAs), i.e., process definition, communication/participation,
collaboration, digital skills, value creation, policies, digital infrastructure, quality of digitalization, knowledge
transfer, and inclusion. Each GOA was linked to one or more DOAs, illustrating the interconnectedness within
our dataset. To systematically represent these relationships, we utilized a concept-centric matrix as described by
Webster and Watson (2002) (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Concept-Centric Matrix according to Webster and Watson (2002)
This matrix marked each occurrence of a DOA associated with a GOA, thereby demonstrating their relevance
within the analyzed texts. The matrix also included cumulative counts at the bottom quantifying the prevalence
of each theme across the literature, thus providing a measurable overview of the thematic concentrations in our
study.
Groups of Actors
The GOA themes are divided into 20 sub-actor themes to accurately depict the spectrum of actors in municipal
DT (see Table 4). Each subtheme includes entities both influencing and influenced by this transformation, thus

Patalon & Wyczisk
614
ensuring that the classification represents authentic interactions and dynamics among these groups. This
organization of sub-actors is directly informed by the data in order to maintain relevance to actual municipal
contexts.
Table 4. List of Groups of Actors and Sub-Actors
Group of actors
Sub-actors
Government & administration
Local government officials
Federal government
Municipal decision-makers
EU policymakers
Government agencies
Public sector employees
Urban planners
IT professionals
City administrators
Public service entities
Citizens
Rural and urban residents
Citizens involved in DT initiatives
End-users and participants
Business & economy
Small and medium enterprises
Local companies
Technology experts
IT managers
IT consultants
Corporate executives
Digital technology providers
The government & administration is responsible for managing public affairs in various locales, including cities,
towns, and counties, which are often grouped under the terms "municipalities" or "regional administrations"
(Canedo et al., 2020; Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021; Pereira et al., 2020). Despite their collective nomenclature,
each entity (e.g., city, town, or country) carries distinct responsibilities and operates within a unique governmental
structure (Datta, 2020). A key aspect of their role involves the development and provision of necessary digital
infrastructure and processes as well as the formulation of usage policies, as corroborated by studies conducted by
Hatuka and Zur (2020), Abdalla et al. (2019), Leão and Canedo (2018), and Leão et al. (2018). This GOA
encompasses a spectrum of key entities and personnel who collectively facilitate this evolution within municipal
frameworks. At the core, officials at various levels of government, from local to federal, along with policymakers
across the European Union , play strategic roles in shaping and guiding the DT process (Leão & Canedo, 2018;
Lytras & Serban, 2020). These individuals, alongside dedicated government agencies and public sector

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
615
employees, are tasked with implementing and overseeing the transition towards digitally enabled municipal
environments (Semyachkov, 2020; Tangi et al., 2021). Integral to this collective are urban planners and IT
professionals, whose expertise in technical and infrastructural design advances the transformation agenda
(Anthony Jnr et al., 2021; Dorofeeva et al., 2019; Yudatama et al., 2017). Additionally, city administrators and
entities responsible for public services contribute to operationalizing digital strategies (Dobrolyubova, 2021;
Pereira et al., 2020). This convergence of roles ensures that DT is not only conceptualized but also practically
applied, thus enhancing the efficiency, accessibility, and quality of municipal services (Reis et al., 2021). Their
affiliation is rooted in a shared mission to modernize governance and public administration, which aims to meet
the evolving demands of an increasingly digital society.
Citizens, as defined in our research, are individuals legally recognized as members of a municipality and actively
engaged in civil society, encompassing a spectrum from rural and urban residents to IT professionals (Pereira et
al., 2020; Semyachkov, 2020; Todorut & Tselentis, 2018). This GOA collective is not merely the recipient of
digitalized services but also acts as a participatory force in DT initiatives (Leão & Canedo, 2018; Lytras & Serban,
2020). The citizens’ contribution is multifaceted: as end-users, they provide critical usage data and feedback, thus
enhancing service adaptability, while as IT experts, they contribute to the development and refinement of e-
government services (Chiriac et al., 2021; Datta, 2020). The amalgamation of these roles underscores a transition
towards a more collaborative, user-driven model of public service digitalization, where the citizen is both a
collaborator in and co-creator of the digital milieu (Abdalla et al., 2019; Leão et al., 2018).
Lastly, business & economy in the DT process revolves around collaboration and value creation, involving a
dynamic interplay between various specialized entities ranging from burgeoning small and medium businesses to
established local companies (Datta, 2020; Hatuka & Zur, 2020). These entities, guided by technology experts and
IT managers, are pivotal in orchestrating the shift towards advanced digital operations (Anthony Jnr et al., 2021;
Semyachkov, 2020). IT consultants and governance professionals provide strategic oversight, ensuring adherence
to best practices and fostering innovation (Datta, 2020; Hatuka & Zur, 2020). Corporate executives and digital
technology providers further drive this evolution, integrating cutting-edge solutions into the municipalities and
shaping the digital infrastructure of urban areas (Dobrolyubova, 2021; Semyachkov, 2020). Collectively, these
GOA form a robust ecosystem, propelling economic growth and resilience through digital advancement. This
synergy is essential for creating a competitive and technologically adept market that responds with agility to the
demands of the digital age.
Domains of Actions
The DOA themes comprise 35 set-of-activities subthemes that provide a comprehensive structure for
understanding the nature of DT in municipalities (see Table 5). Extracted directly from data, these sets of activities
address critical aspects necessary for effective digital adoption and integration, spanning foundational elements
such as process definition and digital infrastructure to more nuanced areas such as digital literacy and inclusion.
Organized into ten interconnected fields, this structure aids in systematically analyzing and improving DT efforts
by offering a holistic view that supports strategic advancements and policymaking.

Patalon & Wyczisk
616
Table 5. List of Domains of Actions and Sets-of-activities
Domains of actions
Set-of-activities
Process definition
Service analysis and improvement
Service efficiency and streamlining
Standardization and centralization
Strategic vision
Communication/Participation
Public engagement
Open governance
Inclusive service design and delivery
Digital tools and platforms
Participative interactions
Collaboration
Digital tools and platforms
Public–private partnerships
Stakeholder engagement and mapping
Open innovation and business opportunities
Digital literacy
Digital skills
Employee capacity challenges
Cross-theme capacity building
Value creation
Service enhancement
Innovation and technology
Daily life digital service
Policies
Privacy and surveillance
Security and data protection
Incentives and design principles
Digital infrastructure
Digital connectivity
Service management
Interoperability and integration
Operational models
Data management and analytics
Enterprise architecture framework (EAF)
Quality of digitalization
Digital maturity
Service efficiency and effectiveness
Transparency and accountability

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
617
Domains of actions
Set-of-activities
Knowledge transfer
Support and education
Transparency
Inclusion
Sociodemographic insights
Digital equity
Process definition encapsulates a multifaceted approach to organizational optimization (Pereira et al., 2020). It
blends analysis (Leão et al., 2018; Semyachkov, 2020; Todorut & Tselentis, 2018) and enhancement of existing
frameworks with a focus on efficiency (Canedo et al., 2020; Chiriac et al., 2021) and unification (Todorut &
Tselentis, 2018) as guided by a clear strategic vision (Hatuka & Zur, 2020) amidst financial and resource
considerations (Abdalla et al., 2019; Dobrolyubova, 2021; Dorofeeva et al., 2019; Yudatama et al., 2017). This
amalgamation ensures sustainable, streamlined operations, which are crucial for adaptive and resilient systems in
a dynamic environment (Dorofeeva et al., 2019). Communication/participation captures all distinct examples,
merging democratic engagement (Leão & Canedo, 2018), transparent governance (Dobrolyubova, 2021; Leão &
Canedo, 2018), and inclusive service strategies (Todorut & Tselentis, 2018). It emphasizes the synergy between
modern technology (Chiriac et al., 2021) and participatory practices (Pereira et al., 2020; Reis et al., 2021), thereby
enhancing decision-making and service delivery (Semyachkov, 2020). This integration fosters a responsive,
accountable, and citizen-centric approach (Canedo et al., 2020), which is crucial for progressive, transparent, and
effective governance (Runardotter et al., 2020). Collaboration integrates diverse elements to create a cohesive
framework for progressive and efficient organizational ecosystems (Abdalla et al., 2019; Todorut & Tselentis,
2018). It combines the strengths of cross-sector partnerships (Canedo et al., 2020; Runardotter et al., 2020),
strategic engagement of varied interests (Hatuka & Zur, 2020), and innovative approaches to create new
opportunities (Dobrolyubova, 2021). This synergy optimizes resource utilization, fosters innovation, and drives
growth by embodying a holistic approach to modern challenges (Runardotter et al., 2020; Semyachkov, 2020).
Digital literacy encapsulates the essential progression of competencies within a community setting (Datta, 2020;
Dorofeeva et al., 2019), thereby blending personal capability development (Lytras & Serban, 2020) with
workforce adaptation strategies (Pereira et al., 2020; Runardotter et al., 2020). It underscores the importance of
aligning individual skills with organizational needs (Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021; Leão et al., 2018), thus
ensuring a harmonious growth trajectory that meets the demands of an increasingly digital societal framework
(Datta, 2020). Value creation embodies a comprehensive approach to optimizing societal benefits (Semyachkov,
2020) through efficient resource utilization (Dobrolyubova, 2021), innovative technology adoption (Dorofeeva et
al., 2019), and enhanced service delivery (Canedo et al., 2020). It integrates strategic coordination and
responsiveness to everyday needs (Lytras & Serban, 2020), thereby fostering an environment where progress and
efficiency converge to generate significant tangible value in everyday life and public services (Datta, 2020; Pereira
et al., 2020). Policies represents a nuanced approach to regulatory frameworks (Anthony Jnr et al., 2021; Todorut
& Tselentis, 2018), blending considerations of individual rights (Leão et al., 2018), data security (Dobrolyubova,
2021), and governance challenges with strategic incentivization (Hatuka & Zur, 2020). This combination ensures

Patalon & Wyczisk
618
a balanced, effective policy landscape, addressing contemporary complexities while fostering an environment
conducive to responsible innovation and societal trust in evolving digital domains (Abdalla et al., 2019; Leão &
Canedo, 2018).
Digital infrastructure characterizes an integrated approach to building a robust and cohesive technological
ecosystem (Leão & Canedo, 2018). It combines seamless access (Lytras & Serban, 2020), efficient service
management (Semyachkov, 2020), and harmonious systems integration with data-centric strategies, all
underpinned by comprehensive architectural frameworks (Anthony Jnr et al., 2021). This convergence facilitates
a dynamic, interconnected, and data-driven operational landscape, which is essential for modern digital
advancements (Datta, 2020; Todorut & Tselentis, 2018). Knowledge transfer encompasses the facilitation of
information flow and understanding across diverse groups (Reis et al., 2021). It focuses on creating an
environment conducive to learning and engagement (Semyachkov, 2020), thereby fostering clear communication
and active involvement (Dobrolyubova, 2021). This approach ensures the effective dissemination and utilization
of knowledge that is vital for collective progress and informed decision-making (Todorut & Tselentis, 2018).
Quality of digitalization is anchored in the interplay between advanced technological maturity (Kuhlmann &
Heuberger, 2021; Tangi et al., 2021), optimization of service delivery (Dobrolyubova, 2021), and a commitment
to transparency and accountability (Leão et al., 2018). This convergence is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness
of digital services, ensuring that they are both efficient and responsibly managed, thereby fostering trust and
reliability in digital systems (Chiriac et al., 2021). Inclusion integrates a comprehensive understanding of diverse
societal facets, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and addressing varied cultural, demographic, and
economic factors (Datta, 2020; Leão et al., 2018). This approach ensures equitable access and participation in the
digital sphere (Canedo et al., 2020), thereby fostering a more inclusive and representative environment that
respects and responds to a range of needs and perspectives (Hatuka & Zur, 2020).
Groups of Actors and Domains of Actions
GOAs are defined by their roles or responsibilities in organizational processes, referring to the individuals, teams,
or departments within or associated with a municipality. This includes local government officials, rural and urban
residents, and SMEs, each playing distinct roles in the DT process (see Table 4). GOAs often interact across and
within DOAs, facilitating the dynamic flow of activities and information crucial for successful task
implementation and overall objectives. Their influence is shaped by their knowledge, authority, and resources.
DOAs are defined by their scope of work or the objectives they aim to achieve within a municipality, referring to
specific areas or fields where distinct activities, processes, or operations are carried out. In municipal DT, DOAs
might include policies or digital infrastructure (see Table 5). Each DOA encompasses activities related to specific
functional aspects, such as ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of technological implementations (see Table
5). DOAs are critical in strategic planning, where they help to organize efforts and resources efficiently across the
organization's operations.
The main difference between DOAs and GOAs lies in their focus and function within the organizational structure
(see Table 6). DOAs focus on the areas of activity or the specific aspects of the municipal operation in DT, i.e.,

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
619
what needs to be done. In contrast, GOAs focus on the individuals or groups involved in or responsible for these
activities, i.e., who is doing it. DOAs are more about structural aspects and the functional dynamics of a
municipality, mapping out the operations or tasks within an area. GOAs, on the other hand, deal more with
personal or group dynamics and analyze the roles and interactions of different actors within these operations.
DOAs are structural elements of a municipality, defining the configuration of tasks and responsibilities in DT.
GOAs represent the social elements, highlighting the human resources and their relationships that drive the
functionality within these structures.
Table 6. Difference between GOAs and DOAs
Criteria
Groups of actors
Domains of actions
Focus
Individuals and groups
Operational tasks
Dynamics
Personal and group dynamics
within operations
Functional dynamics within a
structured framework
Elements
Social; highlighting relationships
and human resources
Structural; configuring tasks and
responsibilities
Structuring and Mapping
The success of DT is based on the creation of innovation networks (Appio et al., 2021). These networks link
different actors and fields and encapsulate temporal, cognitive, normative, and territorial aspects (Amin & Thrift,
1992; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Uzzi & Spiro, 2005). Mapping these links helps us to visualize the roles and
interactions of these actors within a bridging-issues field. Therefore, to structure and map our findings, we use the
innovation network approach and combine it with institutional isomorphism. The success of these networks hinges
on organizational and systemic methodologies, as well as on the critical roles of institutional and spatial factors
(McKitterick et al., 2016; Sternberg & Arndt, 2001).
The focal action set framework of Conway and Steward (1998) is particularly effective for analyzing both
individual organizations and the overarching network structure. Following Conway and Steward (1998), our
approach involves structuring and mapping the network through the selection and abstraction of specific aspects
of our field of interest. First, we define a focus based on the actors' attributes and links, which leads to an
exploration of DOAs and GOAs (Conway & Steward, 1998).
This enables identification of enduring relational patterns and commonalities within the DOAs and GOAs and of
how types of isomorphism influence network structuring and functioning (Fombrun, 1982). Second, our
definitional focus centers around DT within municipalities, adopting the ego-centered nodal-anchoring approach
(Conway & Steward, 1998). Third, we align and graphically represent the GOA within the provided framework
of a DOA. Additionally, we place each GOA sub-actor thoughtfully, considering its roles and the institutional
pressures it experiences (Conway & Steward, 1998).
Consequently, the segmentation of the external environment of our focal actor creates ten segments according to

Patalon & Wyczisk
620
our DOA. The upper section of the figure is organized into policies, digital infrastructure, quality of digitalization,
communication/participation, and collaboration. The lower section includes process definition, inclusion, value
creation, knowledge transfer, and digital literacy. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Digital Transformation of the Municipality Focal Action Set
Figure 5 shows the variety of body types, institutional pressures, and directions of flow which are used in Figure
4.
Figure 5. Variety of Body Types, Institutional Pressures, and Directions of Flow

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
621
We used a hexagon for governmental and administrative bodies, an octagon for the citizen bodies, and a rectangle
for business and economy bodies (Conway & Steward, 1998). The ellipse represents our focal actor in this system,
i.e., DT in the municipality. For a better understanding of the institutional pressures, we connected the shapes with
lines and arrows (Conway & Steward, 1998). Solid lines indicate coercive pressures, dotted lines represent
normative pressures, and dashed lines show mimetic pressures. The direction of flow is also depicted through the
use of arrowheads (Conway & Steward, 1998).
The final step in mapping an innovation network based on the focal action set according to Conway and Steward
(1998) is to describe the links between the GOAs, their institutional pressures, and DT within municipalities. This
research will adopt a holistic perspective informed by the results of our SLR.
Policies establish the regulatory backbone for all digital activities, ensuring compliance with legal standards and
strategic objectives (Anthony Jnr et al., 2021; Datta, 2020). Municipal DT is governed by a policy framework set
forth by EU policymakers as well as federal and local government agencies (Dorofeeva et al., 2019; Kuhlmann &
Heuberger, 2021; Lytras & Serban, 2020). These entities exert coercive pressures that mandate compliance with
established DT guidelines, thereby ensuring adherence to higher governance standards (Datta, 2020; Pereira et
al., 2020). Digital infrastructure forms the technological foundation necessary for implementing digital services
(Canedo et al., 2020; Semyachkov, 2020). Government agencies, IT professionals, and technology providers are
responsible for building this robust infrastructure (Reis et al., 2021; Semyachkov, 2020; Yudatama et al., 2017).
Mimetic pressures from successful models encourage municipalities to emulate proven infrastructural
frameworks, thus fostering innovation and efficiency (Pereira et al., 2020; Semyachkov, 2020). Quality of
digitalization focuses on maintaining high standards of digital implementations (Dobrolyubova, 2021).
This aspect involves IT professionals, municipal decision-makers, and city administrations, who are guided by
normative pressures to uphold high standards in digital services, thus ensuring that the services meet established
industry norms and ethical guidelines (Datta, 2020; Pereira et al., 2020). Communication/participation engages
stakeholders in the DT process, which is crucial for ensuring that the initiatives are well received and utilized
(Leão & Canedo, 2018; Lytras & Serban, 2020). DT processes are enhanced by the active participation of
stakeholders, including public services, urban planners, corporate executives, and citizens as the end-users of
digital services (Chiriac et al., 2021; Datta, 2020). This engagement is shaped by a blend of coercive, normative,
and mimetic pressures, which together foster a responsive and inclusive DT environment (Canedo et al., 2020;
Semyachkov, 2020). Collaboration enhances the cooperation between various municipal departments and external
entities, which is crucial for the holistic implementation of digital projects (Abdalla et al., 2019; Todorut &
Tselentis, 2018). Collaborative efforts across corporate sectors, SMEs, municipal decision-makers, and the
citizens seen as end-users are fundamental in advancing municipal DT (Canedo et al., 2020; Hatuka & Zur, 2020).
Normative and mimetic pressures here promote the adoption of collaborative practices that leverage diverse
expertise and resources (Anthony Jnr et al., 2021; Semyachkov, 2020).
Process definition sets clear procedures and standards for digital operations, thereby ensuring consistency and
efficiency in service delivery (Pereira et al., 2020; Reis et al., 2021). Local government officials, city

Patalon & Wyczisk
622
administrators, and municipal decision-makers are influenced by normative pressures to define clear and effective
DT processes, thus aligning municipal operations with best practice standards (Kuhlmann & Heuberger, 2021;
Leão & Canedo, 2018). Inclusion focuses on ensuring that all community segments can access and benefit from
digital services (Runardotter et al., 2020). DT policies must ensure inclusivity to integrate the perspectives of both
rural and urban residents (Lytras & Serban, 2020; Reis et al., 2021). Coercive pressures enforce inclusive
practices, thus guaranteeing that DT benefits are accessible to all demographic segments (Abdalla et al., 2019;
Leão & Canedo, 2018). Value creation aims to deliver tangible benefits from digital initiatives, thereby enhancing
residents' quality of life (Dobrolyubova, 2021; Semyachkov, 2020). In the creation of value, city administrators
and IT professionals adopt best practices out of business & economy influenced by mimetic pressures, which
drives the adoption of innovative solutions that have proven successful in other contexts (Dobrolyubova, 2021;
Semyachkov, 2020). Knowledge transfer promotes the dissemination of knowledge to sustain innovation and
adaptation (Chiriac et al., 2021; Semyachkov, 2020). Knowledge sharing is critical in DT, involving the citizens
involved in technological initiatives, IT professionals, IT managers, consultants, and public service entities and
driven by normative pressures to foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement (Dobrolyubova, 2021;
Hatuka & Zur, 2020; Runardotter et al., 2020). Digital literacy increases the digital competence of all citizens,
public sector employees, and public service entities, enabling effective participation in digital initiatives (Lytras
& Serban, 2020; Semyachkov, 2020). Efforts to enhance digital literacy are shaped by mimetic and normative
pressures, whereby successful educational models inform the development of training programs tailored to diverse
municipal needs (Datta, 2020; Pereira et al., 2020).
Discussion
Our study reveals that GOAs encounter institutional pressures that shape their contributions to the DT process in
municipalities. This complexity necessitates collaborative efforts and cross-sectoral partnerships within DOAs to
foster successful digital activities, underscoring the need for a unified approach that transcends traditional
boundaries. Addressing our first research question—What characterizes the bridging-issues field of digital
transformation within municipalities?—our findings identify DT in municipalities to be a prime example of a
bridging-issues field according to Zietsma et al. (2017). It is characterized by multifaceted interactions across
various institutional realms requiring holistic and interconnected approaches, e.g., process definition, inclusion,
value creation, knowledge transfer, and digital literacy (see Table 5) (Zietsma et al., 2017). These DOAs show
that DT involves redefining processes, engaging diverse stakeholders, creating substantial benefits, enhancing
digital competencies, and disseminating knowledge across governmental layers. Collaboration among diverse
GOAs, each bringing unique resources, expertise, and perspectives, is essential. This collaboration aligns with
DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) institutional isomorphism, where the adoption of practices across different fields
is driven by mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures. These pressures are crucial for achieving diverse goals
and addressing multi-stakeholder governance challenges. Moreover, effective governance and adaptable policy
frameworks are critical for managing this bridging-issues field. Policies must evolve to accommodate new
technologies and data paradigms.
Coercive pressures from higher government tiers often mandate digital standards, highlighting the need for policy

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
623
frameworks that adapt rapidly while ensuring compliance, security, and public trust. The strategic nature of
municipal digital strategies reflects the long-term orientation typical of a bridging-issues field (Zietsma et al.,
2017). Municipalities are integrating digital technologies into their infrastructure, thereby initiating significant
transformations in service delivery, citizen engagement, and operational efficiencies. This strategy requires a
forward-looking approach that prioritizes long-term benefits over immediate gains and necessitates ongoing
adjustments to the evolving technological landscape. DT also invariably impacts societal norms and practices,
altering how citizens interact with their government. These shifts challenge traditional governance and
engagement methods, leading to new digital interfaces and communication protocols. Such transformations
enhance transparency, increase citizen participation, and improve government responsiveness. From a practical
standpoint, these insights highlight the need for municipal leaders to adopt comprehensive DT strategies that
consider technological, human, social, and policy-related factors. Prioritizing user-centric design, stakeholder
engagement, and continuous feedback mechanisms is crucial to ensuring that DT initiatives align with and respond
to community needs and expectations. While the concept of a bridging-issues field effectively captures the
multifaceted nature of DT within municipalities, it is important to critically assess the variability in the capacity
of different municipalities to engage with digital innovations and technologies. For instance, disparities in
resources, expertise, and infrastructure can significantly influence the extent to which different municipalities can
implement and benefit from DT strategies. Larger cities may have more resources and better access to technology,
allowing for more comprehensive integration of digital solutions, whereas smaller towns might struggle with
limited budgets and expertise. Additionally, institutional isomorphism provides a valuable lens through which to
view the adoption of digital practices. However, this perspective may oversimplify the complex sociopolitical and
cultural dynamics that shape a bridging-issues field. For example, the theory does not fully address the resistance
that may come from within municipal administrations or from citizens who are wary of changes to traditional
services and governance methods. Such resistance can stem from a variety of sources, including a fear of job
displacement, privacy concerns, and a lack of trust in digital systems.
Our second research question—Which groups of actors within municipalities face institutional pressures during
the digital transformation process?—reveals that institutional isomorphism critically shapes the actions and
reactions of GOAs. Each of these GOAs (see Table 4) faces distinct institutional pressures that not only influence
their operational approaches but also dictate the broader trajectory of the DT sets-of-activities (see table 5) within
municipalities. Government and administrative bodies, which encompass both local and federal levels, operate
primarily under coercive pressures stemming from their regulatory mandates. These actors are entrusted with the
enforcement of compliance to digital standards, such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European
Union. Their decisions are largely directed by higher governmental or international directives, thereby positioning
them as pivotal enforcers within the digital policy arena. While this regulatory authority empowers government
bodies to set the pace and scope of DT, it also immerses them in substantial bureaucratic and legal complexities.
This paradox highlights a critical dynamic: while coercive pressures ensure standardization and legal compliance,
they can also inadvertently hinder localized innovation, thus suggesting the need of a balanced approach that
accommodates both compliance and flexibility. Simultaneously, the business & economy GOA, particularly in
digital technology sectors, responds significantly to mimetic pressures. These entities often emulate successful
digital practices observed within and outside their immediate industrial landscapes, driven by the desire to

Patalon & Wyczisk
624
maintain or enhance competitive standing. This tendency not only promotes the diffusion of proven technologies
into municipal DT strategies through public–private partnerships but also risks a uniformity that may overlook
localized needs. The influence of mimetic pressures necessitates a discerning approach from municipalities, in
which the replication of digital solutions is carefully evaluated to ensure suitability beyond their surface success.
At the front line of DT's impact are the citizens, whose normative pressures are informed by their expectations of
digital service delivery. As digital platforms become integral to public service frameworks, citizens increasingly
demand transparency, accessibility, and efficiency. The escalation in digital literacy and active engagement in
these platforms further amplifies these expectations, thereby pressing municipalities to prioritize user-centric and
inclusive digital innovations. Here, normative pressures serve as a double-edged sword: they propel municipalities
towards high standards of service delivery, yet they also impose a challenge to harmonizing these services with
diverse citizens' needs and varying levels of digital accessibility. Together, these dynamics illustrate a complex
interplay between institutional pressures across different actor groups, emphasizing the nuanced ways in which
coercive, mimetic, and normative forces shape municipal DT. Recognizing the distinct yet interconnected impacts
of these pressures is crucial for crafting strategies that not only align with the theoretical underpinnings of
institutional isomorphism but also respond pragmatically to the real-world challenges of digital governance. By
addressing these pressures in a balanced and context-aware manner, municipalities can better navigate the
multifaceted landscape of DT, thus enhancing both the efficacy and inclusivity of their digital initiatives. The
challenges of institutional isomorphism within municipal DT necessitate strategic approaches and policy
implementations tailored to accommodate both regulatory demands and the needs for local innovation.
Municipalities must develop adaptive policy frameworks capable of responding to rapid digital changes while
also reflecting the unique characteristics of local communities. This includes crafting policies that leverage
technological advancements but also remain attuned to local cultural, economic, and social contexts. Enhancing
public–private partnerships is also critical. By strategically engaging businesses that bring proven digital
technologies, municipalities can gain access to essential resources and expertise. However, these collaborations
must align with long-term municipal goals, thus enhancing service delivery without compromising the distinct
needs of each community.
Limitations of the Study
Our study on DT in municipalities, while comprehensive, acknowledges several limitations that impact its
applicability and relevance. These limitations are critical for interpreting the findings and contextualizing them
within broader municipal settings. Firstly, the generalizability of the analysis is limited. Since the study primarily
utilizes generalized theoretical models and SLR, it might not capture specific nuances and exceptions across
diverse municipal contexts. Municipalities vary widely due to differences in governance structures, cultural
attitudes towards technology, and economic conditions, which can significantly influence the effectiveness and
reception of DT initiatives. Secondly, the dynamic nature of technology and policy poses a challenge. DT is
evolving rapidly, influenced by technological advancements, political shifts, and changes in public policies.
Therefore, the influence levels and strategic relevance of certain observations may become outdated, necessitating
ongoing adjustments to municipal strategies. Thirdly, the study's reliance on theoretical and secondary data
introduces a degree of subjectivity and potential bias. The lack of primary empirical data means that the findings

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
625
are not substantiated by quantitative measures specific to each stakeholder, which would provide a more precise
measure of influence levels and the impact of institutional pressures. Additionally, the rapid evolution of
technology means that the strategies and technologies discussed might quickly become obsolete. Continuous
research is necessary to keep pace with technological advancements and to ensure that municipal governance
strategies remain relevant and effective. Lastly, while the study attempts to integrate insights from various
disciplines, the complexity of DT could be further enriched by perspectives from fields such as business
informatics, environmental studies, and behavioral science. This would provide a more holistic understanding of
the challenges and opportunities presented by DT. Addressing these limitations in future research would enable
scholars and practitioners to develop better-tailored and more effective DT strategies for municipalities, thereby
enhancing the sustainability and impact of these initiatives.
Practical Implications
This research reveals how different forms of institutional isomorphism play distinct roles in shaping municipal
digital strategies. Here, we propose practical recommendations for municipal leaders, policymakers, and
practitioners that are aimed at optimizing the management of institutional pressures to foster successful DT. Given
the impact of coercive isomorphism, municipalities must align their digital initiatives with prevailing regulations
while maintaining flexibility to innovate. We recommend the establishment of a dedicated regulatory liaison
function within municipal governments. This role would focus on continuously monitoring regulatory changes
and ensuring that digital strategies are adapted proactively to meet these changes without stifling innovation. Our
analysis indicates that mimetic isomorphism drives municipalities to emulate successful digital practices from
peers. To leverage this effectively, municipalities should establish formal benchmarking processes. These
processes could involve participating in networks or consortia that facilitate knowledge sharing about successful
DT strategies. Additionally, creating a DT case study library could help municipalities to learn from the successes
and challenges of others. Addressing normative isomorphism, there is a clear need for ongoing professional
development in the digital realm. Municipalities should invest in continuous training programs for their staff,
focusing on the latest digital technologies and transformation strategies. Partnerships with academic institutions
and technology providers can facilitate workshops, seminars, and courses designed to keep municipal employees
at the forefront of digital innovation. To effectively manage the broad range of stakeholder expectations influenced
by all types of isomorphism, municipalities should implement comprehensive stakeholder-engagement strategies.
These strategies should include regular consultations with citizens, business communities, and other relevant
stakeholders to ensure that DT efforts align with the needs and expectations of all community members. Finally,
our findings suggest the need for dynamic and adaptive policy frameworks that can rapidly respond to the evolving
landscape of digital technologies. Municipalities should consider establishing a DT advisory board composed of
a diverse group of stakeholders. This board would provide guidance on digital policies, ensuring that they remain
flexible and responsive to technological advancements and societal needs.
Research Agenda
Considering our findings and the extant literature, we propose a detailed research agenda to further explore the

Patalon & Wyczisk
626
institutionalization and implementation of DT within municipalities. This agenda is structured around the critical
areas outlined in Table 7, each aiming to deepen our understanding of DT's integration into municipal governance
and operations. The first area investigates how municipal definitions of DT influence its integration into
governance structures and identifies the factors driving and hindering DT adoption. This inquiry is crucial for
understanding how DT becomes entrenched within municipal operations by examining the roles of existing
governance structures and the specific challenges faced during this transformative process. Secondly, we evaluate
DT initiatives by exploring how various stakeholders—citizens, administration, and businesses—define and
measure success. This analysis assesses the impact of these perceptions on the continuation and scaling of DT
projects, with the goal of identifying best practices for outcome evaluation to ensure the effectiveness of DT
efforts. Our agenda also recognizes the essential role of collaboration among diverse stakeholders for successful
DT implementation. We plan to study the interdependencies between city administrations, affiliated entities,
citizens, and the local economy, aiming to identify key stakeholder groups that shape DT efforts and strategies to
enhance collaboration.
Table 7. Summary of Opportunities for Future Research
Research field
Research question
Institutionalization of
DT
 How do municipal definitions of DT influence its integration into
governance structures?
 What are the key factors driving or hindering DT adoption in
municipalities?
Understanding success
 How do municipal actors define and measure DT success?
 How do perceptions of success impact the continuation and scaling of DT
projects?
Stakeholder
interdependencies
 How do interdependencies between city administration, affiliated entities,
citizens, and the local economy affect DT initiatives?
 Which are the most influential stakeholder groups shaping DT efforts?
Future relevance of DT
 Which emerging technologies and business models are most likely to
impact future municipal operations?
 How can municipalities effectively integrate DT into long-term strategies?
Technical options
 Is there a shared understanding among municipal actors about the need for
DT initiatives?
 What criteria do actors use to select technical solutions for DT?
Additionally, the agenda addresses the future relevance of DT by considering the impact of emerging technologies
and business models on municipal operations. It explores how municipalities can integrate DT into long-term
strategic planning, thereby ensuring preparedness and adaptability to ongoing technological changes. Finally, we

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
627
examine the practical aspects of implementing DT initiatives, including whether a shared understanding exists
among municipal actors regarding the need for such initiatives and the criteria used by different actors to select
technical solutions. This focus will help to identify practical tools and strategies for achieving consensus and
effectively implementing DT. Overall, this research agenda provides a comprehensive framework for
understanding the multifaceted aspects of DT in a municipal context spanning institutionalization, evaluation,
collaboration, and future relevance.
Conclusion
Our study provides an exploration of DT within municipalities, focusing on the impact of institutional
isomorphism across various dimensions—coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures—and its interaction with
DOAs (process definition, communication/participation, collaboration, digital literacy, value creation, policies,
digital infrastructure, quality of digitalization, knowledge transfer) and GOAs (government & administration,
citizens, business & economy) in the context of a bridging-issues field. Our findings indicate that coercive
pressures mainly derive from legislative mandates which require municipalities to align with national and
international digital standards, thus impacting DOAs such as policies and digital infrastructure. Mimetic pressures
are evident as municipalities aim to emulate successful DT practices observed in peer cities, thus influencing
DOAs such as collaboration and quality of digitalization, to foster innovative approaches and enhance service
efficiency. Normative pressures are shaped by professional and societal expectations, thereby promoting
standardized practices within municipalities that directly affect DOAs such as process definition and knowledge
transfer. These pressures ensure that digital strategies are not only efficient but also ethically sound and
professionally endorsed.
The concept of a bridging-issues field has proven essential in understanding the multifaceted nature of municipal
DT. It allows for an analysis of how various institutional pressures interact across different DOAs and GOAs,
leading to a comprehensive strategy for DT that transcends traditional municipal operations and governance
boundaries. For instance, the interaction between GOAs such as government & administration and business &
economy with DOAs such as digital literacy and inclusion highlights the necessity for cross-sector collaboration
to achieve a holistic transformation.
The implications of this study are significant for municipal leaders and policymakers, who must adeptly navigate
these institutional pressures to harmonize compliance with innovation. By leveraging insights from the bridging-
issues field, municipalities can strategically align their digital initiatives with broader institutional dynamics,
thereby ensuring that DT efforts are both sustainable and impactful. Future research should focus on empirical
studies that validate the interactions between different pressures and their concrete effects on municipal
operations. Such studies could provide a clearer roadmap for municipalities to effectively manage the complex
landscape of DT by considering the unique contexts and capabilities of different municipalities. Further
exploration into the variability in DT capabilities across municipalities could also yield insights into customizing
approaches that cater to specific local needs and conditions.

Patalon & Wyczisk
628
References
Abdalla, W., Renukappa, S., Suresh, S., & Al-Janabi, R. (2019). Challenges for Managing Smart Cities
Initiatives: An Empirical Study. 3rd International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities
(ICSGSC), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSGSC.2019.00-26
Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1992). Neo‐Marshallian Nodes in Global Networks International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 16(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1992.tb00197.x
Anthony Jnr, B., Abbas Petersen, S., Helfert, M., Ahlers, D., & Krogstie, J. (2021). Modeling pervasive platforms
and digital services for smart urban transformation using an enterprise architecture framework.
Information Technology & People, 34(4), 1285–1312. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2020-0511
Anthopoulos, L. G. (2015). Understanding the Smart City Domain: A Literature Review. In M. P. Rodríguez-
Bolívar (Ed.), Public Administration and Information Technology. Transforming City Governments for
Successful Smart Cities (Vol. 8, pp. 9–21). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03167-5_2
Appio, F. P., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Neirotti, P. (2021). Digital Transformation and Innovation
Management: A Synthesis of Existing Research and an Agenda for Future Studies. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 38(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12562
Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R. (2007). Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and
Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1),
165–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum038
Austin, B. (1998). The Role of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada in Institutionalizing
Management Education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne
Des Sciences De L'administration, 15(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1998.tb00166.x
Avenier, M.‑J. (2010). Shaping Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. Organization Studies,
31(9-10), 1229–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610374395
Battilana, J., & D'Aunno, T. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In T. B. Lawrence,
R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional Work (pp. 31–58). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002
Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional Isomorphism Revisited: Convergence and Divergence in Institutional Change.
Sociological Theory, 28(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01369.x
Bennich, A. (2024). The digital imperative: Institutional pressures to digitalise. Technology in Society, 76,
102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102436
Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J. (2018). Inter-organizational ethnography: promises and
problems (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796978.003.0011
Besson, P., & Rowe, F. (2012). Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A
transdisciplinary review and new directions. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 103–
124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2012.05.001
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital Business Strategy: Toward a
Next Generation of Insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
629
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung. (2017). Smart City Charta: Making digital transformation
at the local level sustainable.
Canedo, E., Tives, H., & Cerqueira, A. (2020). Citizen’s Perception of Public Services Digitization and
Automation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems.
SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009409507540761
Chiriac, A.‑M., Mocanu, S., & Popa, C. (2021). Onto Digitalization of Public Services. In 2021 12th International
Symposium on Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering (ATEE). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/atee52255.2021.9425172
Choi, M., Lee, J., & Hwang, K. (2018). Information Systems Security (ISS) of E-Government for Sustainability:
A Dual Path Model of ISS Influenced by Institutional Isomorphism. Sustainability, 10(5), 1555.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051555
Cone, L., Brøgger, K., Berghmans, M., Decuypere, M., Förschler, A., Grimaldi, E., Hartong, S., Hillman, T.,
Ideland, M., Landri, P., van de Oudeweetering, K., Player-Koro, C., Bergviken Rensfeldt, A.,
Rönnberg, L., Taglietti, D., & Vanermen, L. (2022). Pandemic Acceleration: Covid-19 and the
emergency digitalization of European education. European Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 845–
868. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211041793
Conway, S., & Steward, F. (1998). Mapping Innovation Networks. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 02(02), 223–254. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919698000110
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society,
1(1), 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03177550
Cordes, A.‑K., & Musies, N. (2021). Accelerating the transformation? The impact of COVID-19 on the digital
maturity of retail businesses. In 2021 IEEE 23rd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI) (pp. 102–
110). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI52690.2021.00021
Datta, P. (2020). Digital Transformation of the Italian Public Administration: A Case Study. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, 252–272. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04611
David, A., Yigitcanlar, T., Li, R. Y. M., Corchado, J. M., Cheong, P. H., Mossberger, K., & Mehmood, R.
(2023). Understanding Local Government Digital Technology Adoption Strategies: A PRISMA Review.
Sustainability, 15(12), 9645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129645
Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A., & Christiaens, J. (2012). The Impact of Institutional Pressures
on Employee Performance Management Systems in Higher Education in the Low Countries. British
Journal of Management, 23(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00820.x
Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does Isomorphism Legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256722
Dillard, J. F., Rigsby, J. T., & Goodman, C. (2004). The making and remaking of organization context.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4), 506–542.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570410554542

Patalon & Wyczisk
630
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dobrolyubova, E. (2021). Measuring Outcomes of Digital Transformation in Public Administration: Literature
Review and Possible Steps Forward. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(1), 61–
86. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0003
Dorofeeva, L., Rodionov, D., & Velichenkova, D. (2019). Infrastructure Potential of Creating "Smart Cities", 1–
7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372177.3373314
Favoretto, C., Mendes, G. H. d. S., Filho, M. G., Gouvea de Oliveira, M., & Ganga, G. M. D. (2022). Digital
transformation of business model in manufacturing companies: challenges and research agenda. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(4), 748–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2020-0477
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D [D.], & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new
strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review.
Fombrun, C. J. (1982). Strategies for Network Research in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(2),
280. https://doi.org/10.2307/257307
Frennert, S. (2021). Hitting a moving target: Digital transformation and welfare technology in Swedish municipal
eldercare. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 16(1), 103–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642393
German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. (2023). What is the Online Access Act?
https://www.digitale-verwaltung.de/Webs/DV/EN/ozg/ozg-
node.html;jsessionid=029845F87891905F3FE26C77AD26AAA0.live882
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Nam, T. (2015). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and
proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity, 20(1), 61–87.
https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150354
Gong, T., & Xiao, H. (2017). The Formation and Impact of Isomorphic Pressures: Extravagant Position‐Related
Consumption in China. Governance, 30(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12242
Harcourt, M., Lam, H., & Harcourt, S. (2005). Discriminatory practices in hiring: institutional and rational
economic perspectives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11), 2113–2132.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500315125
Hartl, E., & Hess, T. (2017). The role of cultural values for digital transformation: Insights from a Delphi study
(8th ed.). AMCIS 2017 Proceedings. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301371796.pdf
Hatuka, T., & Zur, H. (2020). From smart cities to smart social urbanism: A framework for shaping the socio-
technological ecosystems in cities. Telematics and Informatics, 55, 101430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101430
Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency! (And Other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis
Of Institutional Theories Of Organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 61–85.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.36461835
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R [Royston] (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An
institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
631
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION AND CHANGE: ENVIRONMENTALISM AND THE
U.S. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.
https://doi.org/10.2307/257008
International Organization for Standardization (2018). ISO 37120: Sustainable cities and communities --
Indicators for city services and quality of life. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:37120:ed-
2:v1:en
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8.
https://doi.org/10.1086/208674
Khirfan, L., Peck, M., & Mohtat, N. (2020). Systematic content analysis: A combined method to analyze the
literature on the daylighting (de-culverting) of urban streams. MethodsX, 7, 100984.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100984
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of
Technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Kuhlmann, S., & Heuberger, M. (2021). Digital transformation going local: implementation, impacts and
constraints from a German perspective. Public Money & Management, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1939584
Kurkela, K., Virtanen, P., Tuurnas, S., & Stenvall, J. (2019). The Actors Involved in Innovation Processes and
Collaboration – A Case Study of Eight Finnish Municipalities. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-
Government, 17(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.4335/17.2.247-266(2019)
Kvashina, O., Vinokhodova, I., Belskya, O., Fadeeva, S., & Kudryavtseva, O. (2021). Public Management
System Transformation in the Conditions of Digitalization. SHS Web of Conferences, 93, 5005.
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219305005
Latif, B., Mahmood, Z., Tze San, O., Mohd Said, R., & Bakhsh, A. (2020). Coercive, Normative and Mimetic
Pressures as Drivers of Environmental Management Accounting Adoption. Sustainability, 12(11), 4506.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114506
Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R [Roy], & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of
Organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222
Leão, H., & Canedo, E. (2018). Best Practices and Methodologies to Promote the Digitization of Public Services
Citizen-Driven: A Systematic Literature Review. Information, 9(8), 197.
https://doi.org/10.3390/info9080197
Leão, H., Canedo, E. D., & Souza, J. C. F. (2018). Digitization of Government Services: Digitization Process
Mapping. In (pp. 3–20). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02610-3_1
Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic
analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907–
933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5
Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The New Structuralism in Organizational Theory. Organization, 10(3),
457–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084030103007

Patalon & Wyczisk
632
Lowndes, V., & Wilson, D. (2003). Balancing revisability and robustness? A new institutionalist perspective on
local government modernization. Public Administration, 81(2), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9299.00346
Lytras, M. D., & Serban, A. C. (2020). E-Government Insights to Smart Cities Research: European Union (EU)
Study and the Role of Regulations. IEEE Access, 8, 65313–65326.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982737
Mahula, S., Lindquist, M., Norström, L., & Lindman, J. (2022). Digital transformation in local government
organisations: empirical evidence from blockchain initiatives. In L. Hagen, M. Solvak, & S. Hwang
(Eds.), DG.O 2022: The 23rd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
(pp. 336–345). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543434.3543474
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 57(5), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5
McConnell, J. (2018). The organization in the digital age: A foundational framework, the heart of digital
transformation. https://www.organization-digital-age.com/
McKitterick, L., Quinn, B., McAdam, R., & Dunn, A. (2016). Innovation networks and the institutional actor-
producer relationship in rural areas: The context of artisan food production. Journal of Rural Studies, 48,
41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.09.005
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban
governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews.
Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and
test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Mignerat, M., & Rivard, S. (2009). Positioning the Institutional Perspective in Information Systems Research.
Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2009.13
Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformatión Digital. (2020). Digital Spain 2025.
https://espanadigital.gob.es/sites/agendadigital/files/2022-01/Digital-Spain-2025.pdf
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The Social Construction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the
Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 653–
683. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667051
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery (London, England), 8(5), 336–
341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 160940691773384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
633
Okoli, C. (2015). A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03743
Palad, J. B. (2022). Strategies for Improving Organizational Efficiency, Productivity, and Performance through
Technology Adoption. Journal of Management and Administration Provision, 2(3), 88–94.
https://doi.org/10.55885/jmap.v2i3.230
Pereira, G. V., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2020). Governance innovations, digital transformation and
the generation of public value in Smart City initiatives. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428592
Popescu, C. R. G., & González, A. L. (2022). Digital Transformation Impact on Organizations' Culture and
Employees' Motivation. In A. Batisha & C. R. G. Popescu (Eds.), Practice, Progress, and Proficiency in
Sustainability. Positive and Constructive Contributions for Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 114–
130). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7499-0.ch008
Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of
Legitimacy. Governance, 13(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00122
Rêgo, B. S., Jayantilal, S., Ferreira, J. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2022). Digital Transformation and Strategic
Management: a Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4), 3195–
3222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00853-3
Reis, L. C. D., Bernardini, F. C., Bacellar Leal Ferreira, S., & Cappelli, C. (2021). ICT Governance in Brazilian
Smart Cities:: An Integrative Approach in the Context of Digital Transformation. The 22nd Annual
International Conference on Digital Government Research, 302–316.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3463677.3463682
Richards, K. A. R., & Hemphill, M. A. (2018). A Practical Guide to Collaborative Qualitative Data Analysis.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084
Runardotter, M., Chronéer, D., Lindberg, J., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2020). A Digital Society for All: A complicated
endeavour. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping
Experiences, Shaping Society. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3421241
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Boardman, L. (2017). Digital Transformation of Business Models — Best
Practice, Enablers, and Roadmap. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(08), 1740014.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961740014X
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Foundations for organizational science. SAGE.
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0658/95010016-d.html
Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–
442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9067-z
Scott, W. R. (2009). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3. ed. [Nachdr.]. SAGE.
Semyachkov, K. (2020). Toolkit of Social Media in a Smart City Development, 263–270.
https://doi.org/10.34190/ESM.20.020

Patalon & Wyczisk
634
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content‐analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544–555.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609
Siltaloppi, J., Koskela-Huotari, K., & Vargo, S. L. (2016). Institutional Complexity as a Driver for Innovation in
Service Ecosystems. Service Science, 8(3), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2016.0151
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business
Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sousa, A. de, Henrique, Klein, L., & Bernardes Voese, S. (2022). The Impact of Institutional Pressures on the Use
and Maintenance of E-Commerce in Brazilian Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs). Review of Business
Management, 24(2), 366–382. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v24i2.4174
Sternberg, R., & Arndt, O. (2001). The Firm or the Region: What Determines the Innovation Behavior of
European Firms? Economic Geography, 77(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-
8287.2001.tb00170.x
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management
Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tangi, L., Soncin, M., Agasisti, T., & Noci, G. (2021). Exploring e-maturity in Italian local governments:
Empirical results from a three-step latent class analysis. International Review of Administrative Sciences,
002085232110127. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211012752
Teo, Wei, & Benbasat (2003). Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional
Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036518
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium‐sized
firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–
281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00116.x
Todorut, A. V., & Tselentis, V. (2018). Digital Technologies and the Modernization of Public Administration.
Journal of Management Systems, 19(165), 73–78.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem. American Journal of
Sociology, 111(2), 447–504. https://doi.org/10.1086/432782
van der Hoogen, A., Fashoro, I., Calitz, A. P., & Luke, L. (2024). A Digital Transformation Framework for Smart
Municipalities. Sustainability, 16(3), 1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031320
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Volberda, H. W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O. R., & Birkinshaw, J. (2021). Strategizing in a
digital world: Overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and introducing new organizational
forms. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 102110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102110
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the
giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. ECIS 2009
Proceedings(161).

International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES)
635
Weber, P., Wyczisk, A., Patalon, M., & Borowicz, I. (2024). FROM IVORY TOWERS TO RURAL POWERS:
HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AS KNOWLEDGE PARTNERS IN DIGITAL
TRANSFORMATION. In L. Gómez Chova, C. González Martínez, & J. Lees (Eds.), INTED
Proceedings, INTED2024 Proceedings (pp. 1521–1530). IATED.
https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2024.0441
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS
Quarterly, 26(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D [Didier], & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business
transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for Corporate Sustainability Management:
Contrasting Survey Results and Implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 21(5), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1337
Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
T. B. Lawrence, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 130–
147). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Yudatama, U., Nazief, B. A. A., & Hidayanto, A. N. (2017). Benefits and barriers as a critical success factor in
the implementation of IT governance: Literature review. In 2017 International Conference on ICT For
Smart Society (ICISS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ictss.2017.8288869
Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or Fields? Building the Scaffolding
for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0052
Author Information
Marcel Patalon
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4215-7079
South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences
Lübecker Ring 2, 59494 Soest
Germany
Contact e-mail: patalon.marcel@fh-swf.de
Anja Wyczisk
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1225-7846
South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences
Lübecker Ring 2, 59494 Soest
Germany