The institutional change from e-government toward smarter city: Comparative analysis between royal borough of Greenwich, UK, and Seongdong-gu, South Korea

Kim, Churin; Kim, Kyung-ah Article The institutional change from e-government toward smarter city: Comparative analysis between royal borough of Greenwich, UK, and Seongdong-gu, South Korea Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Provided in Cooperation with: Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC) Suggested Citation: Kim, Churin; Kim, Kyung-ah (2021) : The institutional change from e-government toward smarter city: Comparative analysis between royal borough of Greenwich, UK, and Seongdong-gu, South Korea, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, ISSN 2199-8531, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 1-33, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010042 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/241627 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Article The Institutional Change from E-Government toward Smarter City; Comparative Analysis between Royal Borough of Greenwich, UK, and Seongdong-gu, South Korea Churin Kim 1,2,* and Kyung-ah Kim 3   Citation: Kim, C.; Kim, K.-a. The Institutional Change from E-Government toward Smarter City; Comparative Analysis between Royal Borough of Greenwich, UK, and Seongdong-gu, South Korea. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/ joitmc7010042 Received: 31 October 2020 Accepted: 18 January 2021 Published: 21 January 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Department of Public Administration, College of Social Sciences, Jeonju University, Jeonju 55069, Korea 2Ewha Institute of Social Sciences (EISS), Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea 3Department of Public Administration, College of Social Sciences, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The research questions of the current study include: “Is it beneficial for countries, local governments, and autonomous districts with a high level of e-government to become smarter cities with the electronic, digital, and smart introduction of information and communications technology (ICT) technologies?” “Do cities with well-developed e-governments have a similar process from e-government to smarter cities?”, and “Do cities with similar levels of e-government or smarter cities go through different development processes in terms of their socio-cultural attributes?” This study focuses on the fact that e-government and smart cities, whose academic roots arose differently over time, are evolving to address governance, including next-generation e-government, urban e-government, and civic engagement, which has expanded to digital government and platform government concepts. Therefore, the scope of this study is set to e-government and smart/smarter cities as platforms. By comparing the key success factors of e-government with the smart city through a prior study, some intersections were found, but the success factors of the e-government and smart city were different. In order to explain the change of system from e-government to smart city as a platform in the socio-cultural attributes in which each case is involved, two cases—the Royal Borough of Greenwich and Seongdong-gu—were selected under similar conditions by comparing the e-government development level, economic indicators, and smart city development level. As a result of the case analysis, it was confirmed that the development level of e-government affected the smarter city process. The changes in the system from e-government to smart city was capable of being explained in different ways depending on the social and cultural attributes. In the process from e-government to smarter city, the case of Seongdong-gu, which has followed the informatization project and e-government development formula, was analyzed from the viewpoint of institutional overwrap, and the case of the Royal Borough of Greenwich, which was an active innovation agent for solving urban problems through public-private cooperation, was analyzed from the viewpoint of institutional transformation. In the Korean context with a collective hierarchical culture, citizens and stakeholders have participated in the public sector to the extent that they raise issues and express their preferences in policy-making decisions. The governments, including the autonomous district, have still treated citizens and stakeholders as guidance targets or customers rather than cooperative partners. On the other hand, the UK, which has an individualistic rational culture, citizens and stakeholders have become accustomed to maintaining cooperative relationships and operating cities based on partnerships as innovators. Since the socio-cultural contexts of each country have affected the actual system operations and changes, implementation plans and solutions under feasibilities need to take into account critical success factors and the socio-cultural properties of each autonomous district for the introduction, expansion, and establishment of smarter cities. This result of this study is that transferability considering sociocultural properties should be considered when introducing best practices, etc. Keywords: e-government; smart city; smarter cities; institutional changes; citizen participation J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010042 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 2 of 33 1. Introduction Over the past two decades, governments in the world have continued to invest and innovate in developing e-government strategies for public transparency and administrative effectiveness. In particular, the recent technological change of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and external environmental factors such as the coronavirus pandemic have driven the transformation of the public sector, the central government as well as local governments, into digitalization. As a trend different from the informatization and digitization of the public sector, smart cities have been developed in the long term to become better living spaces for the problem-solving competence and sustainability of local governments, businesses, and citizens in urban areas [1–14]. In particular, the topic of this paper came from the similarity between the secondgeneration concept of digital government or e-government that emphasizes the expanded civic participation and civic autonomy in the innovation of the public sector and the concept of the smart city that emphasizes a joint effort, that is, governance to develop into a better city space on the basis of not only civic participation but also other actors’ involvement [15,16]. In terms of the concepts and actual applications of e-government and the smart city, different understandings among different stakeholders have often led to controversies. There have not been many studies on next-generation models that play a role as a platform for e-government or digital government [ 17 , 18 ], and other lines of inquiry for smart cities deal not only with the purpose of smartization but for the digitization of cities from the viewpoint of adopting technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, big data, and mobile applications that literally put an emphasis on the purpose of building high-tech cities [ 2 , 19 – 21 ]. Therefore, just like the non-existent system between these two parties, which are core institutions and policies in the era of digital transformation that is accelerating due to the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic and the 4th industrial revolution, various studies have addressed their concepts, structures and elements, and level diagnosis of each case without mentioning the existence of the others. This paper conceptualizes and sets the boundary for e-government and the smart city, which emphasizes their role as governance, citizen participation, autonomy, and platforms. Meanwhile, comparative administration and development administration, which has been an administrative discourse since World War II, have been interested in comparison between countries’ levels as examples for developing countries [ 22 , 23 ]. There are also changes in the level diagnosis by UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), which has only been measuring the level of e-government development, such as measuring separate measurement indicators that deal with local e-government, including smart city projects. This paper aims to conduct a case study on the process of a successful transition of autonomous districts to successful smart cities as a problemsolving and implementation entity and to analyze the process of institutional change from e-government to smart cities as a social and cultural characteristic. In line with the research objectives, this paper strives to differentiate with regard to others in three ways. First, the study analyzed the process from e-government to smarter city (referred to as smarter city to differentiate this from the smart city focusing on future technology-oriented high-tech city construction) [ 24 , 25 ] from an institutional change perspective with path dependence, that is, from a dynamic perspective. It also identified how the socio-cultural contexts of cities limited the transition to smarter cities. By defining the concepts of e-government and smart city clearly, despite various controversies, this study determined that it could analyze the two institutions with different origins but similar properties and temporal precedent relations as institutional changes with path-dependence [ 18 ]. Second, in order to analyze the effects of high-level e-government establishment experience and the socio-cultural contexts of the cities on the smarter city transformation, this study utilized pattern matching and selected analysis cases, thereby providing the rationale for generalization of the case analysis results [ 26 ]. Except for J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 3 of 33 the socio-cultural contexts in which the influences were to be identified as constraints, environmental factors such as e-government level and technology/economic level in the UK and South Korea were similar. Moreover, the smart cities, which were the analysis cases of this study, were located in the capitals of both countries, and major smart city strategies also secured the similarities as smart transport test beds. Third, this study analyzed the cases of autonomous districts, not entire cities, as an administrative unit capable of expanding governance of civic participation and civic autonomy in order to solve actual urban problems, not a declarative vision and policy goals. This was because the study determined that the autonomous district was a more meaningful case unit than a metropolitan area for the regional base that a smarter city was targeting. As the role of cities as on-site communication channels or service providers has recently been emphasized in the cases of Australia [ 27 ] and Denmark [ 28 ], where governmental cooperation is highlighted to ensure the proper implementation of national digital strategies and digital service utilization at the local level, cases at the autonomous district unit can be significant [29]. With these differentiating points, the literature review in Section 2defines the concepts of e-government and the smarter city, summarizes the key success factors of these two systems, and reviews institutional changes and constraints including path dependence. Section 3explains the research design, such as case selection and case study methods. Section 4compares smart city implementation in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, Korea, and the Royal Borough of Greenwich in London, UK, in accordance with the analysis framework, and analyzes their institutional changes. Section 5provides suggestions for smart city implementation, and the final chapter, Section 6, presents the conclusions and implications of the study. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Definition: E-Government and Smart City as a Platform 2.1.1. E-Government E-government refers to a government that uses information technology (IT) to redesign administrative functions, improve services to the public, and realize democracy [ 15 ]. In a narrow sense, it is exemplified as a government using IT and the Internet as tools for better government implementation [ 30 ], a government improving the relationship between the government and its citizens using the Internet and Web [ 31 ], and a government using information technology to improve the connections between its citizens, companies, and governmental agencies [ 32 ]. Beyond the initial emphasis on the efficiency of administrative work and performance at the time of introduction [ 33 ], e-government highlights the role of supporting values through more civic engagement, development, and political processes based on better policy results and quality services in a broader sense [ 15 ]. Since then, with regards to the form of next-generation e-government, various terms and concepts have been introduced with a focus on cooperation and governance in the public sector. Apparently, many organizations not only concentrate on the efficiency of administration or the effect of e-government service itself. Most of them have stressed those aspects which produce better policy outcomes and public services that are qualified by easier citizen participation in the decision-making process, which more conveniently arise from it [15]. Since Gov 2.0 advocating Web 2.0 in 2010 by O’Reilly, many studies have suggested a change in the role of the government from a technical point of view utilizing ICT technology, such as the Internet and the government’s platform strategy [ 34 – 36 ]; Defining the future government as the platform-based e-government, which indicates that the government aims to create a common evolution environment and implement rules so that the values that people and the community aspire to can be continuously provided and secured. Moreover, this concept of governance extends civic governance to realize direct democracy based on technological innovation with the purpose of encouraging civic interventions in the entire policy-making process as well as a customer-oriented perspective of administrative services [15]. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 4 of 33 2.1.2. Smart City The term smart city began to be used globally in the 1990s. It is difficult to define clearly and consistently what a smart city is, as the term applies to new technologies such as ICT and the 4th Industrial Revolution in the public service infrastructure and various other concepts such as infrastructure construction and urban development [ 37 – 41 ]. Cities that have been asked to solve problems related to urbanization by urban governments’ technical, social, physical, and organizational management of urban governments have pursued smarter solutions. Cities classified as smart cities also show diverse characteristics in their historical development paths, socioeconomic factors, and governance forms [ 42 ]. Recent studies on smart cities have dealt with expanded concepts with more diverse contexts and significance [43] (pp. 40–53). In order to efficiently provide the key infrastructure and services of cities, cities with technologies [ 44 ], modern cities implemented by information and communication technologies [ 45 ], and more efficient, sustainable, proper, and lively cities, the Natural Resources Defense Council [ 3 , 46 ] has stressed the roles of technologies for smartization as a tool to solve the problems that cities are facing [ 10 , 14 , 38 , 43 , 47 – 49 ]. A similar idea includes a ubiquitous (meaning ‘existing everywhere at any time’, originating from Latin) city (u-city) along with the trends of introducing RFID (radio-frequency identification)/USN (ubiquitous sensor network) and developing new cities in South Korea [50–53]. Moreover, promoting sustainable economic growth and quality of life through participatory governance such as investment in human and social capital as well as technology and civic participation also characterizes the smarter city [ 8 ]. Urban sustainability is a concept that embraces public participation, and smart cities emphasize that citizens and users create and realize city services and activities using new technologies. That is, smart cities are not simply about technological applications [ 54 ]. For the differentiation of the technology-oriented smart city concepts, a smart city maturity and evolution model is used [ 17 , 18 , 55 , 56 ], which is named smart city 2.0 or 3.0 and defined by the expansion of market-driven services on a common platform that enables autonomous interactions between the public and private sectors beyond the investment in advanced technology in a specific sector [ 55 , 57 ]. This is not the idea of a smart city that only focuses on the applications of advanced technologies, but is differentiated and emphasized in that it includes civic participation and residents’ autonomy in governance for sustaining urban development and alleviating urbanization problems that cities are facing. Unlike smart cities focused on adopting emerging technologies, the concept of smart cities in this study involved citizens and stakeholders in the process of solving urban problems, and becomes very similar to open innovation platforms targeted by next-generation e-government or digital governments. Recently, smart cities have been required to understand cities as platforms and actively respond to and address the use of available resources and carbon emissions of cities and urban population problems [58,59]. 2.1.3. Required Role as a Platform for Open Innovation E-government and smart cities are similar in their goal of expanding open innovation and public governance, the need for various roles to achieve the goal, and their ways of operation. With the emphasis on civic participation in e-government, citizens [ 60 ] demand the roles of customers, users, and taxpayers who consume public services, away from the traditional power relations of master–agent [ 61 ]. Living Lab [ 62 – 65 ] and Crowd Sourcing, which are widely used in recent smart cities and urban regeneration projects, guarantee direct citizen participation in policy decisions and operation methods [ 61 , 66 – 68 ]. Open governments, such as the citizen-participating government, can effectively access information, new technologies, and public participation of public sector organizations. Living Lab is a user-led, open, and innovative ecosystem where public research, private companies, and civil society cooperate to conduct innovation activities in a specific area or space [ 69 , 70 ]. This is an ecosystem in which a public-private-people partnership (PPPP) is performed [ 62 , 63 , 71 , 72 ]. Citizen-participating crowdsourcing uses the expertise of planners J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 5 of 33 and institutions to define problems, organize public values through citizen participation, and adjust interests [64–70,73–75]. The e-government, which has developed to secure innovation and efficiency in the public sector, is being asked to play a role as an open innovation platform for realizing e-democracy such as civic participation. Smart cities that emphasize the sustainability perspective as well as the application of new technologies and infrastructure build-up to solve urban problems are the same as those of e-government in that they consider the participation of not only citizens but also various stakeholders as a core element [ 76 – 82 ]. In other words, as a platform for the government and public to solve public or common problems, the two systems, such as PPP (public private partnership) and securing participation of citizens and stakeholders in the policy-making process, are moving in the same direction. The scheme of the two systems is shown in Figure 1below. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 34 which are widely used in recent smart cities and urban regeneration projects, guarantee direct citizen participation in policy decisions and operation methods [61,66–68]. Open governments, such as the citizen-participating government, can effectively access information, new technologies, and public participation of public sector organizations. Living Lab is a user-led, open, and innovative ecosystem where public research, private companies, and civil society cooperate to conduct innovation activities in a specific area or space [69,70]. This is an ecosystem in which a public-private-people partnership (PPPP) is performed [62,63,71,72]. Citizen-participating crowdsourcing uses the expertise of planners and institutions to define problems, organize public values through citizen participation, and adjust interests [64–70,73–75]. The e-government, which has developed to secure innovation and efficiency in the public sector, is being asked to play a role as an open innovation platform for realizing edemocracy such as civic participation. Smart cities that emphasize the sustainability perspective as well as the application of new technologies and infrastructure build-up to solve urban problems are the same as those of e-government in that they consider the participation of not only citizens but also various stakeholders as a core element [76–82]. In other words, as a platform for the government and public to solve public or common problems, the two systems, such as PPP (public private partnership) and securing participation of citizens and stakeholders in the policy-making process, are moving in the same direction. The scheme of the two systems is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. E-government and smart city, which started separately in the public and private sectors but now both emphasize its meaning as a public sphere. The left arrow in Figure 1 illustrates that the e-government initiated for government reform in the public sector is evolving toward democracy, meanwhile the right arrow embodies smart cities from the private sector’s similar development of e-government as a platform when emphasizes on its sustainability. It also describes a keyword for participation that is equally emphasized on platforms as the public sphere. 2.2. Critical Success Factors of E-Governments and Smarter Cities In order to examine the process of institutional changes from the characteristics of “the open innovation platform” where the e-government and smart cities of different origins and theoretical backgrounds converge, this study reviewed previous studies on the success factors of each of the two systems. 2.2.1. Critical Success Factors of E-governments Prior studies on e-government success factors have examined informatization and egovernment level diagnosis, success factors themselves, and case analysis of success factors of individual countries. Informatization and e-government indexes devised by international organizations are exemplified by the International Telecommunication Union Figure 1. E-government and smart city, which started separately in the public and private sectors but now both emphasize its meaning as a public sphere. The left arrow in Figure 1illustrates that the e-government initiated for government reform in the public sector is evolving toward democracy, meanwhile the right arrow embodies smart cities from the private sector’s similar development of e-government as a platform when emphasizes on its sustainability. It also describes a keyword for participation that is equally emphasized on platforms as the public sphere. 2.2. Critical Success Factors of E-Governments and Smarter Cities In order to examine the process of institutional changes from the characteristics of “the open innovation platform” where the e-government and smart cities of different origins and theoretical backgrounds converge, this study reviewed previous studies on the success factors of each of the two systems. 2.2.1. Critical Success Factors of E-governments Prior studies on e-government success factors have examined informatization and e-government level diagnosis, success factors themselves, and case analysis of success factors of individual countries. Informatization and e-government indexes devised by international organizations are exemplified by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Digital Opportunity Index (DOI), the IDC (International Data Corporation) Information Society Index (ISI), the EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit) IT Competitiveness, the IMD (International Institute for Management Development) National Competitiveness (technology infrastructure), the WEF (World Economic Forum) Technology Competitiveness (IT index), and the Korea Information Society Agency’s National Information Technology Index [ 83 ]. The indexes focusing on the e-government level include biannual EGDI (E- government Development Index) by the UN since the 2000s, the Open Useful Reusable Data Index (OURdata index) by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) by ITU. As with the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) or the Pan-Government EA (enterprise architecture) models, cross-country compar- J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 6 of 33 isons of detailed indexes assessing (1) determinants of changes in the work environment, (2) allocation of skills/human resources/financial resources, (3) organizational culture, values, vision, and strategies including internal leadership, (4) legal and regulatory changes, and (5) external support, are presented [84–89]. E-government success factors include political background, economic and technical environment, political leadership, vision and policy goals (integration of informatization and administrative reform goals), strategic priorities, role performers and stakeholders, customers (accessibility, governance participation, privacy protection), resource allocation (budget, project management), common framework cooperation (inter-agency cooperation, accountability, inspection and evaluation), and information technology level [90–92]. Cho and Song [ 83 ] explained the achievements of e-government and its success factors according to the horizontal element flow suggested in the general system theory. They derived political, social, economic, industrial, technological environment, political will and leadership, vision and policy objectives, strategic priorities of business, implementation systems and human, financial, technological resource allocation, inter-agency cooperation and common framework, feedback, and learning [ 93 , 94 ]. From the system perspective, the environment, input (political will and leadership, vision and policy goals and business rankings), conversion (promotion system and human financial and technical resource allocation, cooperation system between institutions), output (performance), feedback (feedback and learning) were explored [ 83 ]. Jeong and Kim [ 95 ], who derived the success factors of e-government based on a survey with governmental officials in charge of each country, pointed out (1) vision and policies related to e-government, (2) recruitment, training, and employment retention programs of Chief Information Officers (CIOs) or information technology personnel and decision makers in similar organizations, (3) structure in connection with IT systems through the intranet, (4) links with performance through redesign of work processes, and (5) investment in technology fields such as standardization, personal information protection, and security as success factors. 6 of models have been used as theoretical backgrounds for innovation factors of e-government; BPM (business process management), BSC, ITG (IT governance), MISR (management information security risks), POE (project, organization and environment), SMART (soft, mainstreaming, attractive, reinventing, transcending; related to IT vision for an advanced Korea). 6 of models have been used as theoretical backgrounds for innovation factors of e-government; BPM (business process management), BSC, ITG (IT governance), MISR (management information security risks), POE (project, organization and environment), SMART (soft, mainstreaming, attractive, reinventing, transcending; related to IT vision for an advanced Korea) [ 95 – 97 ]. Lee [ 97 ] suggested manager selection, opinion collection when establishing IT policies (consumer perspective), work process and function analysis, considerations of short-, medium-, and long-term perspectives (time management), promotion entities, organizations, reformative and innovative perspectives, and safety. Kim [ 98 ] concluded the importance of process, technology, human resources, vision, strategy, and organizational sequence based on an analysis of relative importance and achievement, using a survey on the major components in successful e-government implementation. Here, achievement was secured in the order of technology, vision strategy, human resources, organization, and process [ 98 ]. Indicators derived as success factors were classified by selecting the characteristics mentioned in previous studies as keywords. Table 1below is organized with that. Regarding the core success factors of e-government, the leadership, and internal factors such as vision and investment of the nation’s top decision-makers, and leadership within the organizations are emphasized rather than technical factors [ 84 – 89 ]. In particular, the main success factor of the Korean e-government, which was characterized by strong leadership and top-down decision-making processes, was the will of the top decisionmakers toward informatization, which was quantitatively confirmed in the success of the smart government initiative. That is, there is a need for policymakers to understand smart government and to take responsibility for and promote smartization of all governments J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 7 of 33 at different digital levels along with a long-term vision [ 99 ]. In other words, top-down decision-making in which the government with vision and understanding encompasses the whole picture is analyzed as a key success factor for e-government. Table 1. Key success factors of e-government. Key Success Indicators Researchers Legal change Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], OECD [85] Security consideration OECD [85], Jeong and Kim [95], Lee [97], Innovative perspective OECD [85], Song [88], Lee [97] Analysis of work processes and functions Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], OECD [85], O’Looney [86], Jeong and Kim [95], Lee [97], Kim [98], Opinions collection and customer-orientation OECD [85], O’Looney [86], Lee [97] Feedback and learning Cho and Song [83] Common framework Cho and Song [83] Inter-organizational cooperation Cho and Song [83], OECD [85], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [86], Song [88] Resource allocation (HR and budget) Cho and Song [83], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], OECD [ 85 ], O’Looney [ 86 ], Jeong and Kim [ 95 ], Kim [98] Initiative system Cho and Song [83], Song [88], Lee [97], Kim [98] Strategic priority Cho and Song [83], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], OECD [85], Lee [97] Vision and policy goal Cho and Song [83], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], OECD [ 85 ], O’Looney [ 86 ], Jeong and Kim [ 95 ], Kim [98] Political will and leadership Cho and Song [83], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], O’Looney [86], Jeong and Kim [95], Lee [97] Technical environment Cho and Song [83], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], Song [88], Kim [98] Economic and industrial circumstance Cho and Song [83] Political and social background Cho and Song [83], Gil-Garcia and Pardo [84], O’Looney [86] 2.2.2. Critical Success Factors of Smarter Cities Despite insufficient consensus on the concept of smart city, research on smart cities has been conducted in various fields [ 100 ]. They identify the components of smart cities [ 7 , 49 , 101 ], classify the concepts and policies on smart cities [ 12 ], discuss government in a comprehensive viewpoint [ 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 43 , 101 – 103 ] and address the sectors and inter-sector projects comprising smart cities [6]. In expanding various research topics on smart cities, scholars have generally agreed that smart governance, that is, involvement and engagement of stakeholders and citizens, is essential in its decision-making process [ 9 , 14 , 38 , 104 , 105 ]. The success factor of smart cities is known as bottom-up decision making, such as participation of citizens and communities; with the linkage and participation process between citizens (residents) and communities, local stakeholders, and local companies, citizens (residents) participate as key actors and decision makers in the process of converting to a smart city, thus creating an inclusive atmosphere based on mutual connections and community activities in the community [ 106 ]. Unlike e-government driven by top decision-makers, the success factor of a smart city depends on solving community problems with citizens. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 8 of 33 Even if the success factors of smart cities itself are not their main research focus, the following studies partially mentioned them: some of them examine smart cities from a technical point of view, while they also underscore connection, data, and sensors as key elements for smart city operation for the public [ 107 – 111 ], some of them emphasize the roles of stakeholders as subjects of innovation [ 11 , 13 , 112 – 115 ], and some of them emphasize the citizen-centered shift of governance expansion [ 9 – 11 , 115 – 117 ] and some of them emphasize clusters and sectors [ 10 , 115 , 118 ]. Some studies emphasize smart city initiatives as strategic guidelines [ 9 , 14 , 49 ]. Especially, Nam and Pardo [ 49 ] stressed the importance of internal factors such as direct technologies, organizations, and policies rather than the external environment. Some studies emphasized the application of living labs [ 65 ]. Others emphasize networking between technical, political, and institutional aspects for the shift of smart cities [ 10 , 119 ]. Batty, M. et al. [ 120 ] suggested the linkage between the infrastructure and operational functions of smart cities to smart city planning in the form of challenges faced in the smart city process, the importance of Living Labs, urban simulation portfolio, technologies that ensure broad participation, and technological enhancement for the quality of urban life. Compared with e-government, there is a lack of studies on the success factor or determinants of smart cities. Nevertheless, they pay more attention to the differences in the success factors, such as regional-based problem solving, smart city vision with civic engagement, and organizational performance indicators with priorities set. At a recent European Union (EU) Smart Cities Marketplace Forum, they found key findings for future cities; EU policies, mobility, investment/funding, sustainable transformation [ 121 ]. Before that, the EU [ 122 ] analyzed more than 300 cases of cities and suggested the success factors of SCC (smart cities and communities) as follows: (1) expansion of citizen and community participation; (2) governance: expansion of private participation in design and operation; (3) funds: integration of efficient support through established operations; (4) procurement: standardization of procurement, enhancement of accessibility through sharing best practices, (5) expansion of smart solutions through testing and demonstration. The EU [ 122 ] suggested the expansion of citizen and community participation, expanded governance including the private sector in smart city design and operation, funding for interoperability, procurement standardization through benchmarking cases, and the spread of smart cases through testing and demonstration. KEIT (Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology) [ 123 ] suggested mid- to long-term investments and policies for sustainable smart cities, test beds for smart cities, living Lab use and management, and smart city performance indicator. Peters [ 106 ] pointed out support and integration of citizens, regional support from a community perspective, urban integration including urban planning, stakeholder benefits with measurable outcomes, data standards for initial success, strategic momentum based on previous work, securement of fundamental initiatives, lessons from past cases, support of citizens and communities to improve their understanding of smart cities, clear indicators of performance measurement, emphasis on punctuality rather than program details, and creating a smart city culture. Deloitte [ 124 ] also pointed out collaborative ecosystem that goes beyond governments, business, startups, academia and non-profit organizations, participation in the establishment and execution of smart city vision, all participants’ involvements in the establishment and implementation of smart city vision, various funding sources, and technology-based vision of an integrated, successful smart city. Höjer and Wangel [ 125 ] also pointed out a top-down approach for solution utilization, a bottom-up approach for civic engagement, use of ICT to mitigate or solve problems, strengthening of ICT capabilities of urban administration and IT companies, coordination of governance, and a strategic evaluation indicator for the smart city that can easily identify priorities. The results from the literature review on the key factors and success factors for the operation of smart cities are summarized in Table 2below. Indicators derived as success factors were classified by selecting the characteristics mentioned in previous studies as keywords. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 15 of 33 The analysis of the two countries using the topologies of Inglehart-Welzel [ 157 ], Zammuto and Krakowe [ 158 ], Hosfstede [ 159 ], Hall [ 160 ], Trompenaar and Hampden- Turner [161] in terms of each of the socio-cultural characteristics are as follows. The UK is a Western European country with an English-speaking rationalist culture [ 71 – 73 ]. It believes in the minimization of inequalities between individuals (analyzed by power distance), has a high level of individualism (analyzed by individualism), is masculinity-driven given its emphasis on competition, performance, and success, has a low level of uncertainty avoidance in that the society tolerates non-specific task plans with a clear final goal and is satisfied with processes and outcomes and requires a high level of creativity and innovation (analyzed by uncertainty avoidance). It does not particularly have past- and future-orientated preferences (long-term orientation) and has an attitude of enjoying a life and realizing individual desires (indulgence) [159]. South Korea as one of the East Asian countries rooted in Confucianism, collectivism, and hierarchicalism [ 156 – 158 ]. It has hierarchical social characteristics that relatively embrace social inequalities and class orders. Its collectivistic nature puts an emphasis on the strong obligations for in-group members in addition to one’s own family members. The socially-embedded femininity is shown in the societal efforts to reach consensus and reduce conflicts through compromise and negotiation; the Korean workplaces emphasize fairness, unity, and quality. It emotionally needs rules with a great will to avoid uncertainty, often resists innovation, considers stability as a key factor in individual motivation, and strives to educate children and save money for the future. In other words, it can be said that the Korean society aims to invest in a practical and long-term perspective. In addition, it shows a kind of pessimism, an emphasis on temperance, restraint by social norms, and less emphasis on pleasure and leisure [159]. For the case selection of smarter cities at the municipal level of both countries, this study focused on the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) and Sungdong-gu (SDG), the two similar cities in terms of their general status and smart city transformation strategies as well as the e-government level of the local government to which the districts belonged and considered the external environmental factors excluding socio-cultural factors as much as possible. They are both autonomous districts with a population of about 300,000 located in the capitals of both countries (London and Seoul) that are similarly traditional cities with more than 50 years of history as an autonomous administrative district and have simultaneously prepared smart city transition plans. Table 4below summarizes the general status of the autonomous districts as cases. Table 4. General status of the autonomous districts [164,165]. Category Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) Seongdong-Gu (SDG) Population 254,557 (2011) 298,249 (4/2020) Area 47.34 km216.85 km2 Planning of smart city transformation Smart city strategy launched (10/2015) Basic ordinance of Smart city enacted (9/2018) What these two districts located in each capital have in common is that they focus on smart transportation and efforts to induce smart city development funds from outside the autonomous region. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) is London’s representative smart city case, leading the UK’s smart city innovation, and in particular, finance investment through an external organization called Digital Greenwich [ 166 ]. Seongdong-gu, as WeGO (World Smart Sustainable Cities Organization), is the representative smart district of Seoul. This is one of two districts (Seongdong-gu and Yangcheon-gu) designated by the Seoul Metropolitan Government to apply new smart city technologies and services to citizens’ daily lives and to commercialize technology in collaboration with companies. In addition, it was the first in the country to announce the basic ordinance on the promotion of smart city, and after reinforcing manpower in relevant departments of the ward office, it participated J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 16 of 33 in various smart city competition projects, attracting investments from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and Seoul. Both cities are also promoting smart mobility as a key promotion theme for smart city transformation. DG City, an innovator company of RBG, has conducted several experiments with connected autonomous vehicles (CAV), and built a smart mobility Living Lab to strengthen its role as a local innovation system. Seongdong-gu is establishing and executing various strategies to solve the local transportation/parking problems in the process of upgrading the local industrial structure from manufacturing to high-tech industry. 4. Case Analysis 4.1. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) 4.1.1. General Overview Royal Greenwich has a historical image of scientific invention, navigation, and discovery. The Greenwich Observatory, the standard of the Greenwich Meridian with a nickname of ‘Home of Time’, is a famous World Heritage Site. Furthermore, the O2 arena, a multi-purpose performance hall, attracts more than 18 million international visitors every year, earning £1.4 billion for the local economy. This innovative tradition of the Royal Borough of Greenwich served as a background for actively playing a role as a test bed for autonomous vehicles and smart mobility in the autonomous district with the introduction of Smart Mobility Living Lab: London (SMILL). The RBG’s population has continued to increase since the 2011 census; in 2028, it is estimated that the population of the autonomous district will increase by 34% compared to 2011. However, the district’s burden is increasing due to the rising number of elderly people over 65 years old (more than 57%). Also, as a tourist destination, the local economy relies on relatively low-skilled, low-wage service occupations, with 38% of the RBG residents working in the Level 2 jobs of the UK’s NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) that would be jeopardized by the introduction of the automation system [167]. In fact, RBG’s informatization and digital transformation strategies have not been driven by the public sector, such as e-government. Rather, the independence and autonomy of RBG has produced various outcomes. A brief mention of citizen-centered coordination of public services through a pilot project is almost the only statement that RBG officially has to do with the digitization of the public sector [168]. 4.1.2. Smart City This part shows a general overview of RBG [ 169 ]. London, the UK, where RBG belongs, is adopting a smart city strategy as a countermeasure to the population concentration in the city. It is expected that London residents will increase to more than 1 million over the next 10 years, and demand for public services such as water and sewage treatment, garbage, energy, medical services, and relevant urban problems will be intensified. Therefore, for the purpose of efficiently solving and managing these issues, the Smart London Board was established (March 2013), and its long-term plan, Smart London Plan was announced (September 2019) [ 170 ]. A recent smart city-related report on London includes the London Mayor’s Smart City Roadmap [171]. Clear Smart City Vision and Goals Our Comprehensive Smart City Strategy in 2015 stated that it is very important for RBG to join and operate global projects for urban infrastructure, and to secure information and lead digital infrastructure ahead of other boroughs [ 172 ]. As such, it is pursuing long-term goals for implementing smart city initiatives and roadmaps for digital transformation using the innovation fund, without fixed end time. In particular, RBG emphasized a strong vision of the future centered on the RBG Congress instead of the administration. In other words, to innovate from below rather than by the leader, it has formed an in-house team with a separate subsidiary, DG City Ltd., working to apply new technologies and approaches from a city-wide integrated perspective. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 17 of 33 Local Base and Civic Participation RBG shares low-carbon energy and transportation service experiments and data with local industry-academia-government partners and consults with residents on the installation sites and designs of electric vehicle ramps. The data acquired from the test bed is stored in the London City Datastore, not RBG’s own separate data platform, and used for analysis and monitoring evaluation. This is to utilize the existing e-government infrastructure without interruption and to combine the smart city strategy together. In addition, Smart Mobility Living Lab: London as a test bed for SMLL, RBG is funded by Innovation UK and industry. TRL (the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory) and a consortium of public and private sector partners lead the way and a wholly owned subsidiary of dg cities (dgcities.com), which leads the facility design and construction of the test bed and defines connectivity infrastructure requirements, and the interface of local authorities to support the operation of the test bed. It identifies the impact of new technologies and business models on the district and tests the development of beneficial integrated solutions that benefit the entire city. Governance Including Stakeholders The Smart Mobility Living Lab (SMLL), London’s flagship program, has provided RBG with an open-style test bed to test more experimental trials in real spaces. One example is the GATEway project, which shares a series of services such as the driverless shuttle bus to the public, gains insights on new mobility solutions, and seeks ways to overcome cultural, social, and technological barriers that driverless vehicles would face. By providing a smart mobility test bed for the general public to test the safety and responsiveness of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) in everyday life, it drives the expertise and experience of various stakeholders, including technology providers, academia, and the community [173] (pp. 19–21). Smart City Initiative and Importance of Sectors or Clusters’ Selection It was a datadriven analysis that established RBG as a test bed for smart city plans. In evaluating the resilience to technology changes and globalization among the boroughs in London, among the boroughs in comparison, RBG had insufficient office and commercial spaces, weak information, and communications infrastructure fiber to the premises (FttP) connectivity, a small number of creative companies or high-value startups, the lowest gross value-added (GVA) per employee. In addition, according to the measure of environmental resilience, it had the highest proportion of residents working in the area and commuting by self-owned vehicle (44%). These challenges were the reason why RBG was designated as one of two test beds in the city center in operation in the UK to provide new ways to increase accessibility of public transportation and test spaces for connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) [ 174 ]. Political and Institutional Networking Served by Technologies In Greenwich’s smart city strategies, well-known experts from a variety of fields (i.e., economists, architects, planners) participated in the program from the early stage and built the collaborative relationships with a variety of organizations related to smart transportation, such as driverless vehicles. Greenwich as a smart transportation test bed has played a major role by accelerating the speed of commercialization, reducing development cost burden and cybersecurity risk [175]. Financial and political support and governance Based on the smart city strategy in 2015, a team called Digital Greenwich was formed to promote the smart city development of RBG. This emphasized on securing infrastructure and services and environmental changes for urban innovation by utilizing technology and data. RBG works with key actors in various forms, not by passively providing a test bed but by establishing active partnerships. It plans to spread the program to other partner cities in the future and continues cooperation with various sectors. The Data Trust project, launched in conjunction with the Open Data Institute and the Great London Authority, is a joint venture with the UK government’s AI Secretariat, which encompasses the Department of Digital Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) and the Department of Economic and Energy Industry Strategy (BEIS) to define and test the concept of data trust. The data trust project further develops from simply securing sensor data such as the Internet of Things and plans pilot projects and trust utilization for legally independent data management responsibilities. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 18 of 33 As a demonstration area in London (along with Milan and Lisbon) that has led Sharing City, an EU Horizon 2020 project worth 25 million euros since 2016, RBG is pursuing a sustainable pilot research and demonstration project for urban service improvement. It promotes digital innovation, such as the development of an energy management system (SEMS) and connection to the city data platform. Indeed, RBG is one of the municipal autonomous districts that operate by designating a test bed to solve the problems facing the city. The UK’s Smart City Index 2017 measuring 20 UK cities in 2017 evaluated RBG as a borough with a highly developed smart city program in London, which was also evaluated as a leading smart city in the UK. This comprehensively emphasized partnerships for improving the environment and services, strengthening the local economy, and increasing the efficiency of urban infrastructure in order to broaden the interests of local residents and businesses. It has secured investment as a test bed and is recognized as the solid base of transportation innovation projects. Digital Enterprise Greenwich undertook RBG’s CRM (Customer Relationship Management) activity using the IBM solution system and served as the host of the UK government’s first National virtual incubator developed by Cisco. Success Story Sharing and Problem-Solving Goal In addition to the cooperation with partner cities such as Lisbon and Milan, which are working with the Sharing City project, RBG shares relevant experiences so that follower cities such as Bordeaux, Burgas, and Warsaw can learn the projects and implement smart city urbanization suitable for each environment and context. RBG operates smart city strategies in which the autonomous district’s smart city promotion experiences are created and shared as global best practices. It also aims to secure smart infrastructure for changes in smart neighborhoods and local communities, including RBG local companies, and to galvanize the local economy and employment. Test, Demonstration, Living Lab GATEWay (Greenwich Automated Transport Environment)’ is being operated as a test bed project in which academia, government, and industry participate for automated vehicle research with a sponsor from TRL, a UK transport research center. It sets a variety of goals to enable the safe and efficient use of automated transport systems in smart city environments. RBG receives £8 million in grants from the UK government to conduct this project, which studies the use of autonomous transport techniques, and technical, legal, cultural and social understanding, and challenges in the adoption of autonomous transport and related technologies. 4.2. Seongdong-Gu (SDG) 4.2.1. General Overview It consists of a general overview of SDG [ 176 ]. Seongdong-gu refers to the east of Seoul and fortress surrounding Seoul. From ancient times, it served as a gateway for food and goods to move through the naru along the Han River. Reading halls at mountains and hills of the district were homes for noblemen and scholars in the Joseon Dynasty [ 177 ]. These characteristics were also reflected in modernization, developing into a complex district with fairly convenient transportation with semi-industrial, commercial, and residential areas. With regard to major industries and employment, wholesale and retail industries account for the largest share, followed by manufacturing. The significant share of the manufacturing industry and the mix of semi-industrial and residential areas have created high demand for traffic safety. Seongdong-gu has the advantage of convenient transportation between downtown Seoul and its suburbs, and good access to medical, sales and educational facilities, relevant demand for public services is expected to increase as well. SDG’s e-government has been recognized for its high standards, for instance, as being awarded as the best autonomous district in Seoul and as an excellent institution by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs [ 178 , 179 ]. In particular, according to the Seoul Administrative Information System Utilization Evaluation, which evaluates the improvement of the efficiency of administrative work processing and digitalization of public services in the municipalities of Seoul, SDG did an excellent job in minimizing redundant business between local governments using the utilization rate of the common J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 19 of 33 local administration information system and providing accurate public services through the implementation of e-government. Moreover, the civil-elected ward office head of SDG, who has expressed great interest in e-government and the smart city and wrote a relevant book himself, actively promotes the vision of SDG as a smart city. 4.2.2. Smart City The city of Seoul, to which Seongdong-gu belongs, has set Inclusive City as its main vision, which is grounded in the policy direction of universal access to urban space and services, sharing benefits in urban development and economic growth, and civic participation in the policy process. Seoul announced the Smart City Seoul Promotion Plan (August 2018) to expand citizen-centered smart city governance, and is actively pursuing related policies [180,181]. Clear vision and sharing SDG’s pledge of the 7th civil-elected ward office head was Smart Inclusive City Seongdong. He introduced the ordinance related to the smart city vision (Basic Ordinance for the Realization of Smart Inclusive City) for the first time by local governments and showed a strong will of the public sector for the smart city. The ordinance declared the concept of Inclusive City where everyone is respected without discrimination in addition to the convenience of using smart technology. Currently, SDG uses smart technology in seven areas, including the economy, education, welfare, and safety, and promotion of the improvement of residents’ lives. The concept of Smart Inclusive City set by SDG is derived from the vision of the city first proposed in the UN Human Settlement Program in 1999: “a place where everyone, regardless of class, gender, age, race, or religion, is productively and positively engaged in the opportunities the city offers” [ 182 ]. This urges a smart city where no one is excluded from the city’s opportunities and benefits, a city in which everyone participates, and city that everyone can enjoy. Local Base and ICT Problem-Solving and Technical Competence SDG designates the Wangsimni Station site, where 5 subway lines and roads are intertwined in a complex way, as a key area for solving traffic problems, participated in a variety of project competitions aiming for Smart City establishment for residents, and launched the Big Data Center, a dedicated organization that utilizes local traffic data and civil petition data for city management. Also, Hanyang University within SDG and the SDG government signed a business agreement with the aim of revitalizing the local industrial economy through exchange of infrastructure, technology, and human resources; the university is providing courses for faculty and graduate students at the College of Engineering and working on projects for local community innovation and sustainable cities [183]. Citizen’s Participation and Governance including Stakeholders Based on the Basic Ordinance for the Realization of Smart Inclusive City (12/2018), SDG institutionalized the Smart City Committee and residents’ council to guarantee civic participation in the policy-making process. Notably, it limits the participation to decisions, execution, and evaluation, and thus relatively emphasizes the role of the ward office in the planning stage. Regarding other stakeholders, the ordinance stipulated efforts to expand participation and improve competence in the process of smart city policymaking. Therefore, it is promoted to share the burden of decision-making by including citizens and stakeholders in the final decision-making rather than allowing their involvement in governance in an equal position. Smart City Initiative It was the main theme of the election campaign of the mayor of the district elected by popular vote in 2018. He set the smart inclusive city as his vision, published relevant books, and preoccupied related issues; in 2019, SDG drafted a master plan containing the plans and vision for a smart trans-city and secured an additional budget for the public offering project. The project is currently being operated. Citizen’s Participation SDG opened the Seongdong-gu Civil Office [ 184 ], an online Living Lab for civic participation in urban policy, where a resident can suggest a policy idea. If more than 50 people agree to the proposal, the SDG ward office head decides whether to implement the idea and share the process. The installation of smart security J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 20 of 33 lights was the first achievement proposed in the Living Lab. SDG residents of various ages and groups can participate in civic activities organized by the SDG government, such as introducing a Living Lab system in the Wangsimni Square zone master plan to disclose related information and forming a participation team for each elementary school in safe commute projects [185]. Political and Institutional Networking Served by Technologies SDG is currently operating a Living Lab site to collect the public ideas and providing Seongdong-gu Big Data Policy Map, a service that maps GIS (geographic information system)-based policy issues by linking, collecting, storing, and analyzing public data of Seoul, central government, and district offices since 2020. Financial and Political Support SDG has aggressively participated in smart city-related public offering projects, which are invested by various levels of government redundantly, and secured the national budget of the central government and the city budget of Seoul. SDG took the smart city special zone project in Seoul in 2018 (city budget 500 million won for 3 years, district budget 300 million won), the smart city integrated platform of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (national budget 600 million won, district budget 600 million won), theme-type specialized complex project (national budget 225 million won), and in 2020, it took the main project for the theme-type special complex master plan support project by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (national budget 300 million won, district budget 150 million won). SDG has applied for the majority of public offering projects on smart cities over the past three years, secured project budgets for smart city planning and construction four times, thereby gaining a relative advantage in this domain. Its hitting rates for public offerings are very high as well; it was confirmed that SDG took a total of 225 public offering projects over the past 4 years and secured 77.6 billion won budget. At the end of his first term, SDG’s civil-elected ward office head published a book, the 4th Industrial Revolution, Smart City [ 186 ], that showed a good level of knowledge and vision on smart city compared to other local ward office heads. Although it might be intended as a propaganda booklet published during the election period, the contents of the book were later reflected in the Smart Inclusive City Ordinance for the first time in local governments. Various investments, including reinforcing personnel in the relevant governmental organizations, proved the strong leadership and vision for this matter by an elected public official. The Smart City Management Bureau, an organization in charge of smart city affairs in SDG, has many more employees than other autonomous districts. The difference is salient when compared to the relevant human resources in Yangcheon-gu, another municipality participating in the smart city test bed project in Seoul (as of October 2019). SDG has 10 times more staffs and subdivided organizations such as separate departments, teams, and centers that strengthen SDG applying for multiple public offering projects. Importance of Sector or Clusters’ Selection SDG proposed smart city strategies using the smart transportation theme of pedestrian safety, traffic accident prevention, life convenience, and integrated transportation information of a special district (1.2 km 2 ) of the Wangsimni Square, a major transportation point of the Northeastern side of Seoul where 5 roads and 5 subway lines intersect. It is also seeking to present and spread a standard model for smart transportation to local governments [187]. Tests, Demonstrations, Living Labs Although SDG is participating in various public offering projects such as the Smart City Master Plan by the Ministry of Land and the Seoul Smart City Special Zone Project, it does not promote itself as a smart city test bed or brand itself in the long term. SDG’s participation in public projects offered by the central and local governments helps it to secure a budget for a leap forward to the smart city and to preempt the infrastructure. SDG applied for Smart City Integrated Platform Construction and the Master Plan Project by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and was designated as a special smart city district in Seoul and received investment for Seongdonggu smart city. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 21 of 33 Performance Indicators SDG, a local government with high rates of application and success in various public offering projects, has operated performance goal management and operation plans with its full understanding and implementation on the setting of performance goals [187]. 4.3. Results The Level of e-Government Readiness in a Country Affects the Transition of Local Governments to Smart City [29] (pp. xxvii–xxix, 102–111) [188] (pp. 151~175). Since e-government and smarter city share most of the success factors, the literature review of this study revealed that a high level of e-government readiness could serve as a sufficient condition for local government’s smart services or smarter city transition. The comparison between EGDI in the UK/South Korea and LOSI in London/Seoul, the cases of the study, also obtained the same results. Local governments are interested in E-government that focuses on the transition to digital government at a national level, interacts more closely with citizens and handles citizens’ daily life issues. It was found that the biggest obstacle to the development of e-government, including digital transformation at the local level and support for smart city projects, is insufficient ICT infrastructure. Conversely, it was revealed that having sufficient ICT infrastructure and appropriate hardware/software accelerates e-government development, including building a smart city, and solving problems such as air pollution and traffic congestion. In terms of EGDI, both countries are among the highest VHs in the UN’s Very High EGDI group and occupy a leading position in the EGDI among the UN member countries. Published since 2002, it has comprehensively evaluated 190 countries around the world, based on its sub-indexes of the Online Service Index, Telecommunication Infrastructure Index, and Human Capital Index. A summary of the two countries’ EGDI performance is shown in the Table 5below. EGDI’s shaded cells indicate the cases with a higher score between the UK and South Korea in any given year. Table 5. Comparative e-government status of both cases by United Nations E-Government Development Index (UN EGDI) [ 29 ]. Since 2002, the index has been assessed and published (not published in detail at 2002) and has been published every two years. In 2006, the United Nations did not evaluate the e-government index. EGDI surveys were conducted in 191 countries from 2002 to 2005, 192 ones from 2008 to 2010, and 193 ones from 2012 to 2020. 2003 2004 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 E-government Development Index (EGDI) UK 0.8140 0.8850 0.8777 0.7872 0.8147 0.8960 0.8695 0.9193 0.8999 0.9358 Rank 5 3 4 10 4 3 8 1 4 7 Korea 0.7440 0.8570 0.8727 0.8317 0.8785 0.9283 0.9462 0.8915 0.9010 0.9560 Rank 13 5 5 6 1 1 1 3 3 2 Online Service Index (OSI) UK 0.7770 0.9730 0.9962 0.6923 0.2634 0.9739 0.8976 1.0000 0.9792 0.9588 Korea 0.6070 0.9460 0.9769 0.8227 0.3400 1.0000 0.9764 0.9420 0.9792 1.0000 Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) UK 0.6750 0.6930 0.6471 0.7022 0.2364 0.8135 0.8534 0.8177 0.8004 0.9195 Korea 0.6750 0.6660 0.6713 0.6886 0.2109 0.8356 0.9350 0.8530 0.8496 0.9684 Human Capital Index (HCI) UK 0.9900 0.9900 0.9900 0.9699 0.3149 0.9007 0.8574 0.9402 0.9200 0.9292 Korea 0.9500 0.9600 0.9700 0.9841 0.3277 0.9494 0.9273 0.8795 0.8743 0.8997 Since 2018, by using LOSI, it selected pilot cities considering geographic scope and population size and conducted e-government portal evaluation. LOSI is composed of 4 sub-group items (40 cities and 60 metrics in 2018, and 100 cities and 80 metrics in 2020) of technology, content provision, and service provision and participation. London, the UK, and Seoul, South Korea, were evaluated as top LOSI groups two times (in 2018 and 2020), respectively. According to the 2020 UN EGDI report [ 29 ], Seoul and London each took a joint first place in content delivery and a joint second place in technology. However, both cities ranked 19th in service provision, relatively lagging behind in content provision and technology. Given that Seoul ranks 10th and London 15th in terms of participation and J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 22 of 33 intervention, the degree of local e-government in the two cities is similar not only in the general section but also in sub-sections. Table 6below shows the LOSI status of London and Seoul by UN DESA evaluated. Table 6. Local Online Service Index (LOSI) status of London and Seoul by UN [29]. Category Total Rank Technology Content Provision Service Provision Participation and Engagement 2018 (Sum) 2020 (LOSI) 2018 (Sum) 2020 (Rank) 2018 (Sum) 2020 (Rank) 2018 (Sum) 2020 (Rank) 2018 (Sum) 2020 (Rank) LOSI London 4 (51) 12 (0.7625) 10 2 25 1 11 19 6 10 Seoul 7 (49) 9 (0.775) 11 2 25 1 6 19 8 15 Since the success factors of smarter city are differentiated from those of e-government, it was justified that it is necessary to separately identify its status as a platform and innovation agent at the national and local level. It was confirmed in the UN’s E-government Survey in 2018 and 2020 that the national and local levels of e-government readiness do not necessarily coincide [ 8 , 29 ]. Examples of smart cities built by using the latest technology at the local government level have been found. There have been ongoing innovative attempts using big data analysis, such as designing and implementing local government policy, and incorporating digital applications to deal with pending issues such as urban public resource optimization, smart mobility, environmental pollution, and refugees. From a technological point of view, the obstacle to building smart cities for local governments was analyzed as insufficient ICT infrastructure. Proper supply of the infrastructure and equipment of hardware (HW)/software (SW) can be used as tools for accelerating smart city construction and solving problems such as air pollution and traffic congestion [8]. The Success Factors of e-Government that Determine the Level of e-Government Readiness are Limited by Sociocultural Factors, which Have an Impact on the Institutional Changes for a Smart City: Institutional Overlap and Institutional Conversion. Although the levels of national and local e-government were similar, methods of promoting smart city strategies of RBG, the UK, and SDG, South Korea, were different. SDG’s smart city strategies were officially led by the ward office head of the district and relevant organizations. More precisely, SDG reinforced human resources centering on the vision of the leader and expanded civic participation and governance through Living Labs and government-academic cooperation. Meanwhile, Digital Greenwich, RBG’s Greenwich in-house team, has independence (it has a reporting system directly to RBG’s Chief Executive) and establishes strategies aiming for smarter city for the purpose of city innovation, and operates Dg cities as a subsidiary. In other words, RBG, which promotes smart city in the form of public-private governance, shows opposite ways to SDG. SDG Smart City as Institutional Layering The will of the mayor of the district, who was an elected official, has led to the vision of the Smart Inclusive City, securing manpower for the organization in charge, and applying for multiple public offerings. The residents’ participation and cooperation with local-based innovation actors also follow the topdown direction for national informatization and e-government led by the government and the public. His strategic operation is also revealed in the appointment of 32 members of staff working for the establishment of smart city strategies and master plans in the autonomous district [ 189 ], external public offering and cooperation projects, and the big data center. These public-led smart city strategies resemble a technology pull of technology commercialization strategies, which is very advantageous in quickly introducing new technologies. In the recent coronavirus pandemic, the SDG Smart Shelter Stop, which has become a YouTube viral PR (public relations) operation (opening and closing the door after checking the temperature of passengers by the heat-censor camera attached to the J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 23 of 33 shelter’s door) is a good example of the public-driven smart city initiatives of SDG (as of October 2020, SDG is participating in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s themed specialized complex contest project to transform the Wangsimni Station zone into Transcity, and this idea is included in the project.) In South Korea’s autonomous district unit, smart city strategies represented by Seongdong-gu, the organizations and budgets are separated from the department in charge of informatization. However, there is no difference confirmed in operation between the smart city strategies and the informatization department (i.e., e-government). In terms of the success factors of the smart city emphasizing civic participation and external cooperation, the method of creating government-led Living Labs, rather than self-sustaining civic groups, and deciding whether to implement civic suggestions depending on the support of more than 50 people per suggestion is currently applied to the public petition program run by the Blue House and the National Assembly. Regarding the civic participation and governance expansion including stakeholders, the core of smarter city, despite the system preparation, it was passive to include citizens and stakeholders in the policy formation stage such as problem/issue setting. In addition, the participation took place in the final decision-making stage within the framework previously arranged in the public sector. This was also revealed in the process of securing project costs for smart cities; This was not to solve problems as a subject of innovation through public-private cooperation or to maintain a governance system using a cooperative network such as creating added value, but to secure additional national and city budgets as the representative of smart cities. When sharing success stories, SDG tends to make target-oriented investments for the sake of being the first. In addition, SDG operates a separate team in charge of various public offering projects using the previous experiences of e-government support projects and u-service support projects. These efforts are analyzed to preemptively occupy a better position than other autonomous districts to promote the district management or to secure external funding for smart city than to share SDG’s smart city success strategies with other autonomous districts. The case of SDG, which executes the smart city promotion strategies by using the existing methods of the informatization project and e-government project as it is, is interpreted as an institutional overlap in institutional changes. SDG maintains the smart city promotion strategies by adding the organization in charge of the public offering projects to the e-government project and partially revising the Living Lab and government-academic cooperation channels. In addition, SDG use organizations and platforms such as Big Data Centers related to e-government, which, in turn, intends to secure a new platform unique to SDG. It has implications that SDG has secured public-private channels to listen to residents’ opinions for each smart city project with the online Living Lab for SDG residents under the name of Seungdong-gu Civic Office, urban regeneration project promotion team, resident participant group for the Wangsimni Smart Transcity’ project, and the Smart Inclusive City Committee comprised of experts in information and communication, urban planning, design, urban regeneration, and health. However, we cannot say that they are fully accepted as key actors in the actual policy-making process. Seoul, where Seongdong-gu belongs, is the capital of South Korea, which has a collective hierarchical culture based on Confucianism. It values family and community rather than an individual. People are generally obedient to the legal order and government and prefer the public good rather than private interests [ 190 ]. Therefore, Koreans usually petition and wait for the governmental decision, which is seen in various e-government complaint channels. Since the early 2000s, when the e-government was in its infancy, the Korean governments have had various online channels for civic participation. However, these are used as spaces for unidirectional policy delivery and complaints, as one-time measures or as second opinions [ 191 ]. This tendency is revealed not only in the modern e-government era, but also in the Shinmungo system [ 192 ], where the people of the Joseon Dynasty complained of injustice [ 193 ]. From Shinmungo,Blue House Petition, and National J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 24 of 33 Assembly petition in the 21st century to the Joseon era, it shows that Korean people usually do not engage in direct action and activism. Therefore, the core values of smart city, civic participatory and expansion of governance, may have been achieved quantitatively, but not qualitatively, and smart city based on a public-led e-government approach is expected to continue. In the South Korean context, the fundamental cause of the lack of citizen participation in the policy formation and execution process is that citizens are still unfamiliar with expanding governance including stakeholders and collaboration. Although there is no explicit class distinction in South Korean society, it is difficult to develop experimental and innovative services through trial and error, learning, and collaboration in a culture of collectivism that endures inequalities and accepts hierarchical order and that puts practicality as its primary principle. Considering the preference for stability as well, it is difficult for Korean smarter cities to establish themselves as leading groups. Taking into account these socio-cultural characteristics, the creation of innovative services or business models in South Korea may stem from the organizational leadership, economic practicality, and a common awareness of crisis. Smart City of the Royal District of Greenwich as a Case of Institutional Conversions RBG’s smart city strategies were promoted for public-private governance with the aim of regional innovation and economic revitalization. RBG formed an internal organization, Digital Greenwich, instead of strong executive leadership and top-down decision-making processes led by the authority, setting a network of cooperation with the UK and the EU as a whole and with various ministries in the public sector. As a digital test bed located at the heart of London, RBG establishes its identity and actively participate in various projects, thereby pursuing networking and governance activities with innovators. Focusing on local issues, encouraging active participation of residents in the decisionmaking process for problem-solving, and cooperating with fellow cities as well as leading cities to share experiences of RBG as exemplary and empirical cases utilizes the actual key success variables of smart city. The EU’s Sharing City project and various partnerships are carried out through Digital Greenwich’s internal organization within RBG’s administration and its subsidiary dg cities. This applies the smart city strategies of public-private cooperation and combines RBG’s identity as a test bed for digital innovation. Therefore, this is analyzed as smart city strategies as institutional changes for innovation in the city beyond the existing system of e-government. In particular, analyzing and monitoring smart city-related data by actively utilizing the existing London City Datastore to disclose and share information in the public sector is differentiated from SDG, which seeks to establish a separate data sharing platform. In addition, RBG has the identity as the only mobility test bed in the metropolitan city and takes the lead in smart city-related projects of central ministries and publicprivate industries. This brands RBG with regard to smart city mobility demonstration and verification and secures a cooperative network or governance to disseminate and cooperate success stories across Europe under the national and EU Horizon projects. This is differentiated from e-government for simple informatization in the public sector and online public services and has a great impact like augmented reality that combines real/virtual reality and links online/offline services. The rational culture of Western Europe has attracted interest in cooperation with civil society and the government, and it is common for its people to directly participate in the planning and operation of social public services. An example of expanding cooperation networks including citizens of the Lambeth District in London, UK, which continues the experiment of transferring the budget and agendamaking power from Congress to residents [ 194 ]. It helps civil society with administrative functions and provides a guide to government-led civil society activities in the UK [ 195 ]. As such, in the UK, even in smart city, public-private cooperation the direct participation of residents, not government-led, are systematically guaranteed and actualized. In British culture, which believes in minimizing inequalities among people despite the explicit class distinction and enjoys direct participation to produce outcomes, people J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 31 of 33 120. Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012,214, 481–518. [CrossRef] 121. EU Smart Cities Marketplace. Between Brno and Online: A Summary of Our General Assembly, Marketplace Editorial. 23 September 2020. Available online: https://eu-smartcities.eu/news/between-brno-and-online-summary-our-general-assembly- 23-sept-2020 (accessed on 7 January 2021). 122. European Commission (EC). Analyzing the Potential for Wide Scale Roll Out of Integrated SMART Cities and Communities Solutions; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/d2 _final_report_v3.0_no_annex_iv.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2019). 123. KEIT. Smart city created by citizens and government: Smart city, paradigm of future cities. Ind. Insight 2017 ,5, 1–13. (In Korean) 124. Deloitte. Building the Smart City; Deloitte Center for Government Insights: Deloitte: New York, USA, 2018. 125. Höjer, M.; Wangel, J. Smart sustainable cities: Definition and challenges. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 310; Hilty, L.M., Aebischer, B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 333–349. [CrossRef] 126. Ha, Y.S. Institutional Analysis: Theory and Issues; Dasan Co. Ltd.: Seoul, Korea, 2011. (In Korean) 127. Ikenberry, G.J. Conclusion: An institutional approach to American foreign economic policy. Int. Organ. 1988 ,42, 219–243. [CrossRef] 128. Krasner, S.D. Approaches to the state: Alternative conceptions and historical dynamics. Comp. Politics 1984,16, 223–246. [CrossRef] 129. Peters, B.G. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New Institutionalism’; Pinter: London, UK, 1999. 130. Krasner, S.D. Sovereignty: An institutional perspective. Comp. Political Stud. 1988,21, 66–94. [CrossRef] 131. Mahoney, J. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc. 2000,29, 507–548. [CrossRef] 132. Thelen, K. How institutions evolve. In Comparative Historical Analysis in Social Science; Mahoney, J., Rueschemeyer, D., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 226–230. 133. Thelen, K. How Institutions Evolve; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 35–37. 134. Capoccia, G.; Keleman, R.D. The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics 2007,59, 341–369. [CrossRef] 135. Lieberman, R.C. Idea, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2002 ,96, 697–712. [CrossRef] 136. Orren, K.; Skowronek, S. Beyond the iconography of order: Notes for a new institutionalism. In The dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations, 1st ed.; Jillson, C., Dodd, L.C., Eds.; Boulder: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994; pp. 311–330. 137. Orren, K.; Skowronek, S. Institutions and intercurrence: Theory building in the fullness of time. Nomos 1996,38, 111–146. 138. Orren, K.; Skowronek, S. The Search for American Political Development, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004. 139. Pierson, P. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, 1st ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2004. 140. Streeck, W.; Thelen, K. Chapter 1. Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies; Streeck, W., Thelen, K., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. 141. Thelen, K. Institutional change in advanced political economies. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2009,47, 471–498. [CrossRef] 142. Hacker, J.S. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2004,98, 243–260. [CrossRef] 143. Mahoney, J.; Thelen, K. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, NY, USA, 2010. 144. Sohn, Y. Technology, Institutions, Path Dependence: A Comparative Study of Venture Nurturing Policies in Korea and Japan. Korean Political Sci. Rev. 2006,40, 237–261. (In Korean) 145. Sewell, W. Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology. In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences; McDonald, T.J., Ed.; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1996; pp. 262–263. 146. Park, S.A. Study on Net neutrality policies: Focused on the institutional change in the U.S. and Europe. Inf. Soc. Media 2011 ,20, 85–119. (In Korean) 147. Son, J.W. Employment Policy Reform and Party Politics in Christian Democratic Regime: The Netherlands Case. Korean Assoc. Int. Stud. 2019,59, 125–159. (In Korean) 148. Park, S.I. Institutional Evolution of Korea’s International Cooperation of Science and Technology from the Viewpoint of the Historical Institutionalism. J. Korea Technol. Innov. Soc. 2011,14, 516–551. (In Korean) 149. Lee, J.S. Chapter 5. Development and challenges of regional development policy in metropolitan area. In Regional Development & Mega-City Strategy; Kwon, Y.W., Kwon, W.Y., Kim, Y.J., Moon, D.J., Park, S.O., Park, C.W., Bae, J.G., Song, W.K., Lee, J.S., Lee, T.I., et al., Eds.; Presidential Committee on Regional Development: Seoul, Korea, 2009; pp. 108–135. (In Korean) 150. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Future City Vision 2020; Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs: Seoul, Korea, 2008. (In Korean) 151. Ha, S.G. Why Korean Style Future city Is Needed: The Presence and Future; Keynote Speech of Co-Seminar with Research Group of U-eco City and Urban Regeneration Project Group; Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement: Anyang-si, Korea, 2012. (In Korean) 152. Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From Production to Produsage; Peter Lang: New York, NY, USA, 2018. 153. Here Are Some Examples for ‘Best Practices of the Year’ by Smartization Sector Based: Smart City expo World Congress. World Smart City Awards. Available online: www.smartcityexpo.com; IDC Corporate USA. IDC Asia Pacific Smart City Awards. Available online: www.idc.com; WeGO. WeGO Awards. Available online: we-gov.org; (accessed on 26 December 2020). J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 32 of 33 154. Bosch, P.; Jongeneel, S.; Rovers, V.; Neumann, H.M.; Airaksinen, M.; Huovila, A. Smart City KPIs and Related Methodology; CITYkeys and the European Commission within the H2020 Programme: London, UK, 2016. Available online: http://nws. eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/D1.4-CITYkeys_D14_Smart_City_KPIs_Final_20160201.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2020). 155. Garau, C.; Pavan, V.M. Evaluating urban quality: Indicators and assessment tools for smart sustainable cities. Sustainability 2018 , 10, 575. [CrossRef] 156. Huntington, S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1996. 157. Inglehart, R.; Welzel, R. The World Values Survey Cultural Map of the World; World Values Surveys Project; Institute for Comparative Survey Research: Vienna, Austria, 2015. Available online: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp (accessed on 30 October 2020). 158. Zammuto, R.F.; Krakower, J.Y. Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of Organizational Culture; JAI Press Inc.: Greenwich, CT, Australia, 1991. 159. Hofstede, G.T.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010. 160. Hall, E.T. Unstated features of the cultural context of learning. Educ. Forum 1990,54, 21–34. [CrossRef] 161. Trompenaars, F.; Hamptom-Turner, C. Riding the Waves of Cultures, 2nd ed.; Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited: London, UK, 1997. 162. World Bank Group. Databank Home. Available online: databank.worldbank.org (accessed on 20 October 2020). 163. ITU. Measuring the Information Society Report 2017. Available online: www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/ publications/misr2017/MISR2017_Volume1.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020). 164. Population Data and Analysis of the Royal Borough. Available online: https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200164/about_ the_royal_borough/1573/population_data_and_analysis (accessed on 9 June 2020). 165. Resident Registration Population Statistics of Seongdong Gu. Available online: https://www.sd.go.kr/statistics.do?op= mainSub&mCode=15C050000000 (accessed on 9 June 2020). (In Korean) 166. Royal Borough of Greenwich. Royal Borough of Greenwich Destination Management Plan 2019–2023; Visit Greenwich: London, UK, 2019. 167. Royal Borough of Greenwich. Greenwich Smart City Strategy; Digital Greenwich: London, UK, 2015. 168. Royal Borough of Greenwich. Digital Greenwich: A Council approach to Smart Cities. Available online: https://www. digitalgreenwich.com/digital-greenwich-a-council-approach-to-smart-cities/ (accessed on 18 October 2020). 169. Royal Borough of Greenwich Official Site. Royal Greenwich Recognised as Smart City Innovator. 8 November 2017. Available online: https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/news/article/1076/royal_greenwich_recognised_as_smart_city_innovator (accessed on 9 June 2020). 170. Ok, J.A.; Cho, M.S. A Basic Study on the Establishment of Smart City in Gyeonggido; Gyeonggi Research Institute: Suwon, Korea, 2006; pp. 76–77. (In Korean) 171. Greater London Authority. Smarter London Together; Greater London Authority: London, UK, 2018. 172. Royal Borough of Greenwich. Our Comprehensive Smart City Strategy; Royal Borough of Greenwich: London, UK, 2015. 173. Ehwi, R. Stakeholder Engagement in Smart City Initiatives: Insights from a Review of Smart City Initiatives in Four UK Cities; Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2020. 174. Mayo, A. Greenwich’s Smart City Benchmarking Toolkit for Adaptability and Resilience. 2019. Available online: www. smartcitiesworld.net (accessed on 28 December 2020). 175. Turner, A. How a London Borough Became a Smart City Authority, INFORM. Available online: inform.tmforum.org (accessed on 28 December 2020). 176. Kim, D.N.; Kim, C.; Kim, M.S.; Jeong, Y.D.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, H.N.; Kim, J.H. Smart City Planning Consulting 2019 for Residents Participating in 2 Autonomous Districts in Seoul; Seoul Digital Foundation: Seoul, Korea, 2019. (In Korean) 177. Seongdong-gu Official Site (History of Seongdong). Available online: https://www.sd.go.kr/sd/main.do?op=mainSub&mCode= 13G010010000 (accessed on 28 October 2020). (In Korean) 178. Sohn, M.S. Seongdong-gu, Seoul’s Best E-Government Administration. Seongdongilbo. 17 December 2014. Available online: http://www.sgilbo.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=6447 (accessed on 30 December 2020). (In Korean). 179. Ministry of Interior and Safety. Evaluation of Autonomous District about Their Innovation Activities of Year. South Korea’s MOIS Has Been Announcing It Every Year with the Government’s Innovation Evaluation Team (20 Experts) and the Citizen Evaluation Team (Selecting 200 People Considering by Region and Gender Ratio) for 243 Local Governments Nationwide. Sdg has Ranked the Best District in 2018 and 2019. Since 2020, the Group Has Not Announced Its Overall Ranking, and Has Been Selected as the Best Group for Three Consecutive Years. Available online: http://www.innogov.go.kr/ucms/bbs/B0000036/view.do?nttId=1146 &menuNo=300081 (accessed on 6 January 2021). (In Korean) 180. Seoul Metropolitan City. Smart City Seoul Plan to Change Citizens’ Life; Seoul Metropolitan City: Seoul, Korea, 2018. (In Korean) 181. Cho, G.J. The inclusive city of Seoul, Achievements and Challenges. Issue Pap. 2017; 19–20. (In Korean) 182. Park, I.G. UN-Habitat III Conference on Embracing Cities. World Cities 2016,12, 9. (In Korean) 183. Lee, S.Y. Seongdong-gu-Hanyang University Co-promoting ‘Living Lab Project’ for Regional Innovation. The Municipal Daily, 3 March 2020. (In Korean) 184. Seongdonggumincheong. Available online: https://www.sd.go.kr/sdlab.do (accessed on 20 October 2020). (In Korean) 185. Seongdongnews. Korea’s first living lab, Seongdonggumincheong, ‘Starting to Implement Smart City’. Seongdongnews, 25 September 2019. (In Korean) 186. Jeong, W.O. 4th Industrial Revolution, Smart City, 1st ed.; Kyohaksa: Seoul, Korea, 2018. (In Korean) J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021,7, 42 33 of 33 187. Seongdong-gu Office, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2020 Smart Town Challenge Project Plan (Proposed) proceedings on 13 February 2020. Available online: smartcity.go.kr (accessed on 26 December 2020). 188. UN DESA (Department of Economic and Social Affairs). E-Government Survey 2018—Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies. 2018. Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org/en/ research/un-e-government-surveys (accessed on 9 June 2020). 189. Yangcheon-gu Official Webpage. Organization Chart. Yangcheon-gu, Which Is the other District Designated as the Autonomous District in Seoul Has 3 Staff as of October 2019. Available online: https://www.yangcheon.go.kr/site/yangcheon/ex/dept/ Dept_List.do?cdDepstep=050400 (accessed on 22 October 2019). 190. Geum, J.T. The characteristic of Confucian culture and its universal meaning. Korean Hist. J. 1999,163, 543–545. (In Korean) 191. Kim, C. Comparing Ways of E-Participation in the Policy-Making Process. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea, August 2004. 192. Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (The Academy of Korean Studies). Shinmungo. Deungmungo is a Petition System That Was Implemented from July 1401 to the End of the Joseon Dynasty. A Drum Was Attached to the Royal Palace to Provide an Opportunity for Those Who Suffer Injustice to Publicize the Issue. (1) Any Person Could Report Grievance to the Government Office of Their Residence. (2) If the Person Was Not Satisfied with the Government Office, the Person Beat the Drum to Appeal Directly to the King. (3) The Case Received Was Investigated by the Ministry of Justice. If the Appeal was Accepted, the Ministry Took Reasonable Steps, and If the Appeal Was Determined to be False Accusation, the Person Got Punished. Later, the Drum Was Renamed from Deungmungo to Shinmungo (August 1401). Available online: encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Index?contents_id=E0 032945 (accessed on 20 October 2020). 193. Han, C.H. Sinmungo. In Encyclopedia of Korean Culture; The Academy of Korean Studies: Seoungnam, Korea, 1995. Available online: http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Index?contents_id=E0032945 (accessed on 20 October 2020). (In Korean) 194. Lambeth Council. Achieving Social Value—Guidance for Staff, Partners and Contractors; Lambeth Council: London, UK, 2015. 195. HM Government. Civil Society Strategy: Building a Future that Works for Everyone; Cabinet Office: London, UK, 2018. 196. Paskaleva, K.A. The smart city: A nexus for open innovation? Intell. Build. Int. 2011,3, 153–171. [CrossRef] 197. Ahlers, D.; Wienhofen, L.W.M.; Petersen, S.A.; Anvaari, M. A Smart City Ecosystem Enabling Open Innovation; I4CS 2019, CCIS 1041; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 109–122. [CrossRef] 198. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Lee, D.; Ahn, H. Architectural design and open innovation symbiosis: Insights from research campuses, manufacturing systems, and innovation districts. Sustainability 2018,10, 4497. [CrossRef] 199. Yun, J.J.; Liu, Z. Micro- and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability 2019 ,11, 3301. [CrossRef] 200. Yun, J.J.; Leem, Y.T. Editorial: The smart city as an open innovation knowledge city. Int. J. Knowl. Based Dev. 2016,7, 103–106. 201. Yun, J.J. How do we conquer the growth limits of capitalism? Schumpeterian dynamics of open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2015,1, 1–20. [CrossRef] 202. Rotondo, F. The U-City paradigm: Opportunities and risks for e-democracy in collaborative planning. Future Internet 2012 ,4, 563–574. [CrossRef] 203. Kaya, T. Artificial intelligence driven e-government: The engage model to improve e-decision making. In Proceedings of the ECDG 2019 19th European Conference on Digital Government, Cyprus International University, North Nicosia, Cyprus, 26 October 2019. [CrossRef] 204. Cukier, K.; Mayer-Schoenberger, V. The rise of big data policing. Counc. Foreign Relat. 2013,92, 28–40. 205. Vydra, S.; Klievink, B. Techno-optimism and policy-pessimism in the public sector big data debate. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019 ,36, 101383. [CrossRef]