Content uploaded by Luca Mora
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luca Mora on Oct 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231197815
Organization Studies
2023, Vol. 44(10) 1559 –1575
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01708406231197815
www.egosnet.org/os
Organizing for Smart City
Development: Research at the
crossroads. Introduction to the
Special Issue
Luca Mora
Edinburgh Napier University, UK
Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
Francesco Paolo Appio
Paris School of Business, France
Nicolai J. Foss
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
David Arellano-Gault
Center for Research and Teaching in Economics, Mexico
Xiaoling Zhang
City University of Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Abstract
Worldwide, smart city projects have emerged as a response to urban crisis conditions with the aim of
leveraging digital technologies for urban innovation and sustainable development. However, these projects
involve complex organizational challenges that have received little attention in existing smart city research,
particularly in the exploration of interorganizational collaboration. The disconnect between organization
studies and smart city research means that these two knowledge fields have yet to maximize the valuable
insights that each one can offer to the other. To address this gap, this Special Issue seeks to foster cross-
fertilization. Elaborating on the contributions in our Special Issue, we present potential and actual research
crossroads conceptual and theoretical arenas in which collaborative efforts between organization studies and
smart city research can thrive. We aim to bridge knowledge gaps and generate mutual benefits by stimulating
interdisciplinary encounters. This approach offers opportunities for empirical research that can expand
Corresponding author:
Luca Mora, The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, 219 Colinton Road, Edinburgh, Scotland EH14 1DJ, UK.
Email: L.Mora@napier.ac.uk
1197815OSS0010.1177/01708406231197815Organization StudiesMora et al.
editorial2023
Introduction to the Special Issue
1560 Organization Studies 44(10)
organization studies and their theories while deepening our understanding of organizations, organizing, and
the organized in smart city projects, thereby contributing to theoretical and practical advancements.
Keywords
alternative organizational arrangements, bureaucracy, multi-stakeholder collaboration, smart city projects,
temporal structuring, urban governance, urban innovation
Introduction
Urban areas are at the forefront of global change, and developing appropriate models for their
evolution is crucial for realizing the United Nations’ vision for sustainable development. Urban
areas face unprecedented challenges that call for local interventions and strategies to achieve the
goals of ecological sustainability, equitable economic growth, and social development. In this con-
text, smart city projects have become common practice worldwide. These projects tackle local
sustainability issues with digital solutions, with the objective of upgrading technological systems
to fulfil urban service provisions, thereby triggering sociotechnical recombination processes that
allow local practices and new technological trajectories with potential for urban sustainability
enhancement to mutually adapt (Appio, Lima, & Paroutis, 2019; Mora, Deakin, & Reid, 2019).
These projects have broad organizational implications and have received growing attention in
academic debates. However, these debates have remained significantly underdeveloped, with
existing research acknowledging the complexity of organization and organizing in smart city pro-
jects but not adequately addressing it. Hence, convincing theories explaining how smart city pro-
jects should be organized to meet the expectations of improved urban sustainability remain lacking
(Mora, Gerli, Ardito, & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2023).
Urban environments are critical sites for organizing and can fuel organizational action (Batty,
2013; Kornberger, Meyer, Brandtner, & Höllerer, 2017). By foregrounding the complexity of cit-
ies’ organizational dynamics and emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary approach driven by
‘organizational theory lenses’ (Arellano-Gault, Demortain, Rouillard, & Thoenig, 2013, p. 145),
this Special Issue extends the investigation of organization studies into the interplay between theo-
rizing and researching urban development, thereby forming a confluence of urban and organization
studies. It aims to enhance dialogue between organization studies and smart city research, foster
intellectual cross-pollination that could open up overlooked research avenues, and facilitate the
exchange of ideas and theoretical stimuli.
Bridging the gap between organization studies and smart city research requires active engage-
ment with the existing body of knowledge in organization studies (Thabit & Mora, 2023) not only
to enhance the understanding of organizational challenges in smart city projects but also to create
opportunities for organization studies to reinterpret existing phenomena in the smart city domain
with overlooked yet pivotal theoretical lenses.
To facilitate this connection, in this editorial, we assemble five conceptual and theoretical are-
nas, referred to as research crossroads, in which collaborative research efforts can flourish between
two distinct yet complementary disciplinary communities. These crossroads have emerged from
the contributions belonging to this Special Issue, and each of them represents a distinct area of
inquiry that addresses the critical aspects of smart city development while expanding our under-
standing of the organizational dynamics involved. Together, these crossroads emphasize the need
to rethink cross-sector partnerships, explore the temporal structuring of organizational arrange-
ments, clarify the ambiguous nature of regulatory and bureaucratic constraints, examine organizing
Mora et al. 1561
in the context of ecosystem-level capabilities, and identify alternative organizational arrangements
for community engagement.
We envision this Special Issue as a collaborative platform that transcends disciplinary limita-
tions and facilitates meaningful interactions between researchers from diverse backgrounds; our
intention is to inspire their encounter and help forge a closer bond, which can trigger mutual ben-
efits. This Special Issue can help overcome the many knowledge gaps in smart city studies by
adopting organization-based theoretical resources while offering organization scholars a new con-
text of analysis that is rich in theory-building opportunities. As a bridge that connects the intricate
worlds of organization and urban studies, this Special Issue is expected to inspire scholars to delve
into the complexities of organizing for smart city development. By bringing together the collective
expertise and perspectives of academic communities in organization and urban studies, we invite
scholars to challenge existing paradigms, explore novel avenues of inquiry, and push the bounda-
ries of knowledge in pursuit of more impactful and sustainable urban development. The articles
published in this Special Issue serve as beacons for this collaborative spirit, illuminating the path
toward a deeper understanding of organizing for smart city development.
Smart City Studies and Organization Studies: Research at the
crossroads
For smart city researchers to successfully untangle the complexity of organizing smart city projects
in the real world, the disjuncture itself should be addressed. Accordingly, we call for multidiscipli-
nary research, introducing a crucial research question that our Special Issue addresses: How can
cross-fertilization be stimulated to help overcome the unwelcome division between organization
studies and smart city research?
Our research crossroads address this question by exposing some of the main challenges in
organizing for smart city projects and the research gaps that have yet to be overcome. By directing
research efforts toward these crossroads, organization scholars can contribute to advancing knowl-
edge and theory in organization studies and smart city research. They can also foster cross-disci-
plinary collaboration and generate new insights for framing sustainable approaches to organizing
for smart city project formation and execution.
Rethinking cross-sector partnerships
The article by Dolmans et al. (2023, this issue) provides valuable insights into the dynamics of
collaborative innovation for smart city development and thus offers a comprehensive perspective
that challenges one-size-fits-all collaborative arrangements and their inability to account for the
intricacies of cross-sector partnerships. Their work advances our understanding of the context-
specific nature of such collaborations and calls for collaborative models that can better represent
real-world complexities. Aligning with the views of Thabit and Mora (2023) and those of Empson,
Langley, and Sergi (2023), Dolmans et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of considering the
dynamic nature of collaborations and encourage studies to go beyond predefined configurations to
explore the multifaceted realities that characterize cross-sector partnerships for smart city
development.
These studies demonstrate that studying smart city development through the lenses of cross-
sector partnership theory can help organization scholars to obtain valuable insights into several key
areas. First, examining cross-sector collaborations in smart city projects allows for a deeper under-
standing of the complexities of collaborative networks in urban contexts. Empirical studies of
1562 Organization Studies 44(10)
urban environments have revealed that cities exhibit unique characteristics, institutional arrange-
ments, and cultural influences that significantly affect the formation and success of cross-sector
partnerships (Furnari, 2014; Padgett & McLean, 2006).
Second, studying smart city development provides organization studies with opportunities to
explore the interplay of the factors that shape cross-sector collaboration processes. For example,
Dolmans et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of uncertainty, governance and institutional logics
in partnership formation while Diriker, Porter, and Tuertscher (2023) underscore the role of punc-
tuated openness, which involves moments of selectively opening up to external stakeholders to
address wicked problems. The work of Diriker et al. (2023) provides insights into how open organ-
izing can facilitate collaboration and innovation in complex multi-stakeholder contexts, such as
smart city projects. By examining these dynamics, organization scholars can gain a deeper under-
standing of the interdependencies, power dynamics and decision-making processes that shape
cross-sector partnerships in urban settings.
Third, studying the complexities of cross-sector partnerships in smart city projects can help
challenge and refine existing collaboration models and theories while expanding our current under-
standing of collaborative dynamics, leadership processes and the tangled relationships that shape
partnership formation. Dolmans et al. (2023) highlight the need to move beyond predefined con-
figurations and consider the dynamic and context-specific nature of collaborations, echoing the
findings of Empson et al. (2023) on constructing individual leadership identities within the context
of collective leadership.
We recommend that future organization studies focus on several key areas to better grasp cross-
sector partnerships, drawing inspiration from the dynamics observed in the context of smart city
development. Emerging from the integration of the concepts of dynamic systems and complex
networks, an interesting research area is the examination of how more adaptive models of partner-
ships can be shaped. The evolution of power dynamics, leadership and reciprocity within partner-
ships is another important aspect worth investigating, along with the implications of mandated and
voluntary participation in smart city partnerships and its impacts on internal collaborative logic,
stakeholder engagement and outcomes. In addition, further research on the influences of urban
characteristics, institutional arrangements and cultural influences on partnerships can help inform
the design of effective collaboration models. Finally, organization studies can contribute to the
development of more adaptive policy frameworks that support cross-sector partnerships in smart
city projects. Policy analysis research based on organizational theory may have important implica-
tions for policy formulation.
Temporal structuring of organizational arrangements
The article by White and Burger (2023, this issue) introduces the concept of frameworking for
sustainable smart city development, offering specific contributions to organization theory. Their
study adopts a configurational approach that considers the complex interplay and alignment of
various components and stakeholders in smart city initiatives. This approach recognizes that these
configurations are not static but change over time in response to shifting circumstances. By exam-
ining the temporal aspects of frameworking, White and Burger (2023) highlight the importance of
adaptability and foresight in adjusting frameworks and configurations in smart city projects. This
understanding of the temporal factors shaping the process of frameworking helps to explore the
organization of complex organizational systems and their adaptation to changing environments.
Dolmans et al. (2023) also offer a relevant contribution by shedding light on the dynamic nature of
collaboration and the role that governance and institutional logics play in managing uncertainties.
Their research adds valuable insights to organization studies by demonstrating the need for
Mora et al. 1563
temporally sensitive theories of organizational action in the context of smart city development. By
exploring the temporal shifts in stakeholder configurations, relationships and interests, Dolmans
et al. (2023) help comprehend how collaborations evolve over time in smart city initiatives, a per-
spective that aligns with the focus of organization studies on the dynamism inherent in organiza-
tional processes, structures, and interactions.
The studies of White and Burger (2023) and Dolmans et al. (2023) make valuable contributions
to organization studies by providing new insights into how temporal dynamics and considerations
shape organizational arrangements. Their research supports the findings and theoretical develop-
ments of Axelsson and Granath (2018), highlighting the evolving nature of collaborations in smart
city projects and emphasizing the dynamic shifts in stakeholder configurations, relationships and
interests that occur throughout various project stages. Together, these research outputs underscore
the fact that partnership arrangements and tasks are strictly interlinked, challenging the notion of
fixed collaboration models that has evolved in smart city research (Mora & Deakin, 2019).
Further examination of the temporal aspects of organizational activities in smart city projects
could benefit organization studies. For example, Berg Johansen and De Cock (2018) explore how
future-oriented ideologies enacted by elite corporate actors shape organizational activities.
Expanding this research to smart city development will shed light on how different stakeholders’
temporal ideologies influence decision making in smart city development, a crucial yet unexplored
dimension of smart city projects. Similarly, the study of Kaplan and Orlikowski (2013) on tempo-
ral work has been instrumental in highlighting the active role of time in strategy making and fur-
ther emphasizes the need for adaptability and flexibility that is rarely acknowledged in smart city
research.
Research on the temporal dimension of organizing also helps assess the challenges of interor-
ganizational collaborations, which are crucial in smart city projects. Several organization studies
have been conducted in this domain, and they expose opportunities for cross-disciplinary integra-
tion. For instance, Dille, Hernes, and Vaagaasar (2023) discuss the difficulties arising from differ-
ent temporal structures and project timelines between public and private sector organizations,
underscoring the importance of reconciling temporal discrepancies to enhance collaboration effec-
tiveness. Van Marrewijk, Ybema, Smits, Clegg, and Pitsis (2016) analyse the complexities of time
management in large projects and reveal the relevance of effective temporal management in smart
city project activities. Cunliffe, Luhman, and Boje (2004) draw attention to narrative temporality,
which influences organizational behaviour in smart city initiatives characterized by differing nar-
ratives about the pace and trajectory of change. Understanding and acknowledging these temporal
narratives is vital for fostering public acceptance and the successful implementation of smart city
projects. Gherardi and Strati (1988) highlight the pervasive influence of time on organizational
processes; in smart city development, temporal dimensions influence governance aspects, such as
technology deployment and user acceptance patterns. Nash (2020) emphasizes the role of a city’s
rhythm in shaping its temporal patterns and identity. Smart city projects can benefit from an under-
standing of the lived rhythms of urban life to guide the timing of services, technology rollouts and
public engagement activities.
In relation to this crossroad, several research questions emerge, and they are expected to con-
tribute to the advancement of organization studies and theories while addressing temporal structur-
ing in the unique context of smart city projects. Future organization studies could offer more
knowledge on how temporal ideologies shape smart city project planning and implementation, the
influence of temporal structuring on strategic decision making, the dynamics of collaboration
shaped by temporal perceptions and organization, and the impact of different temporal structures
on project progress. In addition, future research should explore effective temporal management
strategies to mitigate clashes and disruptions, investigate the role of narrative temporalities in
1564 Organization Studies 44(10)
shaping public perceptions and acceptance, and examine how temporal dimensions affect the plan-
ning and usage of the elements of smart city infrastructure. Research should also delve into the
evolution of temporal structures within smart city projects and its effects on collaborative configu-
rations as it can lead to the development of adaptive strategies for successful collaborations.
Finally, exploring how a deeper appreciation of time and temporality contributes to the develop-
ment of resilient and sustainable smart city projects can inform best practices in the field.
The ambiguous nature of regulatory and bureaucratic constraints
Khodachek, Aleksandrov, Nazarova, Grossi, and Bourmistrov (2023, this issue), together with
Lekkas and Souitaris (2023, this issue), examine the role of bureaucracy in the context of smart city
project organizing. This research contributes to the debate on the changing nature of bureaucracy
by acknowledging its ability to adapt, shape and coexist with the smart city concept. These two
articles provide empirical evidence on how bureaucracies engage with the challenges and opportu-
nities generated by smart city development while emphasizing the importance of flexibility, inno-
vation and data governance within bureaucratic organizations. Their findings shed light on the
interaction between formal bureaucratic structures and informal interactions, showing how bureau-
cracies can deal with paradoxical tensions and renew themselves in response to novel technologies
and changing environments. Additionally, these two studies stress the significance of context con-
ditions and the need to bridge divides and address inequalities in urban development.
Specifically, Khodachek et al. (2023) introduce the concept of context entanglement that binds
the smart city concept and bureaucracy. They argue that the complexity of the smart city concept
necessitates the involvement of bureaucracy as a translating machine capable of dealing with the
intricate governance dimensions that characterize smart city efforts. This study suggests that
bureaucracy plays a vital role in organizing the complexity of the smart city idea within everyday
bureaucratic processes. It also examines the downsizing of the human-centric aspects of smart city
development in favour of technocentric routines. By demonstrating the interdependence of smart
city projects and bureaucracy, this study challenges the existing views that suggest they are incom-
patible. It thus redefines our understanding of bureaucracy’s role in smart city organizing (see
Kornberger et al., 2017; Nisar & Masood, 2020). Similarly, Lekkas and Souitaris (2023) contribute
to the understanding of bureaucracy’s position in city organizing within the context of smart city
projects. The authors argue against the replacement of bureaucracy and highlight its potential rein-
forcement in city organizing. The article discusses how smart city development offers bureaucra-
cies the opportunity to recover from past failures by leveraging a mix of technology and bureaucracy
as a rational tool for city modernization. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for bureaucracies to
address their weaknesses and adapt to changing environments. The study also explores the roles of
upper- and lower-echelon bureaucrats in strategic change and underlines the adaptive nature of
Weberian bureaucracies (e.g. Byrkjeflot & du Gay, 2012; Kornberger et al., 2017).
The findings of Khodachek et al. (2023) and Lekkas and Souitaris (2023) have important impli-
cations for organization studies. One notable contribution is the recognition that bureaucracy and
smart city development are not necessarily conflicting forces but can complement each other
(Byrkjeflot & du Gay, 2012). Rather than replacing bureaucracy, concepts such as smart city devel-
opment can strengthen bureaucratic control while fostering creativity and self-reflection
(Kornberger et al., 2017). This perspective challenges the prevailing notion that smart city initia-
tives and bureaucracy are incompatible while highlighting the potential for smart city projects to
sustain the renewal and improvement of bureaucratic processes (Nisar & Masood, 2020). Both
studies also shed light on the changing nature of Weberian bureaucracy (Courpasson, 2000;
Mora et al. 1565
Greenwood & Lawrence, 2005). Bureaucracies arising from the emergence of the first cities
(Monteiro & Adler, 2022) are shown to adapt and shape while preserving their core functions of
efficiency and legitimacy (Kallinikos, 2004). The findings highlight the use of enabling structures,
such as cross-functional and temporary teams, to enhance flexibility and innovativeness within
bureaucratic environments (Adler & Borys, 1996). This understanding opens avenues for further
research on the dynamics of bureaucratic adaptation and the role of non-hierarchical patterns in
bureaucratic organizations (Nelson, 2001). It also provides organizational scholars with the oppor-
tunity to explore whether the smart city context can give rise to innovative forms of bureaucracy
that go beyond the three primary perspectives identified by Monteiro and Adler (2022), namely,
bureaucracy as an organizing principle, as a paradigmatic form of organization, and as one type of
structure.
Moreover, the two contributions to this Special Issue emphasize the importance of data govern-
ance in municipal bureaucracies and its role in informing administrative processes and ensuring
civil rights (Pansera, Marsh, Owen, Flores López, & De Alba Ulloa, 2023, this issue). Bureaucracies
integrate their administrative capabilities with regulatory competencies to design rules that govern
local innovation ecosystems, thereby reflecting the evolving role of bureaucracy in the digital age.
Hence, organization scholars should explore the intersection of technology, data and bureaucracy
in shaping urban governance. Additionally, the two studies highlight the roles of upper- and lower-
echelon bureaucrats in driving strategic changes within bureaucracies. While upper-echelon
bureaucrats seem to provide an initial impetus for legitimizing strategic change, lower-echelon
bureaucrats act as change agents and devise rules at the intersection of technological and societal
development. This finding calls for further investigation into the dynamics of power and agency
within bureaucratic organizations and how different levels of bureaucrats contribute to organiza-
tional change (Greve & Mitsuhashi, 2007).
The findings of Khodachek et al. (2023) and Lekkas and Souitaris (2023) highlight the need to
investigate the interplay between bureaucracy and innovation management so as to understand
how bureaucratic structures can help leverage technological advancements and foster creativity
within organizations. Future organization research could delve into the mechanisms that enable
bureaucracies to adapt, transform and enhance their effectiveness in the context of smart city
development. Moreover, efforts may be directed toward examining the changing nature of Weberian
bureaucracy and its ability to adapt to the digital age. This topic may prompt organization scholars
to explore the mechanisms through which bureaucracies integrate technology, data and administra-
tive capabilities to shape sustainable urban development. Investigating this intersection can offer
insights into how bureaucracies navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital
transformation of urban environments and their services. Future research can also focus on the
strategies and mechanisms that bureaucracies employ to design rules and regulations that govern
local innovation ecosystems while ensuring civil rights and social equity. Additionally, understand-
ing the dynamics of power and agency within bureaucratic structures can shed light on how differ-
ent bureaucratic levels contribute to organizational change and adaptation. In this regard, research
can explore the mechanisms through which upper-echelon bureaucrats trigger change, legitimize
strategic initiatives and foster innovation while lower-echelon bureaucrats act as change agents,
translating societal and technological developments into practical rules and regulations. Finally,
research can examine how bureaucracies engage with diverse stakeholders and communities to
promote inclusivity and equitable outcomes in smart city projects. Investigating the dynamics of
collaboration, participation and community engagement within bureaucratic structures can con-
tribute to the development of more effective and socially responsible governance models for smart
city development.
1566 Organization Studies 44(10)
Organizing ecosystem-level capabilities
The article by Gupta, Panagiotopoulos, and Bowen (2023, this issue) focuses on the organization
of ecosystem-level capabilities in smart city contexts, thus filling a research gap on how ecosystem
capabilities form in urban environments. The authors adopt a multilevel approach and conduct a
longitudinal case study of London’s city data ecosystem to observe the emergence and aggregation
of two ecosystem-level capabilities: data provisioning and data insight. They discover that these
capabilities develop through global, configural and shared aggregation processes with different
coordination and resource mobilization mechanisms required at various stages of smart city eco-
system development. This study highlights the importance of ecosystem-level capabilities linked
to collective city-level outcomes rather than focusing solely on the capabilities of the leading city
authority. Through their findings, the authors challenge the prevailing view of a dominant orches-
trator in smart city projects, emphasizing the phases of aggregation and the influence of different
types of aggregation on leadership, coordination and the achievement of city-level smart city out-
comes. Overall, this study offers valuable insights into the process of organizing ecosystem-level
capabilities for smart city development.
The work of Gupta et al. (2023) has significant implications for organization studies. First, it
addresses a gap in the understanding of capability development at the city-ecosystem level. While
the literature on capabilities has primarily focused on the organizational level, their study expands
the scope by examining the capabilities that emerge and aggregate within the collaborative ecosys-
tems that sustain smart city projects. This focus aligns with the core interests of organization stud-
ies on organizing and organizations within broader contexts, including ecosystems and networks
(e.g. Clegg, Josserand, Mehra, & Pitsis, 2016; Dagnino, Levanti, & Mocciaro Li Destri, 2016). By
exploring the complex coordination and collaboration required within collaborative smart city eco-
systems, the authors shed light on the transformative power of network dynamics in capability
development. This attempt responds to the research agenda proposed by Clegg et al. (2016), which
calls for a deeper understanding of how networks shape organizational phenomena. Gupta et al.
(2023) also address the role of intentional governance in strategic interorganizational network
evolution. They emphasize the deliberate resource mobilization and coordination mechanisms
required for the development of ecosystem-level capabilities. This insight corresponds to the mul-
tilevel approach proposed by Dagnino et al. (2016).
The article by Gupta et al. (2023) also aligns with the broader interests of the community of
organization studies in exploring the dynamics of interorganizational relationships. By examining
the development of capabilities across a diverse set of actors within smart city collaborative eco-
systems, including city authorities, organizations and citizens, the study contributes to the under-
standing of boundary crossing and knowledge exchange (Hong & Snell, 2013). Moreover, their
findings resonate with the literature on institutionalization processes and the evolution of organi-
zational forms. By investigating the institutionalization of hybrid organizational forms within
smart city ecosystems, the authors contribute to the understanding of how networks facilitate the
adoption of new organizational configurations (Huybrechts & Haugh, 2018) while stressing the
dynamic nature of capabilities in smart city collaborative ecosystems; such topic relates to the
research on the transformation and transition processes between dynamic capabilities (Prange,
Bruyaka, & Marmenout, 2018).
By uncovering the evolution and maturation of ecosystem-level capabilities through different
aggregation processes, the authors expand our understanding of how capabilities develop, trans-
form and adapt within complex ecosystems. Consequently, their research aligns with the emerg-
ing literature on multi-stakeholder collaboration in innovation networks. By examining the
mobilization of multiple, diverse stakeholders across organizational boundaries in smart city
Mora et al. 1567
ecosystems, their work contributes to the understanding of hybrid orchestration practices
(Reypens, Lievens, & Blazevic, 2021).
In addition to its multiple contributions to organization theory, the study of Gupta et al. (2023)
is instrumental in opening future research avenues that are of great interest to organization schol-
ars. These opportunities for future research can help organization scholars deepen their understand-
ing of the complexities of capability development within smart city ecosystems and contribute to
framing new theories and frameworks for guiding practice and policy formulation in the evolving
landscape of smart city initiatives. For example, the integration of a multilevel perspective, exami-
nation of long-term sustainability, and exploration of capability co-evolution can enhance our lim-
ited understanding of how capabilities emerge, evolve and interact within smart city development.
First, given the complexity of capability development within smart city collaborative ecosystems,
the nested processes spanning multiple levels of aggregation (e.g. micro, meso and macro levels)
must be explored. Investigating the dynamics and interplay between organizational capabilities
and the influence of sub-organizational units, such as individuals and teams, on ecosystem out-
comes can provide a more comprehensive understanding of capability development within ecosys-
tem conditions. This research aligns with the work of Clegg et al. (2016), who highlight the
transformative power of network dynamics and the need for a multilevel research agenda to under-
stand complex organizational phenomena. By adopting a multilevel perspective, future research
should investigate the interdependencies and dynamics of capabilities at different levels and
thereby contribute to the literature on network dynamics and organizational evolution (Dagnino
et al., 2016; Hong & Snell, 2013).
Second, Gupta et al. (2023) highlight the need to examine the long-term sustainability and evo-
lution of ecosystem capabilities. While their case study reaches a maturity phase characterized by
integration, standardization and shared capabilities, uncertainty remains with regard to whether
this phase will lead to stable and long-lasting capabilities or if further cycles of configural and
shared aggregation processes are required for sustained development. Building on the observation
of capability maturity of Helfat and Peteraf (2003), future research can explore whether successful
smart city collaborative ecosystems are associated with repeated cycles of capability aggregation
and determine when a truly stable maturity phase can be achieved. This research focus aligns with
the literature on institutionalization and organizational forms, where scholars examine the pro-
cesses and mechanisms that contribute to the long-term stability and evolution of organizational
practices (Huybrechts & Haugh, 2018; Prange et al., 2018). By observing the factors that influence
the resilience and development of capabilities within smart city collaborative ecosystems, organi-
zation scholars can contribute to the understanding of how capabilities become institutionalized
and shape the trajectory of smart city initiatives.
Third, achieving sustainable city-level outcomes requires an exploration of the co-evolution
of capabilities as a coherent set of practices in smart city projects. Although Gupta et al. (2023)
focus on data provisioning and data insights as parallel capabilities, the degree of their interrela-
tionship and how they emerge and evolve over time must be determined. This perspective calls for
research examining the dynamics of multi-stakeholder networks and the practice of mobilizing
diverse stakeholders across organizational boundaries (Reypens et al., 2021). Studying the pro-
cesses of collaboration, coordination and boundary spanning within smart city collaborative eco-
systems can help organization scholars to gain new insights into how capabilities co-evolve and
synergize to address complex urban challenges. Future research will produce new literature in the
field of interorganizational networks and boundary crossing, where existing studies have explored
the mechanisms and practices that facilitate the development of capabilities across organizational
boundaries (Clegg et al., 2016; Reypens et al., 2021). Drawing on this literature, future research
1568 Organization Studies 44(10)
can uncover the dynamics of capability co-evolution and provide practical insights for orchestrat-
ing effective collaboration within collaborative ecosystems for smart city development.
Alternative organizational arrangements for community engagement
The contributions of Peter and Meyer (2023, this issue) and Pansera et al. (2023, this issue) focus
on the role of citizen participation in smart city development. First, both studies recognize the
importance of understanding and addressing the specificities of the local context. Peter and Meyer
(2023) highlight the need for community engagement and place-based approaches in smart city
agendas in Africa. They develop a conceptual framework for urban commoning that considers the
specificities of the African urban context, aiming to mitigate the formal–informal divide and
empower marginalized citizens to express their right to the city. Pansera et al. (2023) focus on
smart city development in Mexico City, emphasizing the presence and dynamics of various insti-
tutional logics (e.g. Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Reay & Hinings, 2009; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury,
2012) that influence citizen participation. They argue for a richer understanding of institutional
logics to enhance the analysis of the social construction of smart city initiatives within situated
contexts.
Second, both studies explore the limitations and challenges related to citizen participation in
smart city initiatives. Peter and Meyer (2023) discuss the enclosure and marketization of urban
areas as sources of contestation in smart city development while emphasizing the role of common-
ing in redefining local bureaucracies to be more open and inclusive. Pansera et al. (2023) identify
bureaucratic and technocratic logics that promote the limited and unidirectional participation of
citizens, who are mainly considered as users. They also highlight the entanglement of the logic of
active citizen participation with clientelism and patronage, which further restricts broader and
inclusive citizen involvement. Finally, both studies highlight the potential benefits of inclusive citi-
zen participation in smart city development. Peter and Meyer (2023) argue that commoning ena-
bles citizens’ voices to be heard in planning and resource distribution, leading to knowledge-intensive
smart city development and strengthened inclusion. Similarly, Pansera et al. (2023) emphasize the
importance of understanding and navigating different institutional logics to enhance citizen partici-
pation and ensure the realization of benefits from smart city agendas.
The arguments presented in both articles contribute to organization studies in several ways. The
exploration of urban commoning in the African context by Peter and Meyer (2023) has implica-
tions for the study of alternative forms of organizing and the dynamics of power and resistance.
Their conceptual framework for urban commoning opens new avenues for understanding how
commoning processes foster inclusive and participatory smart city development. This view aligns
with organization studies on alternative forms of organizing, such as solidarity economy initiatives
(Daskalaki, Fotaki, & Sotiropoulou, 2019) or open strategy processes (Dobusch, Dobusch, &
Müller-Seitz, 2019; Splitter, Dobusch, von Krogh, Whittington, & Walgenbach, 2023). By empha-
sizing the role of commoning in redefining local bureaucracies and countering the enclosure and
marketization of cities, the work of Peter and Meyer (2023) resonates with scholars interested in
prefigurative organizing (Reinecke, 2018) and resistance against commodification and enclosure
(Mumby, Thomas, Martí, & Seidl, 2017).
Their study also highlights the need to navigate and reconcile multiple institutional logics, thus
contributing to the literature on institutional theory (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2022). Similarly,
the study of Pansera et al. (2023), which analyses the institutional logics influencing smart city
development in the context of citizen participation in Mexico City, provides insights into the social
construction of organizations and the role of institutions in shaping organizational practices. Their
findings expand organization studies that explore the dynamics of institutional logics and their
Mora et al. 1569
impact on organizational behaviour and decision making. By uncovering the limitations and entan-
glements of institutional logics, their study sheds light on the challenges of inclusive governance
practices and participatory decision making. The findings also inform research on organizational
power dynamics, social equity and citizen engagement in organizations and help sustain theory
development in the research streams of organizational governance, citizen participation and social
equity (Aaltonen & Lanzara, 2015; Arellano-Gault et al., 2013).
Moreover, the works by Peter and Meyer (2023) and Pansera et al. (2023) can inspire future
research on the dynamics of urban commoning in different smart city contexts beyond the African
continent. Investigating how commoning processes can foster inclusive and participatory smart
city development opens avenues for understanding alternative forms of organizing. In this regard,
organization scholars can consider exploring the transformative potential of commoning practices
in redefining local bureaucracies, countering enclosures and marketization, and empowering mar-
ginalized groups. Such research would integrate studies on solidarity economy initiatives
(Daskalaki & Kokkinidis, 2017), open strategy processes (Belmondo & Sargis-Roussel, 2022;
Diriker et al., 2023), and prefigurative organizing (Reedy, King, & Coupland, 2016; Reinecke,
2018) and thereby contribute to the development of new theories and frameworks within organiza-
tion studies.
We also call for further investigation into the institutional logics that influence smart city devel-
opment to uncover insights into the social construction of organizations and the dynamics of citizen
participation. Scholars can explore how different logics, such as bureaucratic, technocratic and par-
ticipatory logics, shape organizational practices (e.g. Hirst & Humphreys, 2015; O’Reilly & Reed,
2011) and influence decision-making processes (e.g. Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Newlands,
2021). Future research can also focus on understanding the challenges and opportunities related to
citizen participation in smart city initiatives. Investigating how bureaucratic and technocratic logics
may limit and shape citizen involvement can shed light on the strategies for fostering broader and
more inclusive citizen participation. Organization scholars can explore the entanglement of partici-
patory logics with clientelism and patronage to identify the mechanisms that overcome these barri-
ers and promote more equitable and inclusive smart city development. In so doing, they can
contribute to understanding the dynamics of power, agency and participation within smart city
organizations and inform the design of more effective and socially responsible governance models.
Finally, a comparative analysis across different smart city contexts can enhance our understand-
ing of the transferability of findings and the influence of local contextual factors on organizational
practices. Investigating how commoning processes, institutional logics and citizen participation
dynamics vary across regions and cities can provide valuable insights into the contingencies and
complexities of smart city development (e.g. Cavotta & Mena, 2023; Kornberger & Clegg, 2004;
Sapsed & Salter, 2004). This research agenda calls for comparative studies that explore the simi-
larities and differences in organizational dynamics and practices and ultimately contribute to a
broader understanding of smart city project organizing.
The (Cross)Roads Ahead
Although these five research crossroads in our Special Issue shed light on the important aspects of
smart city development and their implications for organization studies, they do not cover the
absences in the academic debate on the intersection between technology and human aspects, gov-
ernance and accountability mechanisms, leadership challenges, implications for the workforce and
the future of work, and the desirability of holistic and integrative approaches. These missing
insights provide organization scholars with opportunities to enhance their understanding of smart
city projects and their implications for organizational theory and practice.
1570 Organization Studies 44(10)
One area that requires further exploration is the intersection of technology and human aspects
(e.g. Beyes, Chun, Clarke, Flyverbom, & Holt, 2022; Labatut, Aggeri, & Girard, 2012; Ratner &
Plotnikof, 2022) within smart city organizing. While our Special Issue mainly focuses on technol-
ogy-enabled capabilities and data-driven decision making, we need to understand how these tech-
nological advancements interact with human behaviour, organizational practices and social
dynamics. Future research could investigate the ways in which technology shapes organizational
processes, the role of digital platforms in facilitating collaboration and participation, and the impact
of smart city initiatives on organizational structures and work practices. This research avenue
aligns with the increasing interest in the social implications of technology and human-centred
approach in organizational studies.
Another critical gap in the smart city debate is related to the governance and accountability
mechanisms (e.g. Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Keevers, Treleaven, Sykes, & Darcy, 2012;
Mair, Mayer, & Lutz, 2015; Pas, Wolters, & Lauche, 2021) used in the smart city context. As smart
city initiatives involve multiple stakeholders from the public, private and civil society sectors,
research should examine the mechanisms through which these stakeholders are held accountable
and the ways in which governance structures evolve to address the challenges and opportunities of
smart city organizing. Future research should also examine issues related to transparency, account-
ability and the distribution of power within smart city ecosystems while producing innovative
governance models that can foster collaboration, citizen engagement and social equity in smart city
decision-making processes. By examining the dynamics of governance and accountability, organi-
zation scholars can contribute to the development of effective and socially responsible organiza-
tional practices in the context of smart cities.
The role of leadership (e.g. Day, Balogun, & Mayer, 2023; Empson et al., 2023; Levay &
Andersson Bäck, 2022) in driving and managing smart city initiatives is another underexplored
topic. Future research could focus on the leadership challenges and capabilities required to navi-
gate the complexities of smart city organizing, including the ability to support collaboration, man-
age diverse stakeholder interests and address ethical and social concerns. Such effort can contribute
to expanding the growing interest in collective and distributed leadership approaches and their
applicability to complex organizational settings. Understanding the role of leadership in smart city
development can provide insights into how leadership practices can be adapted to the unique chal-
lenges and opportunities presented by the digital transformation of urban areas.
Future research should also explore the implications of smart city initiatives on the workforce
and the future of work (e.g. de Vaujany, Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Munro, Nama, & Holt, 2021;
Fleming, 2019; Foroughi & Al-Amoudi, 2020; Okwir, 2023). With smart technologies and automa-
tion increasingly influencing organizational processes, we must understand their implications for
workers, skill requirements and employment structures. Further research is required to clarify the
effects of smart city initiatives on job design, skill development and workforce participation. The
social and ethical implications of automation and artificial intelligence in smart city project activi-
ties are also worth investigating. By examining the human aspects of smart city organizing, organi-
zation scholars can contribute to understanding the implications of technological advancements for
organizational structures, employee well-being and societies.
Finally, while existing research has focused on specific aspects of smart city organizing, inves-
tigations should centre on holistic, integrative and transversal approaches (e.g. Feront & Bertels,
2021; Höllerer, Jancsary, Barberio, & Meyer, 2020; Nielsen, Mathiassen, & Newell, 2022) that
consider the interdependencies among the multifaceted elements that form collaborative smart city
ecosystems. Future research could adopt a systems thinking perspective to examine the complex
interactions between technological, organizational, social and environmental factors in smart city
development. This interdisciplinary approach can provide a comprehensive understanding of the
Mora et al. 1571
dynamics and implications of smart cities for organizational theory and practice. It can also facili-
tate the development of frameworks and tools that enable organizations to navigate and leverage
the opportunities presented by smart city ecosystems.
Concluding Remarks
The context of organizing for smart city development presents an array of compelling questions
that signal the vast potential for future research in this field. This Special Issue goes beyond the
boundaries of traditional inquiry and aims to ignite underdeveloped scholarly debates, drive cut-
ting-edge research, and advance theoretical development around the increasingly prevalent phe-
nomenon of smart cities in today’s societies. By identifying five research crossroads, our intention
is to stimulate research arenas that foster the exchange of novel insights, robust methodologies and
groundbreaking theories among scholars engaged in organization and urban studies, taking the
stance of the complex organizational dynamics occurring in smart city projects.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professors Renate E. Meyer, Paolo Quattrone, Daniel Hjorth, Trish Reay and
Managing Editor Sophia Tzagaraki for their continuous support throughout the editorial process. This Special
Issue would have never been completed without their help, which has been as invaluable as the commitment
of the reviewers and authors who have contributed to transforming our initial proposal into a concrete out-
come. We are extremely grateful for all their efforts.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: This work has been supported by the European Commission through the Horizon 2020
project FinEst Twins (Grant Agreement No. 856602).
ORCID iD
David Arellano-Gault https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1156-3568
References
Aaltonen, Aleksi, & Lanzara, Giovan Francesco (2015). Building governance capability in online social pro-
duction: Insights from Wikipedia. Organization Studies, 36, 1649–1673.
Adler, Paul S., & Borys, Bryan (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.
Aguilera, Ruth V., & Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro (2004). Codes of good governance worldwide: What is the
trigger? Organization Studies, 25, 415–443.
Appio, Francesco P., Lima, Marcos, & Paroutis, Sotirios (2019). Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation
ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 142, 1–14.
Arellano-Gault, David, Demortain, David, Rouillard, Christian, & Thoenig, Jean-Claude (2013). Bringing
public organization and organizing back in. Organization Studies, 34, 145–167.
Axelsson, Karin, & Granath, Malin (2018). Stakeholders’ stake and relation to smartness in smart city devel-
opment: Insights from a Swedish city planning project. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 693–702.
Batty, Michael (2013). The new science of cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Belmondo, Cécile, & Sargis-Roussel, Caroline (2022). The political dynamics of opening participation in
strategy: The role of strategy specialists’ legitimacy and disposition to openness. Organization Studies,
43, 79–100.
1572 Organization Studies 44(10)
Berg Johansen, Christina, & De Cock, Christian (2018). Ideologies of time: How elite corporate actors engage
the future. Organization, 25, 186–204.
Beyes, Timon, Chun, Wendy H. K., Clarke, Jean, Flyverbom, Mikkel, & Holt, Robin (2022). Ten theses on
technology and organization: Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 43, 1001–1018.
Byrkjeflot, Haldor, & du Gay, Paul (2012). Bureaucracy: An idea whose time has come (again)? Research in
the Sociology of Organizations, 35, 85–109.
Cavotta, Valeria, & Mena, Sébastien (2023). Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and com-
munity work. Organization Studies, 44, 637–657.
Clegg, Stewart, Josserand, Emmanuel, Mehra, Ajay, & Pitsis, Tyrone S. (2016). The transformative power of
network dynamics: A research agenda. Organization Studies, 37, 277–291.
Courpasson, David (2000). Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization
Studies, 21, 141–161.
Cunliffe, Ann L., Luhman, John T., & Boje, David M. (2004). Narrative temporality: Implications for organi-
zational research. Organization Studies, 25, 261–286.
Dagnino, Giovanni B., Levanti, Gabriella, & Mocciaro Li Destri, Arabella (2016). Structural dynamics
and intentional governance in strategic interorganizational network evolution: A multilevel approach.
Organization Studies, 37, 349–373.
Daskalaki, Maria, Fotaki, Marianna, & Sotiropoulou, Irene (2019). Performing values practices and grassroots
organizing: The case of solidarity economy initiatives in Greece. Organization Studies, 40, 1741–1765.
Daskalaki, Maria, & Kokkinidis, George (2017). Organizing solidarity initiatives: A socio-spatial conceptu-
alization of resistance. Organization Studies, 38, 1303–1325.
Day, Lisa, Balogun, Julia, & Mayer, Michael (2023). Strategic change in a pluralistic context: Change leader
sensegiving. Organization Studies, 44, 1207–1230.
de Vaujany, François-Xavier, Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Aurélie, Munro, Iain, Nama, Yesh, & Holt, Robin
(2021). Control and surveillance in work practice: Cultivating paradox in ‘new’ modes of organizing.
Organization Studies, 42, 675–695.
Diefenbach, Thomas, & Sillince, John A. A. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of
organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1515–1537.
Dille, Therese, Hernes, Tor, & Vaagaasar, Anne L. (2023). Stuck in Temporal Translation? Challenges of
discrepant temporal structures in interorganizational project collaboration. Organization Studies, 44,
867–888.
Diriker, Damla, Porter, Amanda J., & Tuertscher, Philipp (2023). Orchestrating open innovation through
punctuated openness: A process model of open organizing for tackling wicked multi-stakeholder prob-
lems. Organization Studies, 44, 135–157.
Dobusch, Laura, Dobusch, Leonhard, & Müller-Seitz, Gordon (2019). Closing for the benefit of openness?
The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies, 40, 343–370.
Dolmans, Sharon A. M., van Galen, Wouter P. L., Walrave, Bob, den Ouden, Elke, Valkenburg, Rianne, &
Romme, A. Georges, L. (2023). A Dynamic Perspective on Collaborative Innovation for Smart City
Development: The role of uncertainty, governance, and institutional logics. Organization Studies, 44,
1577–1601.
Empson, Laura, Langley, Ann, & Sergi, Viviane (2023). When everyone and no one is a leader: Constructing
individual leadership identities while sustaining an organizational narrative of collective leadership.
Organization Studies, 44, 201–227.
Feront, Cecile, & Bertels, Stephanie (2021). The impact of frame ambiguity on field-level change.
Organization Studies, 42, 1135–1165.
Fleming, Peter (2019). Robots and organization studies: Why robots might not want to steal your job.
Organization Studies, 40, 23–38.
Foroughi, Hamid, & Al-Amoudi, Ismael (2020). Collective forgetting in a changing organization: When
memories become unusable and uprooted. Organization Studies, 41, 449–470.
Furnari, Santi (2014). Interstitial Spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices between
institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 39, 439–462.
Mora et al. 1573
Gherardi, Silvia, & Strati, Antonio (1988). The temporal dimension in organizational studies. Organization
Studies, 9, 149–164.
Greenwood, Royston, & Lawrence, Thomas B. (2005). The iron cage in the information age: The legacy and
relevance of Max Weber for organization studies. Organization Studies, 26, 493–499.
Greve, Henrich R., & Mitsuhashi, Hitoshi (2007). Power and glory: Concentrated power in top management
teams. Organization Studies, 28, 1197–1220.
Gupta, Anushri, Panagiotopoulos, Panos, & Bowen, Frances (2023). Developing capabilities in smart city
ecosystems: A multi-level approach. Organization Studies, 44, 1703–1724.
Helfat, Constance E., & Peteraf, Margaret A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecy-
cles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010.
Hirst, Alison, & Humphreys, Michael (2015). Configurable bureaucracy and the making of modular man.
Organization Studies, 36, 1531–1553.
Höllerer, Markus A., Jancsary, Dennis, Barberio, Vitaliano, & Meyer, Renate E. (2020). The interlinking
theorization of management concepts: Cohesion and semantic equivalence in management knowledge.
Organization Studies, 41, 1284–1310.
Hong, Jacky F. L., & Snell, Robin S. (2013). Developing new capabilities across a supplier network through
boundary crossing: A case study of a China-based MNC subsidiary and its local suppliers. Organization
Studies, 34, 377–406.
Huybrechts, Benjamin, & Haugh, Helen (2018). The roles of networks in institutionalizing new hybrid
organizational forms: Insights from the European renewable energy cooperative network. Organization
Studies, 39, 1085–1108.
Kallinikos, Jannis (2004). The social foundations of the bureaucratic order. Organization, 11, 13–36.
Kaplan, Sarah, & Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science,
24, 965–995.
Keevers, Lynne, Treleaven, Lesley, Sykes, Christopher, & Darcy, Michael (2012). Made to measure: Taming
practices with results-based accountability. Organization Studies, 33, 97–120.
Khodachek, Igor, Aleksandrov, Evgenii, Nazarova, Nadezda, Grossi, Giuseppe, & Bourmistrov, Anatoli
(2023). Smartocracy: Context entanglement of the smart city idea and bureaucracy in Russia.
Organization Studies, 44, 1625–1647.
Kornberger, Martin, & Clegg, Stewart R. (2004). Bringing space back in: Organizing the generative building.
Organization Studies, 25, 1095–1114.
Kornberger, Martin, Meyer, Renate E., Brandtner, Christof, & Höllerer, Markus A. (2017). When bureau-
cracy meets the crowd: Studying “open government” in the Vienna city administration. Organization
Studies, 38, 179–200.
Labatut, Julie, Aggeri, Franck, & Girard, Nathalie (2012). Discipline and change: How technologies and
organizational routines interact in new practice creation. Organization Studies, 33, 39–69.
Lekkas, Charlotte-Katharina, & Souitaris, Vangelis (2023). Bureaucracy meets digital reality: The unfolding
of urban platforms in European municipal governments. Organization Studies, 44, 1649–1678.
Levay, Charlotta, & Andersson Bäck, Monica (2022). Caring leader identity between power and powerless-
ness. Organization Studies, 43, 953–972.
Mair, Johanna, Mayer, Judith, & Lutz, Eva (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational govern-
ance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36, 713–739.
Meyer, John W., & Rowan, Brian (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and cer-
emony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Monteiro, Pedro, & Adler, Paul S. (2022). Bureaucracy for the 21st century: Clarifying and expanding our
view of bureaucratic organization. Academy of Management Annals, 16, 427–475.
Mora, Luca, & Deakin, Mark (2019). Untangling smart cities: From utopian dreams to innovation systems for
a technology-enabled urban sustainability. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Mora, Luca, Deakin, Mark, & Reid, Alasdair (2019). Strategic principles for smart city development: A
multiple case study analysis of European best practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
142, 70–97.
1574 Organization Studies 44(10)
Mora, Luca, Gerli, Paolo, Ardito, Lorenzo, & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio (2023). Smart city governance
from an innovation management perspective: Theoretical framing, review of current practices, and
future research agenda. Technovation, 123, 102717.
Mumby, Dennis K., Thomas, Robyn T., Martí, Ignasi, & Seidl, David (2017). Resistance redux. Organization
Studies, 38, 1157–1183.
Nash, Louise (2020). Performing place: A rhythmanalysis of the city of London. Organization Studies, 41,
301–321.
Nelson, Reed E. (2001). On the shape of verbal networks in organizations. Organization Studies, 22, 797–823.
Newlands, Gemma (2021). Algorithmic surveillance in the gig economy: The organization of work through
Lefebvrian conceived space. Organization Studies, 42, 719–737.
Nielsen, Jeppe A., Mathiassen, Lars, & Newell, Sue (2022). Multidirectional idea travelling across an organi-
zational field. Organization Studies, 43, 931–952.
Nisar, Muhammad, & Masood, Ayesha (2020). Dealing with disgust: Street-level bureaucrats as agents of
Kafkaesque bureaucracy. Organization, 27, 882–899.
Okwir, Simon (2023). Media review: Robotization of work? Answers from popular culture, media and social
sciences. Organization Studies, 44, 1195–1198.
O’Reilly, Dermot, & Reed, Mike (2011). The grit in the oyster: Professionalism, managerialism and leade-
rism as discourses of UK public services modernization. Organization Studies, 32, 1079–1101.
Padgett, John F., & McLean, Paul D. (2006). Organizational invention and elite transformation: The birth of
partnership systems in Renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1463–1568.
Pansera, Mario, Marsh, Alex, Owen, Richard, Flores López, Jesus A., & De Alba Ulloa, Jessica L. (2023).
Exploring citizen participation in smart city development in Mexico City: An institutional logics
approach. Organization Studies, 44, 1679–1701.
Pas, Berber, Wolters, Rinske, & Lauche, Kristina (2021). Zooming in on institutional politics: Professional
accountability systems as institutional weaponry. Organization Studies, 42, 1085–1109.
Peter, Camaren, & Meyer, Camille (2023). Organizing for the Smart African City: Leveraging the urban com-
mons for exerting the right to the city. Organization Studies, 44, 1725–1746.
Prange, Christiane, Bruyaka, Olga, & Marmenout, Katty (2018). Investigating the transformation and transi-
tion processes between dynamic capabilities: Evidence from DHL. Organization Studies, 39, 1547–1573.
Ratner, Helene, & Plotnikof, Mie (2022). Technology and dis/organization: Digital data infrastructures as
partial connections. Organization Studies, 43, 1049–1067.
Reay, Trish, & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization
Studies, 30, 629–652.
Reedy, Patrick, King, Daniel, & Coupland, Christine (2016). Organizing for individuation: Alternative organ-
izing, politics and new identities. Organization Studies, 37, 1553–1573.
Reinecke, Juliane (2018). Social movements and prefigurative organizing: Confronting entrenched inequali-
ties in Occupy London. Organization Studies, 39, 1299–1321.
Reypens, Charlotte, Lievens, Annouk, & Blazevic, Vera (2021). Hybrid orchestration in multi-stakeholder
innovation networks: Practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse stakeholders across organizational
boundaries. Organization Studies, 42, 61–83.
Sapsed, Jonathan, & Salter, Ammon (2004). Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs
and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25, 1515–1534.
Splitter, Violetta, Dobusch, Leonhard, von Krogh, Georg, Whittington, Richard, & Walgenbach, Peter (2023).
Openness as Organizing principle: Introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 44, 7–27.
Thabit, Sara, & Mora, Luca (2023). The collaboration dilemma in smart city projects: Time to ask the right
questions. Organization. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231183949
Thornton, Patricia H., Ocasio, William, & Lounsbury, Michael (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A
new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Marrewijk, Alfons, Ybema, Sierk, Smits, Karen, Clegg, Stewart, & Pitsis, Tyrone (2016). Clash of the
titans: Temporal organizing and collaborative dynamics in the Panama Canal megaproject. Organization
Studies, 37, 1745–1769.
White, Leroy, & Burger, Katharina (2023). Understanding frameworking for smart and sustainable city devel-
opment: A configurational approach. Organization Studies, 44, 1603–1624.
Mora et al. 1575
Author biographies
Luca Mora is professor of urban innovation at the Business School of Edinburgh Napier University and at the
Academy of Architecture and Urban Studies of Tallinn University of Technology. His research on digital
innovation for smart and sustainable cities has been published in many top academic journals and interna-
tional policy reports. Luca serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Urban Technology and Technological
Forecasting and Social Change. In addition, he has been working as an academic consultant for several inter-
governmental organizations, including the European Commission, Development Bank of Latin America and
the United Nations.
Francesco Paolo Appio is full professor at Paris School of Business (France). His research is interdisciplinary
and revolves around the impact of the digital transformation on innovation at multiple levels (ecosystems,
city, organization, teams), taking into account different perspectives such as sustainability, socio-technical
systems, technological change and innovation capabilities. He is Associate Editor for journals such as
Technological Forecasting and Social Change and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management as well
as a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Nicolai J. Foss is a professor of strategy and organization at the Copenhagen Business School, and an external
chair at the Danish Institute for Advanced Studies. His research on microfoundations, the organizational
design dimensions of strategy, and behavioural strategy has been published in most of the major management
journals. He is a Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher and a Fellow of the Strategic Management Society.
David Arellano-Gault is a professor at CIDE (Center for Research and Teaching in Economics) in Mexico
City. He holds a PhD in public administration from the University of Colorado and served as co-editor of
Organization Studies as well as on different editorial committees such as Public Administration Research &
Theory, American Review of Public Administration and Public Integrity, among others. His most recent book
Promises and Perils of Compliance (De Gruyter, 2023) introduces a deep organizational discussion on the
success and failures of compliance programs.
Xiaoling Zhang is full professor at City University of Hong Kong. She is a sustainability scientist who uses
data analytic approaches that include spatial econometrics/nightlight data, nature-based solutions, complex
network, management/economic models and shared socioeconomic pathways as interdisciplinary approaches
to identify, monitor, assess and simulate the commonalities, particularities, as well as interactions among
ecology, economic and social systems in shifting towards sustainability and resilience. She now serves as
associate editor for npj urban sustainability (Nature), co-editor in chief of Land Use Policy and associate edi-
tor for Development in the Built Environment. Lately, she has been named on the Highly Cited Researchers
2022 list from Clarivate.
