Faced with rapidly changing economic and societal pressures and complex public policy problems, governments must respond proactively to new challenges. It is just one of the characteristics of being smart. This article analyses the recently introduced concept of smart public governance, a concept that requires better conceptualization. This article defines the characteristics and criteria of smart public governance and suggests an instrument for its assessment. Piloting of the methodology at the central government level in Lithuania suggests that the Lithuanian system of public governance cannot yet be considered a smart social system. Some characteristics of smartness are already well expressed, and some positive examples do exist. However, smart public governance is not yet a part of Lithuania’s government culture. Points for practitioners The article advances the concept of smart public governance by discussing and refining key dimensions of this construct and attempts to operationalize these dimensions and various sub-dimensions using empirically testable indicators. To demonstrate the potential of the proposed framework, we present empirical results based on an expert survey of top public executives in Lithuania. These results, first, provide a theoretically grounded assessment of smart public governance within the Lithuanian system of central government and, second, point to those areas of public governance that need to be strengthened.

Purpose The article aims to focus on the debate around the interplay between product innovation and servitization. Two conflicting approaches characterize the debate, disagreeing as to whether product innovation and servitization are complementary or not. Design/methodology/approach The authors examine two competing models proposing a direct effect of product innovation on servitization and an indirect effect through digitalization, using the sample of 500 manufacturing firms of a country participating in the European Manufacturing Survey, 2018 edition. Findings The results reveal that product innovation has no direct effect on servitization. However, the authors found that digitalization capabilities mediate the effect of product innovation and servitization. The present findings reveal that product innovation has a substantial indirect effect on servitization through digitalization capabilities, supporting the approach proposing the complementarity between product innovation and servitization. Research limitations/implications The data used in this paper correspond to a single country. The limited geographical sampling frame may likewise limit the generalizability of the findings. Researchers are encouraged to replicate the analysis with data from other countries, and to further enrich the analysis with complementary path options and resulting performance measures. Practical implications When applying a capabilities perspective, the authors find that product innovation capability is not directly related to servitization as capability. The present findings point toward the fact that if companies only have product innovation capability, this does not facilitate servitization. If companies have both product innovation capability and digitalization capability, such a situation facilitates servitization, a decision which often falls within managers’ responsibilities. Originality/value Existing studies focus on antecedents and/or outcomes of single issues, either product innovation, servitization or digitalization. Only some offer dual associations (product innovation and servitization, digitalization and servitization), and even less position simultaneously at the intersection of the three pillars. Herein lies the novelty of the present approach and analysis, which explains the extent to which product innovation, digitalization and servitization are related.

ISBN 978 1 78347 539 1 (cased) ISBN 978 1 78347 540 7 (eBook)

No abstract

No abstract