exploring stakeholder knowledge partnerships in a knowledge city: a conceptual model

Exploring stakeholder knowledgepartnerships in a knowledge city:a conceptual model

Kostas Metaxiotis and Kostas Ergazakis

Abstract

Purpose – Knowledge cities (KCs) are cities in which both the private and the public sectors value

knowledge, nurture knowledge, spend money on supporting knowledge dissemination and discovery

and harness knowledge to create products and services that add value and create wealth. Knowledge

cities fall under a new area of academic research entitled knowledge-based development (KBD), which

brings together research in urban development and urban studies and planning with knowledge

management and intellectual capital. The purpose of this paper is to advance the research in the KC

area by exploring stakeholder knowledge partnerships in a knowledge city.

Design/methodology/approach – Based on their previous research, the authors’ main discussion

highlights the need for more effective local government and stakeholder knowledge partnerships to

better support knowledge management (KM) initiatives in a KC and proposes a conceptual model, as a

good research starting-point, to assist local governments develop and capitalize on more effective

knowledge-based stakeholder partnerships.

Findings – The main issues related to local government-stakeholder partnerships are discussed and

several processes are analyzed that can facilitate more effective two-way knowledge transfers between

local government and stakeholders in a KC, which are fundamental for establishing successful

knowledge partnerships.

Research limitations/implications – It would be interesting and useful to deepen the analysis made by

the authors and look for more fundamental reasons behind their observations.

Originality/value – The main advantage of this paper is that it proposes a simplified conceptual model

for stakeholder knowledge partnerships in knowledge cities.

Keywords Cities, Knowledge management, Regional development

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Over the past several years, there have been intensive discussions about the importance of

KM in the business world. Nowadays, knowledge is considered to be one of the most

valuable assets of an enterprise, one which has to be managed efficiently and effectively in

order to gain a competitive advantage in the knowledge economy era. The essence of KM is

to provide strategies to get the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and in the

right format (Wiig, 1997; Wilkins et al., 1997; Ergazakis et al., 2005).

However, KM has evolved into a strategic management approach, finding applications not

only in the business world but also in other areas such as education, government and

healthcare. The fact that major international organizations – such as the European

Commission (2000), the World Bank (1998), the United Nations (2001) and the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001) – have adopted KM frameworks in their

strategic directions regarding global development clearly indicates that a new link has been

created between KM and knowledge-based development (Carrillo, 2002, 2004; Komninos,

2002; Metaxiotis and Psarras, 2004a, b; Ergazakis et al., 2004).

DOI 10.1108/13673270810902993 VOL. 12 NO. 5 2008, pp. 137-150, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 137

Kostas Metaxiotis is an

Advisor to the Secretary for

the Information Society in

the Greek Ministry of

Economy and Finance,

Athens, Greece.

Kostas Ergazakis is a

Senior Researcher at the

School of Electrical and

Computer Engineering,

National Technical

University of Athens

(NTUA), Athens, Greece.

In a knowledge economy, urban form and functions are primarily shaped by global market

forces rather than urban planning. As the role of knowledge in wealth creation becomes a

critical issue in cities, urban administrations and planners need to discover new approaches

to harness the considerable opportunities of abstract production for a global order

(Yigitcanlar et al., 2008a, b).

In this way, the new link between knowledge management and knowledge-based

development created the appropriate environment for the advent of a new concept in the

scientific and practitioners’ communities, the concept of ‘‘knowledge city’’ (KC). Nowadays,

the theme of KCs is a ‘‘hot’’ topic of interest and discussion. Many cities globally claim

themselves as being already KCs while at the same time other cities have elaborated

strategic and action plans in order to become KCs in the near future.

In this paper, the authors proceed to further research in the KC area by exploring

stakeholder knowledge partnerships in a knowledge city. Based on their previous research,

the authors’ main discussion highlights the need for more effective local government (i.e.

municipality) and stakeholder knowledge partnerships to develop better knowledge

management (KM) initiatives in a KC and proposes a conceptual model, as a good research

starting point, to assist local governments to develop and capitalize on more effective

knowledge-based stakeholder partnerships.

The remaining part of the paper is structured as follows: in the next section, the main issues

of KCs are briefly explored, for the benefit of readers who may be unfamiliar with the theme.

In what follows, we present a literature review concerning success or failures of KCs in

practice. Then, we discuss main issues related to stakeholder knowledge partnerships in a

KC and present a conceptual model, as a good research starting-point, to assist local

governments develop and capitalize on more effective knowledge-based stakeholder

partnerships. Finally, conclusions and ideas for further research are suggested.

2. Key concepts of KCs: a brief overview

According to Ergazakis et al. (2004):

A KC is a city that aims at a knowledge-based development, by encouraging the continuous

creation, sharing, evaluation, renewal and update of knowledge. This can be achieved through

the continuous interaction between its citizens themselves and at the same time between them

and other cities’ citizens. The citizens’ knowledge-sharing culture as well as the city’s appropriate

design, IT networks and infrastructures support these interactions.

This definition is illustrated in Figure 1.

The process of developing a KC is neither quick nor simple, since this concept refers to

many different aspects of life in a city. Consequently, any effort to develop a KC should

have assured in advance the active support of the entire society, i.e. local government,

citizens, private sector, organizations, universities etc. The whole process requires an

in-depth analysis of the current situation, definition of a vision and strategy, and

implementation of an action plan with particular attention paid to fundamental aspects

such as the revitalization and regeneration of traditional infrastructures and investments in

technology infrastructures.

The main advantage of a KC is that, by definition, it functions in such a way that is in favor of

its knowledge-based development. The benefits of a KC, on a more local scale, are the

following:

‘‘ In a knowledge economy urban form and functions areprimarily shaped by global market forces rather than urbanplanning. ’’

PAGE 138 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj VOL. 12 NO. 5 2008

B strong dynamics of innovation across all sectors of economic and social activity (Amidon

and Davis, 2004);

B better education services;

B creation of knowledge communities that provide ‘‘just-in-time’’ knowledge when it is

needed;

B citizens are actively involved in the development of their city, its identity and its unique

character;

B creation of more and well-paid employment (SGS Economics, 2002);

B faster growth in the community’s income and wealth (SGS Economics, 2002);

B a more sustainable economy (SGS Economics, 2002);

B revitalization of traditional industries (SGS Economics, 2002);

B a boost to tourism (SGS Economics, 2002);

B a boost to the city’s pride and confidence, which acts as a platform for reinvestment of

local capital into the local economy (SGS Economics, 2002);

B creation of a tolerant environment towards minorities and immigrants (City of Barcelona,

1999); and

Figure 1 The KC concept

VOL. 12 NO. 5 2008 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj PAGE 139

B greater opportunities to share wealth through investment in the public domain (parks and

gardens, public transport, cultural facilities, etc.) and better funding of social safety nets

(SGS Economics, 2002).

Moreover, a KC is structured in a way that contributes to the better functioning of democracy,

by online knowledge-sharing among all citizens, provision of inexpensive, real-time access

to consistent, up-to-date information facilities, support for online debates, etc. We should

also underline the fact that the ‘‘digital divide’’ is replaced with ‘‘digital inclusion’’ and the

benefits of technology flow to all members of the community.

3. KC success stories and failures: a literature review

A review of the literature related to KCs reveals that since this concept is new, its real

success is still under investigation in the research community. There is little in terms of

development and assessment, frameworks for KCs, and consequently little consensus

regarding the design requirements and the development parameters for building a

successful KC (Carrillo, 2004).

Carrillo (2004) outlines a theoretical and methodological framework for the design,

assessment and benchmarking of KCs, based on social knowledge capital accounts as the

common ground for work between KM and the field of urban studies and planning.

Ergazakis et al. (2004) present some aspects and benefits of the KC concept, key success

factors related to it as well as some case studies from real life examples. Gonzalez Ovalle

et al. (2004) provide organized, synthesized information related to initiatives of KCs,

knowledge regions and knowledge countries. The information is collated and integrated into

a number of categories under the field of knowledge-based development. Baqir and

Kathawala (2004) present a KC model by constructing knowledge homes using building

blocks of futuristic technology than can help in implementing the concept of virtual ba to

share, manage and create knowledge.

Chen andChoi (2004) highlight the role of three interrelated processes that create and transfer

tacit knowledge for the creation of successful KCs. Garcia (2004) reviews the theoretical

background behind the concept of KCs and knowledge-based development. She argues that

one of themost problematic practicalities of the knowledge-basedmodels and KCs proposals

has been to operationalize the theoretical variables into measurable equivalences or

quantifiable units. Chatzkel (2004) provides a strategic perspective to better understand the

necessary elements for building a successful knowledge capital. Dvir and Pasher (2004)

explore the concept of urban innovation engines and their importance for the development of

KCs. Cheng et al. (2004) provide some insights to policy makers in designing or developing

global cities, by discussing the connection between KM and growth of KCs.

Failure factors in the development of a KC must not be ignored. Some cities have been

proved unable to be developed as KCs, despite deploying considerable efforts and

investing considerable amounts to this end. For instance, in the case of Pittsburgh,

insufficient attention has been paid to the needs and expectations of workers in

knowledge-based industries, in terms of quality of life and arts and cultural attractions,

although strong investments have been made in other areas such as transport

infrastructures. The report of the Montreal KC Advisory Committee (2003) provides more

detailed information about this and other ‘‘failure’’ cases and it also gives some

characteristics of failures.

Ergazakis et al. (2006a), based on the analysis and evaluation of successful knowledge

cities cases, drew a pattern of the recurrence of significant features of knowledge cities.

Their key findings were expressed as a framework for designing, developing and operating

successful knowledge cities. Figure 2 shows this framework.

Moreover, Ergazakis et al. (2006b) have introduced the KnowCis methodology for the

integrated development of KCs (Figure 3). The first priority of the methodology is the

setting-up of a committee (Knowledge City Committee, or KCC) which is responsible, along

with the city’s local government, for the consultation and coordination of the whole effort,

from its very beginning. Government representatives and representatives of citizens,


enterprises, cultural organizations, other public entities, etc., participate equally in the KCC.

The methodology consists of five main phases:

1. Diagnosis. Before any attempt to outline a strategy, the KCC proceeds to a thorough

diagnosis of the current city’s status as a KC, based on studies, opinion polls and

qualitative evaluations. Moreover, this phase includes the definition of a series of

qualitative and quantitative indicators.

2. Formulation of strategy. The diagnosis of the previous phase is important for the

formulation of strategy that will be adopted. This strategy considers nine dimensions

comprising sets of particular actions and interventions. The specific characteristics,

particularities, strengths and weaknesses of the city determine which actions and

interventions are needed as well as the priority of each one. Their implementation

contributes to the attainment of various objectives which are important for the success of

a KBD effort (Ergazakis et al., 2006b).

3. Creation of detailed action plan. This phase is devoted to the creation of a detailed action

plan for realizing the defined strategy. The action plan comprises specific projects to be

implemented (project-oriented approach) as well as interventions in specific processes

that need improvement (process-oriented approach). Each project or intervention is

thoroughly selected, designed and prepared. They incorporate, by design, a component

related to continuous sharing of knowledge. Obviously, the appropriate financing must be

assured in advance.

4. Implementation. The KCC, the agencies and stakeholders participating in it, local

government, and other public or private organizations and companies implement the

defined measures and projects. In this way, each stakeholder remains committed and

contributes to the effort.

Figure 2 Common features of successful knowledge cities


Figure 3 The KnowCis methodology


5. Measurement/evaluation. It is essential to measure the progress of the whole effort and

evaluate the performance of the city as a KC, based on indicators and the consultation of

evaluation experts.

Horizontal aspects are also considered, i.e. the open and equal participation of all citizens

and stakeholders, the commitment of political and societal leadership, and the KM

procedures related to the effort. For further details on the method, see Ergazakis et al.

(2006b). Phase 2 of the methodology is the most complicated and critical for the success of

the whole effort. It incorporates nine different dimensions and 25 actions, which are related

to many of the aspects of social, economic and cultural life in a city. In this way, phase 2 is

supported by a decision support model (depicted in Figure 4; see Ergazakis et al., 2007b),

which consists of five main building blocks:

1. Identification. This building block concerns the identification, based on the international

experience of KCs and other KBD strategies and approaches, of 25 actions (Aij),

belonging to the nine dimensions (Di) (i¼1, 2 . . . , 9).

2. Modeling. This building block concerns the modeling of the available actions that a KC

can select so as to formulate its strategy, via the development of appropriate decision

indicators.

3. Assessment. This building block concerns the assessment of the necessity for each

action Aij. This is done through the value control of the decision indicators, as identified in

the previous stage.

4. Action’s form. After the assessment of each action’s necessity, the model concentrates on

the historic evolution of the main and secondary indicators (through the use of evolution

indicators) as well as on the projects/processes related to the actions during the last year

(action plan, phases 3 and 5 of the KnowCis), so as to propose the most appropriate form

for each action, i.e. continuation/preservation of existing projects/processes, design and

implementation of new projects/processes, or modification/re-engineering of existing

projects/processes.

5. Prioritization. The last building block receives input from the previous stages, i.e. the

group of needed actions, so as to evaluate them and create a priority list that should be

considered by the city during the forthcoming period. This evaluation is based on the

quantification of multiple qualitative judgments, using a multi-criteria decision making

(MCDM) method, ELECTRE III. For this purpose, a series of six criteria has been defined.

Moreover, an AI-based decision support system for designing such strategies, by selecting

and prioritizing the most appropriate interventions and actions, has been developed

(Ergazakis et al., 2007c; Ergazakis et al., 2007a, 2008). The system consists of two

subsystems. The first (developed using the technology of expert systems) assesses the

necessity of a particular intervention and proposes its most appropriate form. The second

prioritizes the selected interventions based on multi-criteria decision-making.

4. Local government and stakeholder partnerships in a knowledge city

In general, stakeholders may include any person or organization whose interest may be

positively or negatively affected; this includes government organizations and private

businesses of all sizes, local authorities, the general community, other interested parties

such as voluntary and community organizations, disadvantaged groups and people of

non-native language speaking backgrounds. In a KC, every KM initiative should involve, by

definition, a wide range of relationships between local government (i.e. municipality) and the

relative stakeholders, in order that nobody is excluded.

Based on the five main phases of KM, as presented in Figure 1, the primary purpose of local

government and stakeholder partnerships in a KC is the facilitation of effective transfer of

scientific-based and socially based knowledge, held by stakeholders, to the local

government and vice versa. This knowledge then needs to be effectively captured and

embodied within the local government (i.e. within its administrative processes, practices,

culture, etc.), disseminated to the citizens of the KC, and finally applied so as to create new


Figure 4 The decision support model for a KC’s strategy formulation


knowledge. It appears that the local government and stakeholder partnership is among the

most important factors contributing to the knowledge creation process. This perspective is

also consistent with commercial objectives that predominately emphasize a one-way

transfer of knowledge from customers to organizations or companies (Blosch, 2000).

Figure 5 depicts this one-way transfer of knowledge.

However, a public sector perspective of the stakeholder as a customer seems more closely

akin to a two-way transfer of knowledge (Barnes et al., 2003), suggesting that government

also needs to focus on KM processes that transfer certain knowledge back to stakeholders,

as feedback. Indeed, a two-way knowledge transfer could assist local government in

achieving greater stakeholder participation and knowledge sharing, while also

demonstrating public accountability. Thus, it can be considered as a strongly interactive

process. This transfer of knowledge is also the essence of the KC concept, and contributes

significantly to the knowledge-based development of a region. It is depicted by the two-way

arrow in Figure 6.

On the other hand, although from a conceptual perspective it seems relatively easy to

accept that effective local government and stakeholder partnerships are important for good

KM in a KC, in practice this is difficult to achieve due to often diverse stakeholder views and

interests as well as due widely varying stakeholder capacity to interact effectively with public

sector organizations. There is no doubt that KM in a KC is more effective when stakeholders

are able and willing to participate effectively; doing so, however, involves a sound and

complete understanding of options and issues. Stakeholder capability, including skills and

resources, to participate in KM initiatives may vary widely, especially when complex

Figure 5 The one-way knowledge transfer from customers to companies/organizations

Figure 6 The two-way knowledge transfer from stakeholders to local government


financial, social and practical issues are involved. Hence, local government needs to identify

potential barriers to effective knowledge transfer and sharing, such as language, physical

and education disparities, cultural and gender differences, as well as resources and time

constraints within stakeholder groups, and also needs to design appropriate interventions,

policies and actions so as to overcome these barriers.

Appropriate KM practices, guided by a clear vision, may be used to develop more effective

knowledge partnerships with stakeholders in a KC, including education programs, dialog

programs and effective networks. Effective dialog in particular seems to be essential

because people often do not articulate their values easily or may not even understand them

(Lesser et al., 2000). In addition, local government faces significant challenges in

developing effective stakeholder partnerships when there are imbalances in knowledge

sharing capability, which are perhaps most evident in marginalized groups that are

frequently excluded (by social exclusion) from KM initiatives.

Based upon the above discussion, the authors propose that the potential quality of local

government and stakeholder partnerships in a KC can be presented as a function of two

important parameters:

1. stakeholders’ capacity to participate effectively; and

2. the effectiveness of efforts made by local government to address gaps in knowledge

transferring capability through specifically customized policies, strategies and

interventions.

Figure 7 illustrates possible stakeholder groups and their relative positioning in a

two-dimensional model, with the degree of boldness of the arrows indicating the relatively

higher amount of effort required to construct a good quality partnership.

Successful KM in a KC seems to depend on the efficient and effective coordination of

many stakeholders, as shown in Figure 7, necessitating a chain of processes that

involve analysis, evaluation and reconsideration. Local government can form different

types of knowledge-based partnerships with stakeholders, ranging from a simple

exchange of information through to full collaboration, based on shared resources.

Effective transfer of knowledge between stakeholders and local government requires

clear KM goals and strategies, and their successful implementation through effective

leadership. While the KM literature suggests that effective knowledge transfer results

from knowledge-effective and closed-loop stakeholder communications, including

feedback provided to stakeholders through dialogue (Wiig, 2002), there is little

practical advice available on how the transfer of knowledge between local government

and its stakeholders can be enhanced in a KC. In any case, it seems that if KM

Figure 7 Conceptual model for stakeholder knowledge partnerships in knowledge cities


strategies are not carefully designed, there may be less desirable outcomes, such as

missed opportunities, local government being at risk, or too much attention being paid

to relatively unimportant stakeholders.

Another important factor of the proposed model illustrated in Figure 7 is the need of local

government not only to classify stakeholders meaningfully so as to better understand their

significance, but also to focus on specific sectors in which KM initiatives can take place for

the benefit of a KC’s citizens. In this context, Figure 8 presents the Local

Government-Stakeholder Knowledge Partnerships Target.

This target includes four sectors, as positioned by the crosshairs, with the urgent and

non-urgent dimensions represented by the two circles. Urgent tasks comprise a

considerable portion of the total number of tasks, and the urgency dimension affects all

sectors equally. Indeed the longer a non-urgent task is left and no action is taken, the more

urgent it is likely to become: this is true of all sectors.

In sector 1 the tasks tend to be important and easy and either urgent or non-urgent. This

is a good sector in which to operate and is the sector where knowledge workers should

be working for most of their time. Sector 2 tasks tend to be important and difficult and

can be further divided into urgent or non-urgent. This is the sector where policy makers,

supervisory directors and executive officers should be working for some of their time, as it

is the sector for problem solving and KM strategy development. Sector 3 contains

unimportant and easy tasks, again divided into urgent and non-urgent tasks. Sector 4

also contains urgent and non-urgent tasks, but they are of an unimportant and difficult

nature. Clearly little, if any, time should be spent in sectors 3 and 4 and resources should

not be allocated to them.

From an organizational perspective, the aim is to increase the size of the important and easy

sector by compressing the urgent circle, and moving the vertical axis to the right and the

horizontal axis down. Conceptually, this results in increased number of good KM initiatives in

a KC.

Figure 8 Local Government-Stakeholder Knowledge Partnerships Target


Except from these characteristics of KM tasks (easy, difficult, urgent, non-urgent, important,

not important), some other dimensions are also important for their complete description:

B Actors/stakeholders who are currently involved or should be involved in the task – This

dimension is really important, since it provides essential information on the nature of

current actors/stakeholders, on their specific or special characteristics, on their needs,

etc. It also provides information on other potential actors/stakeholders who should be

involved in the particular KM task.

B Interactions with other existing processes and KM tasks in local government – It is easily

understood that this dimension is also important since it highlights any existing

interactions and relations with other existing (or planned) processes and KM tasks in the

city. In this way, the tasks can be managed in an integrated way.

B Cost factors – The final dimension, which is also critical, is related to the cost factors that

should be taken under consideration when considering the particular KM task.

Thus, a KM task, in the framework of the Local Government-Stakeholder Knowledge

Partnerships Target, involves six dimensions in total, as depicted in Figure 9. It should be

noted that the aim of local government when considering such a KM task should be to fully

describe and define the dimensions that are related to it, something that will definitely allow

local government to design and implement the KM task in an unproblematic way.

5. Conclusions

The advantages of a KC on a global scale – as a new model of urban development for

human societies – and also on a more local scale are substantial and attractive, and should

not to be ignored by policy makers and researchers. Because of this, this concept has

begun to attract the interest of the research community and practitioners.

The main objective of this paper is to propose a simplified conceptual model for stakeholder

knowledge partnerships in knowledge cities. The main issues related to local

government-stakeholder partnerships are discussed and several processes are analyzed

that can facilitate more effective two-way knowledge transfer between local government and

stakeholders in a KC, which are fundamental for establishing successful knowledge

partnerships.

In terms of future research, it would be interesting and useful to deepen the analysis made

by the current authors and look for more fundamental reasons behind these observations.

The development of such a theory will give more confidence to the observations. The

development of a unified and coherent methodological approach for building successful

stakeholder knowledge partnerships in KCs is a major stream of future research. Finally, it

would be interesting to develop frameworks and methodologies for the

evaluation/assessment (e.g. with the use of indicators) of possible KM tasks within the

framework of the Local Government-Stakeholder Knowledge Partnerships Target.

Figure 9 The dimensions of a KM task


References

Amidon, D. and Davis, B.E. (2004), ‘‘Entovation: get in the zone’’, Knowledge Management Journal,

Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 26-8, available at: www.kmmagazine.com/

Baqir, M. and Kathawala, Y. (2004), ‘‘Ba for KCs: a futuristic technology model’’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 83-95.

City of Barcelona (1999), Pla Estrategic Economic Social de Barcelona (en la perspective 1999-2005),

Associacio pla estrategic de Barcelona & Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A. and Sullivan, H. (2003), ‘‘Constituting ‘the public’ in public

participation’’, Public Administration, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 379-99.

Blosch, M. (2000), ‘‘Customer knowledge’’,Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 265-8.

Carrillo, F.J. (2002), ‘‘Capital systems: implications for a global knowledge agenda’’, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 379-99.

Carrillo, F.J. (2004), ‘‘Capital cities: a taxonomy of capital accounts for KCs’’, Journal of Knowledge


Chatzkel, J. (2004), ‘‘Greater Phoenix as a knowledge capital’’, Journal of Knowledge Management,

Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 61-72.

Chen, S. and Choi, C.J. (2004), ‘‘Creating a knowledge-based city: the example of Hsinchu Science

Park’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 73-82.

Cheng, P., Choi, C.J., Chen, S., Eldomiaty, T.I. and Millar, C.C.J.M. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge repositories in

KCs: institutions, conventions and knowledge subnetworks’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8

No. 5, pp. 96-106.

Dvir, R. and Pasher, E. (2004), ‘‘Innovation engines for KCs: an innovation ecology perspective’’, Journal

of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 16-27.

Ergazakis, E., Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Askounis, D. (2007a), ‘‘An intelligent decision support

system for a knowledge city’s strategy formulation’’, paper presented at the 8th European Conference

on Knowledge Management, Barcelona, 6-7 September.

Ergazakis, E., Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., Bellos, E. and Leopoulos, V. (2008), ‘‘An AI-based decision

support system for designing KBD strategies’’, International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies

and Applications, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 201-33.

Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2004), ‘‘Towards KCs: conceptual analysis and success

stories’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 5-15.

Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2006a), ‘‘A coherent framework for building successful KCs

in the context of the knowledge-based economy’’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4,

pp. 46-59.

Ergazakis, K., Karnezis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2005), ‘‘Knowledge management in

enterprises: a research agenda’’, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, Vol. 13,

pp. 17-26.

Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., Psarras, J. and Askounis, D. (2006b), ‘‘KnowCis: a unified methodological

approach for the development of knowledge cities’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5,

pp. 65-78.

Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., Psarras, J. and Askounis, D. (2007b), ‘‘An integrated decision support

model for a knowledge city’s strategy formulation’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5,

pp. 65-86.

Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., Ergazakis, E. and Psarras, J. (2007c), ‘‘Knowledge cities: the future of

cities in the knowledge-based economy’’, paper presented at the 4th International Conference on

Innovations in Information Technology, 18-20 November, Dubai.

European Commission (2000), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy, Office for Official

Publications of the European Communities, Brussels.

Garcia, B. (2004), ‘‘Developing futures: a knowledge-based capital for Manchester’’, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 47-60.


Gonzalez Ovalle, M.R., Marquez, J.A.A. and Salomon, S.D.M. (2004), ‘‘A compilation of resources on

KCs and knowledge-based development’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 107-27.

Komninos, N. (2002), Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces,

Routledge/E.F. & N. Spon, London.

Lesser, E., Mundel, D. and Wiecha, C. (2000), ‘‘Managing customer knowledge’’, Journal of Business

Strategy, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 34-7.

Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2004a), ‘‘E-government: new concept, big challenge, success stories’’,

Electronic Government: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 141-51.

Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2004b), ‘‘Applying knowledge management in higher education: the

creation of a learning organisation’’, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 2 No. 4,

pp. 1-7.

Montreal KC Advisory Committee (2003), ‘‘Report prepared by the Montreal KC Advisory Committee’’,

available at: www.montrealinternational.com/docs/MtlSavoir_En.pdf

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001), ‘‘The new economy: beyond the

hype’’, Final Report on the OCDE Growth Project, Meeting of the OCDE Council at Ministerial Level,

available at www.oecd.org/EN/home/0,EN-home-33-nodirectorate-no-no-33,FF.html

SGS Economics (2002), ‘‘Towards a KC strategy’’, SGS Economics and the Eureka Project, Melbourne,

Technical Report prepared for Melbourne City Council.

United Nations (2001), Making New Technologies Work for Human Development, The Human

Development Report 2001, United Nations, New York, NY.

Wiig, K. (1997), ‘‘Knowledge management: where did it come from and where will it go?’’, Expert

Systems with Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Wiig, K. (2002), ‘‘Knowledge management in public administration’’, Journal of Knowledge


Wilkins, J., VanWegen, B. and DeHoog, R. (1997), ‘‘Understanding and valuing knowledge assets:

overview and method’’, Expert Systems With Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 55-72.

World Bank (1998), ‘‘Knowledge for development’’, World Development Report, available at www.

worldbank.org/wdr/wdr98/index.htm

Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds) (2008a), Creative Urban Regions: Harnessing Urban

Technologies to Support Knowledge Cities Initiatives, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA/New

York, NY.

Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds) (2008b), Knowledge-based Urban Development:

Planning and Applications in the Information Era, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA/New

York, NY.

About the authors

Kostas Metaxiotis is Advisor to the Secretary for the Information Society in the Greek Ministryof Economy and Finance, Athens, Greece. He is also at the Management & Decision SupportSystems Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National TechnicalUniversity of Athens, Athens, Greece. Kostas Metaxiotis is the corresponding author andcan be contacted at: [email protected]

Kostas Ergazakis is a Senior Researcher at the National Technical University of Athens,Athens, Greece.


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

exploring stakeholder knowledge partnerships in a knowledge city: a conceptual model

Documents