Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

An integrative public IoT framework for smart government

⁎
Bernd W. Wirtz , Jan C. Weyerer, Franziska T. Schichtel
German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, Chair for Information and Communication Management, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346 Speyer, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Internet of Things (IoT) has gained significant importance in science and management and holds great value
Internet of things creation potential for public services. A pressing issue in this regard is how governments and public organiza-
IoT tions can adapt their traditional structures and processes to the innovative field of the IoT to create public value.
Framework Previous research fails to provide a holistic explanation to this research question. Its technological background
Conceptual study
and predominant consideration in technology-based research areas has led to a one-sided understanding of the
Smart government
Business model
IoT concept that neglects its value-adding aspects. To fill in this research gap, this study presents an integrative
Value creation public IoT framework for smart government, consolidating insights from IoT literature and related fields of
research, complementing the so far predominant technology perspective of IoT with important business-related
or value-adding aspects. In doing so, it enhances our understanding of public management-specific key di-
mensions and aspects of the IoT, serving as a holistic guidance for future research as well as practical im-
plementation and application.

1. Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a novel concept that has gained in-
creasing importance among practitioners and researchers in recent
years. Although a variety of definitions has been proposed within the
last decade, there is no uniform understanding of the IoT concept so far
(Madakam, Ramaswamy, & Tripathi, 2015). While some definitions
highlight the network character of the IoT, others emphasize the objects
connected within this network (Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010). At their
core, most definitions refer to the Internet-based connection of a variety
of factors in a network (e.g., Gubbi, Buyya, Marusic, & Palaniswami,
2013; McKinsey Global Institut, 2015; Miorandi, Sicari, de Pellegrini, &
Chlamtac, 2012; Xia, Yang, Wang, & Vintel, 2012).
In line with this, Huang et al. (2012, p. 149) present a common
definition of the IoT viewing it as “a ubiquitous network which com-
bines various information sensing devices with the Internet”. While this
definition certainly describes the essence of the IoT, it remains broad
and neglects the qualities and capabilities of the IoT that are crucial for
creating public value, which is particularly in the context of smart
government a major objective of IoT. Against this background, we
understand the IoT as “[an] open and comprehensive network of in-
telligent objects that have the capacity to auto-organize, share in-
formation, data and resources, reacting and acting in face of situations
and changes in the environment” (Madakam et al., 2015, p. 165).
Currently, the IoT is growing at a rapid pace and the number of
connected devices has increased tremendously over the past years,
raising expectations among organizations regarding its potential to
create value (Dijkman, Sprenkels, Peeters, & Janssen, 2015). In this
connection, Pang et al. (2015, p. 87) highlight that “[t]he impact
caused by the IoT to human society will be as huge as that the internet
has caused in the past decades, so the IoT is recognised as the ‘next
generation of internet’”. Against this background, the IoT holds great
benefits for the private and the public sector, for instance, in terms of
business process optimization and resource savings (e.g., Boos, Guenter,
Grote, & Kinder, 2013; Qiu, Luo, Xu, Zhong, & Huang, 2015).
The public sector and particularly the governmental setting appear
to be promising application areas of the IoT. The IoT plays a significant
role in the context of what is often referred to as smart or intelligent
government and is among the key trends that governments need to
follow in the near future (Mellouli, Luna-Reyes, & Zhang, 2014). Smart
government is regarded as “the highest modernization phase of the
public organizations” (Jiménez et al., 2015, p. 8) and contains “ele-
ments of reflection, information-gathering and processing, and a re-
liance on ICT […] and relies on principles of openness, participation,
and improvement of public sector services” (Kennedy, 2016, p. 78).
Governments all over the world (e.g., in North America, Asia and
Europe) regard the IoT as a source of growth and innovation, seeking to
tap its full potential for effective and efficient performance of public
tasks (Friess, 2013). Cenedese, Zanella, Vangelista, and Zorzi (2014),
for instance, suggest that the application of IoT in the public context is

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ls-wirtz@uni-speyer.de (B.W. Wirtz), weyerer@uni-speyer.de (J.C. Weyerer), schichtel@uni-speyer.de (F.T. Schichtel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.07.001
Received 15 December 2017; Received in revised form 29 May 2018; Accepted 4 July 2018
0740-624X/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Wirtz, B.W., Government Information Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.07.001
B.W. Wirtz et al.
intended to enhance the efficiency of use of public resources and in-
crease the effectiveness of public services. Thus, to put it in a nutshell,
the primary objective of IoT is to create public value. To successfully
implement IoT in the context of smart government and deliver public
value in this way requires to take account of various aspects, in parti-
cular, developing new business and operation models, as well as es-
tablishing information infrastructures and respective decision support
systems (Qiu et al., 2015).
However, as IoT is still in its infancy, research is scarce in this field
of study (Suresh, Daniel, Parthasarathy, & Aswathy, 2014) and “the IoT
itself lacks theory, technology architecture and standards that integrate
the virtual world and the real physical world in a unified framework”
(Chen, Xu, Liu, Hu, & Wang, 2014, p. 356). Despite its great potential
benefits for government, public administration and citizens, there are
especially few research approaches addressing IoT in the context of
smart government. Furthermore, the vast majority of studies that ad-
dress the IoT focus on its technological aspects and widely neglect
business and public value-related aspects. In particular, its business
value still remains largely unclear and a definition and design of the
underlying business models is currently still missing, although various
studies highlight the great demand and necessity for developing and
renewing business models (Chan, 2015; Dijkman et al., 2015; Qiu et al.,
2015; Silva & Maló, 2014).
Given the multifaceted character and complexity of IoT, as well as
the specificity of its implementation, traditional e-service business
models do not appear to be suitable for describing and successfully
implementing IoT-based public services and solutions. Instead, a
common understanding of the IoT, as well as its successful im-
plementation and public value generation requires a holistic perspec-
tive that takes account of all relevant aspects, combining them in a
comprehensive framework.
To the best of our knowledge, there are so far no integrative IoT
frameworks designed for the smart government context. To fill in this
research gap, this article seeks to develop a conceptual and integrative
IoT framework for smart government based on common findings of
available IoT frameworks in the literature.
But what is an IoT framework and why do we exactly need it? Our
understanding of an IoT framework is based on general definitions of a
conceptual framework, which can be applied to any context of in-
vestigation, in this case IoT. According to this, a conceptual framework
refers to a compilation of broadly defined concepts and/or constructs
that are organized systematically to yield a focus, logical foundation
and tool for integrating and interpreting information and data
(McGregor, 2018) and “explains, either graphically or in narrative
form, the main things to be studied – the key factors, constructs or
variables – and the presumed interrelationships among them” (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 20).
Conceptual frameworks like the one in this study not only facilitate
abstraction and conceptualization of a complex research issue but also
enable more comprehensive manners of investigating the latter
(Eisenhart, 1991; Shehabuddeen, Probert, Phaal, & Platts, 1999), thus
supporting the “understanding and communication of structure and
relationship within a system for a defined purpose” (Shehabuddeen
et al., 1999, p. 9). Moreover, they are essential particularly for new and
emerging fields of research like IoT that are often heterogeneous and
lack a clear structure and research directions, as “they are like scaf-
foldings of wooden planks that take the form of arguments about what
is relevant to study and why” (Eisenhart, 1991, 210 f.) and thus help to
structure and provide direction.
Following the above-mentioned deliberations, the integrative public
IoT framework particularly aims to provide a comprehensive overview
of central elements, components and aspects of the IoT concept, which
may contribute to its common understanding and may serve as a
structuring aid by organizing and structuring the respective field of
research.
Moreover, it is highly relevant for framework-oriented empirical
2
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
research. For instance, it can be a useful conceptual foundation for
developing hypotheses in confirmatory empirical research approaches.
Furthermore, it may be a useful point of reference for practitioners in
designing and implementing specific IoT frameworks. Concerning its
necessity and benefit, it is thus in the first place particularly relevant for
scholars and practitioners, but also for citizens who ultimately may
benefit from achievements in science and practice.
In summary, the integrative public IoT framework contributes to
academics and public management by providing systematized theore-
tical insights about IoT, which may not only serve researchers as a
useful starting point in conducting conceptual and empirical IoT stu-
dies, but also support practitioners in designing and implementing IoT-
based services and solutions.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: In the fol-
lowing section, we describe the procedure of literature analysis and
evaluate the different IoT frameworks identified, deducing common
components across these frameworks. Based on these findings and
further insights of business model research, we then develop an in-
tegrative public IoT framework. Finally, we discuss our major findings
and present implications for research and practice.
2. Identifying and analyzing existing IoT frameworks in the
literature
This study seeks to contribute to academic and practical knowledge
by developing an integrative public IoT framework based on previous
IoT frameworks and business model research. Before analyzing the
existing IoT frameworks in literature, we first explain our procedure of
identifying relevant approaches and show how it corresponds to the
core topic and objective of this study. Due to the great novelty of IoT
research particularly with regard to the public sector and government,
there are very few IoT frameworks specifically tailored to the public
sector or government (Ang, Seng, Zungeru, & Ijemaru, 2017; Mitchell,
Villa, Stewart-Weeks, & Lange, 2013). This small research base is most
relevant to the core topic of this study and thus represents the most
important part of our analysis and in developing an integrative public
IoT framework.
However, at the same time this small research base is not sufficient
to develop a robust and comprehensive, integrative public IoT frame-
work that covers all relevant dimensions, particularly including tech-
nology infrastructure and business model aspects. Therefore, we de-
liberately chose to take a broader approach that not only takes into
consideration public IoT frameworks but also IoT frameworks in gen-
eral and IoT business models. In addition to the essential findings from
IoT-related public sector research, this broader approach allows us to
identify and transfer insights with regard to IoT frameworks from other
research contexts to public sector research.
These insights can thus meaningfully complement respective find-
ings from public sector research and contribute to the key purpose of
this article. This refers to developing a comprehensive and integrative
concept of available IoT frameworks, from which researchers and or-
ganizations can draw insights and which supports and facilitates their
IoT endeavors. Overall, science and management can greatly benefit
from the synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge that is based on a
structured analysis of framework-related IoT literature. Against this
background, we first performed a title and abstract search on
EBSCOhost by means of the leading and to our research issue relevant
academic databases (Business Source Complete, Academic Search
Complete, and EconLit with Full Text). In analyzing the literature and
to identify a relevant set of IoT frameworks based on state-of-the-art
research, we only considered peer-reviewed articles in English language
that had been published within the last ten years.
The literature research contained two major steps: In order to create
a significant foundation of the IoT framework literature, our first search
focused on publications that present conceptual IoT frameworks (key-
words: “IoT” and “frameworks”), leading to a total of 125 search
 Table 1
Overview of IoT frameworks and identified framework dimensions and components.
Components Technology infrastructure Services/ business model Spectrum coverage
of IoT framework
B.W. Wirtz et al.

Author(s) Data centers M2M network/ internet infrastructure Endpoints/connected objects Services Business model components

Bandyopadhyay and Sen
(2011)
ITU (2012)
Gubbi et al. (2013) • Cloud computing (SaaS,
PaaS, IaaS, visualization,
computation, analytics,
storage)
Mitchell et al. (2013) • Central data collection
(computing, storage and
analytics combined with
integrated APIs)
Porter and Heppelmann cloud
• Access gateway layer
• Internet layer
• Middleware layer
• Network layer (networking capabilities/ • Device layer (device
transport capabilities
• Management (general/specific) and
security (general/specific) capabilities
• Wireless sensor networks “Network of
Things” (security, re-configurability,
quality of service, communication
protocols, location awareness,
compressive sensing)
• Network Services
(network communication)
• Edge technology layer • Applications layer
• Application layer (IoT
capabilities/ gateway applications)
capabilities) • Service support and application
• Management (general/ layer (generic support
specific) and security capabilities/ specific support
(general/specific) capabilities)
capabilities • Management (general/specific)
and security (general/specific)
capabilities
• Applications (surveillance,
critical infrastructure,
monitoring, environmental
monitoring, health monitoring,
smart transportation)
• Sensors and networked • New and innovative applications
devices and services
• Data capture, processing,
storage and analytics at
distributed points

3
(2014)
• Productproduct applications
• Connectivity
for external information
• Product software (e.g.,
• Smart engine
• Gateway
sources
• Product
embedded operating
• Rules/analytics
platform with business system (ERP; system
• Application
data database
• Integration
CRM; PLM) hardware (e.g.,
• Product • Product
embedded sensors)
• Identity & security • Identity & security & security
Taylor (2014) computing and Connection (backhaul, mobile
• Identity city solutions monetization
• Cloud
storage
• Network
data)
• Device management • Smart management
• Platform
access (Managed Wi-Fi)
• Application
operations platform
• Advertising analytics
• Managed security • Network operations platform (networks
• Shared
(customer care
• Monetization
subscription
• Shared
operations center/ incident
• Access
management
• Mobile offload
Dijkman et al. (2015) • Key partners
• Key activities
• Key resources
• Value propositions
• Customer relationships
• Customer segments
• Channels
structure
• Cost
• Revenue streams
(continued on next page)
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
 Table 1 (continued)

Components Technology infrastructure Services/ business model Spectrum coverage

of IoT framework
Author(s) Data centers M2M network/ internet infrastructure Endpoints/connected objects Services Business model components
B.W. Wirtz et al.

Pang et al. (2015) • Information system
integration architecture
(efficient data fusion,
standardized and secure
procedures)
Qiu et al. (2015) • Management platform layer • Gateways and gateway operating system • Smart asset layer (GPS;
(data management,
database) • Management platform layer (network
Gomes and
Moqaddemerad
(2016)
• Information system integration
architecture (interoperability and
extendibility, 3C platform, convenient
and trusted software distribution,
service composition)
layer PDA; Sensor; RFID Tag;
Barcode)
management)
• Device and service • How to establish an
integration architecture innovative business model to
deliver value
• What should the solution
deliver
• Value chain analysis
• Value creation and
functionality
• Benefit distribution and work
flow
• Applications layer
• Management platform layer
(service management, decision
models)
• What: business opportunity;
customer groups; value
proposition; product
offerings; competition and
partnering
• How: competitive advantage;
marketing and sales; key
resources; key operations
• Why: basis of pricing; cost
drivers and elements

4
Ang et al. (2017) • Datacenter layer: repository • Connectivity layer (cellular 3G/4G/5G, • Connectivity layer
and storage (cloud)
• Analytics layer (structured,
semi-structured,
unstructured data, near real-
time)
Yelamarthi et al. (2017) • Application management
cloud server (data analytics
and automation)
Elaboration of IoT
framework
components
WiFi, Bluetooth etc.)
• Internet gateway
• Wireless transceiver technologies
(Bluetooth, WiFi, ZigBee)
• Application layer (industry-
(sensors, collectors) specific, contextual applications)
• End users (resident, visitor, public
agencies)
• Physical sensors and
actuators (accelerometer,
touch, infrared, RFID etc.)
• Low-power embedded
processor

Very low, Low, Medium, High, Very high.

Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
B.W. Wirtz et al.
results. To integrate a more practical perspective on the topic, we also
searched for publications dealing with IoT in connection with business
models (keywords: “IoT” and “business model”), leading to 19 search
results. Of these in total 144 publications, 114 were excluded through
title and abstract screening and 24 were excluded after full-text
screening. As an interim result, we could identify six relevant IoT fra-
meworks from this procedure.
To complement our relevant set of IoT frameworks, we further
scrutinized the list of references of these publications by means of a
snowballing approach and also searched the Google Scholar database,
which yielded six additional studies that had not come up in the initial
database search. Consequently, our final relevant set includes twelve
IoT frameworks. In the next step, we analyzed and evaluated these
frameworks, extracting relevant insights for the integrative framework
to be developed. Table 1 presents the twelve IoT frameworks identified
and summarizes the findings of the framework analysis and evaluation,
which are elaborated in the following.
The identified and above-mentioned IoT frameworks refer to dif-
ferent application areas. While most of the frameworks particularly
focus on private sector industries (e.g., Bandyopadhyay & Sen, 2011;
Dijkman et al., 2015; International Telecommunication Union, 2012;
Qiu et al., 2015), there are only few that place special emphasis on the
public sector or government (Ang et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2013).
Moreover, the frameworks identified vary in content, method and
variety, which indicates that there are various ways of how researchers
have approached the development of IoT frameworks so far. Before
evaluating these frameworks, we systematically identified their core
dimensions and common components. Therefore, we thoroughly ex-
amined and compared the existing IoT frameworks and their individual
components.
This analysis revealed that these frameworks address or can be as-
signed to two overarching dimensions regarding content: technology
infrastructure and services/business model. These dimensions, in turn,
can be divided into different components. While the technology infra-
structure comprises the three components of data centers, M2M net-
works/Internet infrastructure and endpoints/connected objects, the
service/business model dimension includes the services and business
model components. Concerning a qualitative evaluation of the frame-
works against these dimensions and components, the spectrum of ad-
dressed or covered IoT framework components (Spectrum Coverage of
IoT Framework Components) and the level of elaboration of corre-
sponding components (Elaboration of IoT Framework Components)
appear to be reasonable assessment criteria (Wirtz & Daiser,
2017a).While the so-called Harvey ball ideograms on the right-hand
side of Table 1 indicate the extent of spectrum coverage of the IoT
framework components, the Harvey balls below Table 1 show the ex-
tent of elaboration of IoT framework components.
The analysis of existing IoT frameworks in the literature gives a
rather imbalanced and heterogeneous view of the IoT framework di-
mensions and their components. In particular, the spectrum coverage of
IoT framework components, their level of elaboration and degree of
differentiation or abstraction differ widely among the IoT frameworks
identified. In this connection, Table 1 reveals that ten studies address
the components of the IoT technology infrastructure (Ang et al., 2017;
Bandyopadhyay & Sen, 2011; Gubbi et al., 2013; International
Telecommunication Union, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2013; Pang et al.,
2015; Porter & Heppelmann, 2014; Qiu et al., 2015; Taylor, 2014 and
Yelamarthi, Aman, & Abdelgawad, 2017), while two studies do not
include any components of the IoT technology infrastructure dimen-
sion, but rather focus on business models in the context of IoT (Dijkman
et al., 2015; Gomes & Moqaddemerad, 2016). The most frequently
addressed IoT framework components are M2M network/Internet in-
frastructure and endpoints/connected objects, which both pertain to
the IoT technology infrastructure and thus have a high level of ela-
boration. Although, the data centers component of the technology in-
frastructure has been addressed to a lesser extent, it still has a high level
5
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
of elaboration.
Moreover, while the service component of the services/business
model dimension has been moderately addressed in the past and thus
has a medium level of elaboration, the business model component of
the services/business model dimension has received little attention so
far and is thus characterized by a low level of elaboration.
To draw an interim conclusion, the comparatively low level of
elaboration of the dimension services/business models and particularly
the business model component by itself indicate that these have been
rather rarely addressed in the past and are thus less pronounced com-
pared to the technology infrastructure dimension and its respective
components, which all are characterized by high level of elaboration.
Furthermore, while seven out of these ten studies concerning the
technology infrastructure components also emphasize the services
component of the services/business model dimension (Ang et al., 2017;
Bandyopadhyay & Sen, 2011; Gubbi et al., 2013; International
Telecommunication Union, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2013; Qiu et al., 2015
and Taylor, 2014), there are only two approaches combining tech-
nology infrastructure components with the business model component
(Pang et al., 2015; Taylor, 2014). The results also show that the spec-
trum coverage of IoT framework components addressed by the different
framework approaches not only varies across the overarching dimen-
sions technology infrastructure and services/business model, but also
within these dimensions. More specifically, not all of the studies that
focus on the technology infrastructure dimension include all of the
three underlying components data centers, M2M network/Internet in-
frastructure and endpoints/connected object. For instance, while
Bandyopadhyay and Sen (2011) and International Telecommunication
Union (2012) do not include the data centers component of the tech-
nology infrastructure dimension, Gubbi et al. (2013) omit the end-
points/connected objects component. Likewise, most of the studies re-
ferring to the services/business model dimension only address one of
either component within this dimension (e.g., Dijkman et al., 2015;
Pang et al., 2015; Qiu et al., 2015).
Besides these content-related differences with regard to the spec-
trum coverage of IoT framework components among the various ap-
proaches, the number of components addressed by each approach may
also vary strongly, ranging from one to five. While the work of Dijkman
et al. (2015) and Gomes and Moqaddemerad (2016), for instance, ex-
clusively refers to one component (business model) and thus addresses
a small spectrum of IoT framework components, the attempt by Taylor
(2014) is the only one that deals with data centers, M2M network/
Internet infrastructure, endpoints/connected objects, as well as services
and business model, thus referring to all of the five components iden-
tified and covering a very large spectrum of IoT framework compo-
nents.
However, there are also substantial differences among the frame-
works with regard to the degree of differentiation or abstraction. While
some approaches address the components on a broad level, others are
more specific in their statements. For instance, although there are few
approaches such as those of Taylor (2014) or Qiu et al. (2015) that are
characterized by a high to very high spectrum coverage of framework
components, these approaches have a relatively low degree of differ-
entiation and specifity for implementation compared to other studies,
such as Dijkman et al. (2015) or Gomes and Moqaddemerad (2016),
which are characterized by a low spectrum coverage of framework
components, but are described in great detail.
To sum up, the thorough analysis of existing IoT frameworks shows
that there are substantial differences among the different frameworks
with regard to their context of investigation, the spectrum of framework
components addressed and their overall level of elaboration, as well as
their degree of differentiation or abstraction. Most strikingly, the
findings show that there is a lack of knowledge with regard to the
public sector or smart government and respective IoT frameworks.
In addition, our analysis reveals that corresponding research has
particularly focused on the technological aspects of the IoT, while
B.W. Wirtz et al.
Public Strategic Layer
Macro-Level
Public Value Creation Layer Public Demand Layer
Micro-Level Technology Infrastructure Layer
rather neglecting business model aspects. In this connection, our find-
ings suggest a gap of integrative approaches, thereby also indicating
that there is a tradeoff between a quantitative and qualitative con-
sideration of relevant IoT framework components, which either goes at
the expense of a reasonable implementation specificity or does not
grasp an understanding of the multifaceted and complex character of
IoT.
Taken together, there is a need for an integrative perspective on IoT
and more specifically, for developing an integrative public IoT frame-
work that unifies prior insights and bridges the basic overarching di-
mensions of the IoT, in particular, technology infrastructure and ser-
vice/business models. In accordance with a normative procedure, such
an integrative framework may not only contribute to a common un-
derstanding of the IoT concept among researchers and practitioners,
particularly in the context of the public sector and smart government,
but also may be a valuable point of reference for IoT research and IoT
implementation.
3. Developing an integrative IoT framework
Combining the dimensions identified in a common integrative fra-
mework is essential to live up to the complexity and multifaceted
character of IoT and its implementation. An isolated consideration of
the dimensions is not sufficient and expedient for successfully im-
plementing IoT and creating public value therefrom. Besides the fre-
quently addressed technological components, the so far rather ne-
glected business model component is of great importance in this
connection. This is mainly because the specific challenge of public
administration and smart government does not lie in the assimilation of
technology, as this can be easily acquired through outsourcing, but
rather in adjusting traditional structures and processes of public ad-
ministration to the innovative field of IoT. The bridge between these
two diverging aspects is the business model component since it makes
the migration path and implementation process more effective and ef-
ficient. In line with this argumentation, previous research also em-
phasizes the need for a more comprehensive and integrative perspective
on IoT (Bernsteiner & Schlögl, 2017).
In the following, we therefore develop an integrative public IoT
framework that combines the dimensions identified, thus satisfying the
complexity of successfully implementing IoT and the corresponding
research demand. An integrative framework should always combine the
relevant internal and external aspects, conceptually integrating and
representing these underlying components. However, before in-
tegrating these components into a comprehensive and elaborate fra-
mework, it appears reasonable for the sake of simplicity and under-
standing to first describe their basic structure and macro/micro-level
integration.
Addressing the service and business model dimension, previous
business model research suggests that an integrative public business
model is composed of three components, including the public strategic
component, the customer/user and public demand component, as well
as the public value creation component (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017b; Wirtz,
Pistoia, Ullrich, & Göttel, 2016). In light of the importance of tech-
nology in the context of IoT and in living up to the purpose of bridging
the basic dimensions of IoT, we adapt this conceptualization to the
6
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Basic structure and macro/micro-level integration of
framework layers.
public IoT respectively smart government setting, complementing it
with a public IoT technology component. This technology component is
embodied by the technology infrastructure layer that reflects the
technical-functional characteristics and capabilities of a specific IoT
application or service and is thus located at the micro-level. In contrast,
the public demand layer, public value creation layer and public stra-
tegic layer as core layers of the service and business model are posi-
tioned at the macro-level, as they all pertain to the broader IoT eco-
system. The public demand layer and public value creation layer both
place special emphasis on the IoT service environment. While the public
demand layer addresses the market demand and the particular needs of
recipients of IoT services, the public value creation layer deals with the
corresponding creation of value (Wirtz et al., 2016; Wirtz & Daiser,
2017b).
On top of these layers, is the public strategic layer that includes the
overarching strategy with regard to an IoT initiative and greatly im-
pacts the line of approach in all other layers and directs them towards a
primary objective defined. Fig. 1 depicts the basic structure of the
above-mentioned framework layers and shows their macro/micro-level
integration.
In the following, we further elaborate on these layers and explain
the integrative public IoT framework in detail.
3.1. Public strategic layer
As indicated above, at the heart of any business model is an over-
arching strategy or primary objective that is supposed to generate or
secure an organizational advantage. Particularly relevant in this con-
nection is the public strategic layer that comprises a strategy model, a
resources model and a network model. These strategic components of
business models have been increasingly subject to research endeavors
since the turn of the millennium and have considerably gained in im-
portance (Chesbrough, 2006). The public strategic layer is the first part
of the integrative public IoT business model and particularly important
when it comes to evaluating public value creation (Wirtz & Daiser,
2017b).
To begin with, the strategy model defines the long-term objectives
of a public IoT business model, which basically pertains to creating
public value. Referring to the three public value dimensions proposed
by Moore (2002), the strategy model of a public IoT business model
consists of three superior strategic objectives.
First, it aims at improving public IoT services by enhancing the ef-
ficiency and economy of IoT service provision. In addition, the strategy
model seeks to improve IoT service outcomes, thus increasing the ef-
fectiveness of goal attainment. Finally, its mission also consists in in-
creasing trust in public actors, particularly government, public admin-
istration and public service providers. Besides these superior strategic
goals, strategic decision-making plays a central role within the strategy
model, especially with regard to value creation.
An important strategic decision in the context of IoT, for instance,
refers to the question of how to develop and provide services. Here,
governments and public organizations can choose between different
strategic options, including an in-house, outsourcing or mixed ap-
proach, which in turn may affect further strategic decisions. For in-
stance, the degree to which governments and public organizations
B.W. Wirtz et al.
implement own IoT systems or rely on external system providers, such
as IBM or Siemens, has important implications for their strategic deci-
sions with regard to IT and data security, which in turn are crucial
aspects of their technology model. This example also highlights the
interdependence among the different models in the integrative IoT
framework proposed in this study. Finally, given the very dynamic IoT
environment, successfully implementing the IoT in the public sector
requires a certain strategic flexibility and thus to discover new strate-
gies for IoT-based public services and solutions in order to recognize
and adequately respond to new challenges (Mitchell et al., 2013).
Aside from the strategy model, resources – be it tangible and in-
tangible or internal and external in nature – are regarded as critical
when it comes to business models and value generation (Currie, 2004;
Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). This aspect is
taken into account in terms of the resource model that constitutes an-
other important component of an integrative business model, addres-
sing the questions of how resources are integrated within an organi-
zation and how they are translated into viable services or products.
Accordingly, the resources model defines the input factors necessary for
creating public value (Wirtz et al., 2016; Wirtz & Daiser, 2017b). These
input factors can be generally classified as core assets and core com-
petencies.
Previous literature highlights that such key resources are also a
crucial feature of an IoT business model (Eskelinen, Räsänen, Santti,
Happonen, & Kajanus, 2017). More specifically, prior studies suggest
that public IoT-specific core assets especially refer to resources such as
the information technology infrastructure (e.g., hardware and software,
network and connectivity resources) and financial resources, while
public IoT-specific core competencies include specific employee skills
and knowledge-related resources (Dijkman et al., 2015; Gomes &
Moqaddemerad, 2016). In this connection, it also becomes apparent
that the resources model in the context of the IoT is particularly related
to the technology model, since the technology infrastructure is not only
the focus of the technology model but also a critical core asset within
the resources model to create public value.
The last model of the public strategic layer refers to the network
model, which describes the relationships among the actors involved in
developing or providing public IoT services and creating value there-
from. Previous research suggests that networks and partnerships may
greatly help organizations to create value (Al-Debei, El-Haddadeh, &
Avison, 2008; Voelpel, Leibold, & Tekie, 2004). In the public sector
context, the network model accordingly includes the public business
model networks and the public business model partners of governments
or public organizations, which may significantly contribute to public
value creation.
Prior studies on the IoT also acknowledge the significant role of key
partnerships and respective networks, considering them as major con-
tributors to value and an important component of an IoT business
model (Dijkman et al., 2015; Eskelinen et al., 2017; Gomes &
Moqaddemerad, 2016). In particular, key partners for governments or
public organizations in this connection are suppliers, such as software
developers, hardware producers, data analysts or logistics partners, but
also authorities, as well as launching customers or citizens. The network
model as such can be viewed as a tool to manage and control these
cooperation partners, as well as the associated processes and services
within the network.
3.2. Public value creation layer
While the above-mentioned strategy model, resources model and
network model together constitute the public strategic layer and thus
the first layer of the integrative public IoT framework, the second layer
of the framework refers to the public value creation layer, which deals
with the internal creation of value within the organization and ad-
dresses the questions of how and under which conditions value can be
generated (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017b). The public value creation layer is
7
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
composed of the public procurement model, the budget model and the
public service creation model, which are described in the following.
The public procurement model depicts the structure and sources of the
resources or input factors that are required for developing public IoT
products or services and creating public value therefrom. In doing so, it
also includes respective goals, measures and management activities,
such as information analysis and the monitoring/controlling of re-
sources (Wirtz & Daiser, 2017b). Against this background, one can
distinguish between two major procurement sources in the public IoT
context.
On the one hand, there are private/commercial providers, including
open data platform operators, commercial IoT platform operators such
as Siemens (MindSphere) or IBM (Watson), as well as IoT software
developers and other IoT technology suppliers. On the other hand, there
are public providers, like agencies or departments that may play a
crucial role in procuring information or technology relevant for service
development and provision. For the best outcome of the public pro-
curement model, it is important that the different IoT providers co-
operate successfully to ensure the interoperability and compatibility of
their heterogeneous IoT technologies and solutions (Gomes &
Moqaddemerad, 2016; Pang et al., 2015), which has been a major
challenge in the field of IoT.
Following the public procurement model, the second part of the
public value creation layer is the budget model. The budget model
fulfills the function of a financial model, which is regarded as a critical
component of a business model (Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Osterwalder,
Pigneur, & Tucci, 2005). More specifically, the budget model refers to
the financial planning and controlling of the cost and revenue structure,
describing an organization's cost and revenue streams as well as con-
solidating the financial impact of the other models within the frame-
work (Wirtz, 2016).
In connection with the preceding public procurement model, the
cost structure is of special importance as it reflects the expenses for the
resources or input factors needed to develop and provide an IoT service
or product. In the context of the IoT, this particularly includes product
or system development costs (e.g., IT, hardware, software and per-
sonnel cost), as well as maintenance and logistics costs (Dijkman et al.,
2015; Eskelinen et al., 2017; Gomes & Moqaddemerad, 2016). These
payment flows basically refer to two types of resources, that is tech-
nology and information or data, which are acquired from providers and
subsequently used for developing and providing an IoT service. Ac-
cordingly, the budget model connects the public procurement model
with the public service creation model, which represents the third and
last part of the public value creation layer.
The public service creation model describes the actual generation of
value within the public value creation layer. More specifically, it de-
termines the core features and processes of a user-oriented or citizen-
centric service offering, depicting the transformation and refinement of
input factors (lower-order goods) – by means of intra-organizational
development processes – into sophisticated services (higher-order
goods) that enhance public value (Wirtz et al., 2016; Wirtz & Daiser,
2017b).
Against this background, public IoT services can be assigned to
three major types of service creation. The first type of public IoT service
creation generates public value by providing processed information or
data to users or citizens. The process of service development and pro-
vision comprises the collection, analysis and systematization, classifi-
cation, storage and on-demand provision of information or data.
Another type of public IoT service creation consists in enabling ma-
chine-to-machine (M2M) interaction or human-to-machine (H2M) in-
teraction based on the analysis, automation and management of IoT
services and channels.
The last type of public IoT service creation is closely related to the
concept of open government, relying on its widely accepted principles
of transparency, participation and collaboration (Lee & Kwak, 2012;
Reddick & Ganapati, 2011; Wirtz, Piehler, Thomas, & Daiser, 2015).
B.W. Wirtz et al.
This type refers to value creation by integrating users or citizens based
on the these principles and making them part of the public IoT service
development.
3.3. Public demand layer
While the above-mentioned public procurement model, budget
model and public service creation model describe the public value
creation layer, the third layer refers to the public demand layer, which
addresses the service environment and focuses on market- and user-
related aspects that greatly impact the design and operation of a busi-
ness model (Wirtz et al., 2016; Wirtz & Daiser, 2017b). The public
demand layer comprises a public service offer model, a fee model and a
user model, which are described in the following.
Previous business model research highlights the importance of a
component within a business model that focuses on the market offer
and the underlying market structure, for instance, particularly taking
into account the value proposition associated with a service offering
(Demil & Lecocq, 2010; Johnson, 2010). In the public IoT framework at
hand, this circumstance is reflected in the public service offer model
that focuses on the market-related service offer and the respective ex-
ternal demand, analyzing and evaluating the needs and behaviors of
public stakeholders in order to ultimately translate them into value
propositions and respective service offers.
Against this background, the public IoT respectively smart govern-
ment setting, is characterized by four important service offers referring
to the areas of information and communication, automation, transac-
tion and integration. While information and communication offers in-
clude services such as location sharing, realtime notification and com-
munication, as well as realtime environmental data provision,
automation offers serve the purpose to automate various aspects, such
as processes and transactions, services and capacity distribution.
Moreover, transaction offers comprise, for instance, remote trans-
action control systems, mobile identification systems or stationary
public service terminals. Finally, integration offers may include mobile
government services or big data-based service and infrastructure opti-
mization. The value propositions associated with such IoT service offers
particularly refer to improved outcomes for public stakeholders, such as
higher performance, cost reductions, more convenience and usability or
greater comfort (Dijkman et al., 2015; Eskelinen et al., 2017; Hudson,
2017).
Closely connected to the above-described public service offer model
is the fee model, which represents the second component of the public
demand layer. The fee model corresponds to what business model lit-
erature has frequently referred to as revenue model and regarded as an
important component (Osterwalder et al., 2005; Osterwalder & Pigneur,
2010). It depicts the incoming cash flows that a government or public
organization may receive in exchange for providing an IoT service.
Here, many different forms of income streams are conceivable, among
which subscription and usage fees are particularly important in the
context of IoT (Dijkman et al., 2015).
Similar to the budget model in the public value creation layer, the
fee model assumes the role of an interface between the preceeding
public service offer model and the following user model that represents
the last component of the public demand layer. In this regard, the users
or customers of a product or service have frequently been addressed
and considered as a central component within business model literature
(Bouwman, 2003; Mahadevan, 2004; Yip, 2004). Here, the user model
contains the target groups of a public IoT service that are usually de-
fined by means of certain user characteristics, demographic criteria, as
well as the application context of the respective IoT service.
In principle, there are three major user groups in the context of
public IoT, comprising citizens, private organizations and public orga-
nizations, which in turn could be further segmented into more specific
target groups, if necessary. These user groups are essential since the
service offers are usually user-oriented and thus developed and
8
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
provided according to their needs, which may also be accompanied by
co-creation relationships with users (Dijkman et al., 2015).
To sum up, the user model describes the final delivery of the public
IoT service from the public service provider to the respective end users
and thus represents the end of the public demand layer. After having
presented the public strategic layer, the public value creation layer, as
well as the public demand layer and their individual subordinated
models, the following section presents the technology infrastructure
layer and its constituting components as the final part of the integrative
public IoT framework.
3.4. Technology infrastructure layer
Given the variety of applications and respective settings, the broad
spectrum of technologies deployed, as well as the great and diverse
volume of exchanged data, the IoT is characterized by a great com-
plexity that demands an efficient information technology infrastructure
in order to successfully develop and provide IoT services. The tech-
nology infrastructure layer takes account of this issue in terms of a
technology model that is composed of the three components data cen-
ters, M2M network/Internet infrastructure and endpoints/connected
objects, which have been identified earlier within the framework ana-
lysis of this article.
In this connection, it is of supreme importance to mention that the
information technology infrastructure needs to be capable of meeting
the various and demanding security challenges associated with the IoT.
This is especially relevant in the public context, as the IoT may affect
sensitive public infrastructures that are crucial to national security.
Moreover, the information technology infrastructure has to live up to
the challenging issues of standardization and interoperability in order
to guarantee the effective and efficient delivery of IoT services.
Ensuring the effective and efficient exchange and processing of data
across the different components of the technology model also requires a
powerful information technology infrastructure and is of great im-
portance for successful IoT service delivery.
One of the most critical aspects of the technology model is the
endpoints/connected objects component. Endpoints not only serve for
the generation of data but also as the interface connecting humans and
the machine network. Hence, we define endpoints, as the name implies,
to be the last electronic item between network and environment.
Aligned with respective conclusions of Porter and Heppelmann (2014)
and Mitchell et al. (2013), we differentiate two distinct roles of the
connected endpoints: first, the data collection and automating aspect,
and, second, the H2M interface aspect.
Considering the first aspect, endpoints serve as sensors or devices
that generate and forward data to the processing data centers. There are
rather sophisticated endpoints such as mobile devices that have own
processing capacities and rather simple sensors such as RFID Tags and
microphones that lack any processing capacity and simply generate and
send unprocessed data such as location, temperature or other in-
formation. In this context, the International Telecommunication Union
(2012, p. 8) differentiates the power of the endpoints in “device cap-
abilities” referring to the processing of data and “gateway capabilities”
referring to their power to connect to respective networks.
The second aspect refers to the interface between humans and the
IoT. Various devices can serve as interfaces between people and the IoT,
for instance, mobile phones, smart speakers, smartwatches but also
service terminals and conventional computers. These interfaces act as
the steering items of the IoT, as they receive commands from different
people. Concerning the smart government setting, those humans are
either citizens or public service managers. In this context, it is im-
portant to mention one central function of the H2M interface: The re-
cognition of the identity of people and the associated data access rights.
Security endpoints can serve solely to identify respective personnel
through certain peculiarities of people such as fingerprints or voices,
but also through simple passwords or identity card requests and
B.W. Wirtz et al.
analysis.
The M2M network /Internet infrastructure component refers to the
flawless connection and data transmission between the endpoints and
the data processing centers. There are various types of data transmis-
sion protocols and infrastructure systems, which are connected through
gateways that translate respective data to the required standards of the
matching networks. The M2M network/Internet infrastructure compo-
nent largely corresponds with the network component described in the
report of the International Telecommunication Union (2012). The ITU
defines two critical capabilities of networks: the resilience, control or
security capability and the transport or transmission capability.
The first capability refers to pertinent control functions of the net-
work connectivity, including access control tasks and the three AAA's:
authentication, authorization and accounting. The second capability
refers to the complete, fast and flawless transmission of data. Similar to
the conventional World Wide Web (WWW) of connected servers, per-
sonal computers and mobile devices, the IoT uses different network
components such as the global server network as well as rather small
personal area networks (PANs) within the homes of individuals. In the
smart government context, several network concepts are relevant. The
wide area network (WAN) extends over large geographical distances
and connects metropolitan area networks (MAN) that connect a geo-
graphic area such as a city, which in turn is larger than the one covered
by a local area network (LAN) (Eklund, Marks, Stanwood, & Wang,
2002).
The technology applied differs substantially among these diverse
networks, such that the respective network nodes and gateways are
particularly sensitive and critical in terms of security and public safety.
One of the most significant challenges in this context is the lack of
standards concerning IoT technologies (Al-Qaseemi, Almulhim,
Almulhim, & Chaudhry, 2016).
The last component of the technology model are the data centers
that process the information collected from the endpoints and received
through the various components of the network. The concept of data
centers does not necessarily imply a single physical data processing
location that digests data and forwards the results respectively. In re-
cent years, the processing capacity has been increasingly spread
throughout a decentralized network of servers that contribute proces-
sing capacity on demand. Such a cloud computing approach is also an
integral part of a modern IoT framework (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014).
Moreover, it is important to note that the different nodes as well as the
connected objects themselves often enclose some processing cap-
abilities, as they contain some embedded operating systems (Porter &
Heppelmann, 2014). The role of data centers, however, increases with
the advancement of big data analysis. Large amounts of data can be
analyzed and processed if they are collected and integrated in large
data sets. The strength of the IoT therefore depends on the fact that data
centers process large data sets and subsequently control connected
objects, rather than operating individual endpoints that are automated
on the basis of their limited data sets (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014).
Therefore, data centers – as decentralized as they may be – are the focal
point of all components of the technology model, as they constitute the
point in which the large data sets are compiled, analyzed and translated
into concrete action.
The last component of the technology model are the data centers
that process the information collected from the endpoints and received
through the various components of the network. The concept of data
centers does not necessarily imply a single physical data processing
location that digests data and forwards the results respectively. In re-
cent years, the processing capacity has been increasingly spread
throughout a decentralized network of servers that contribute proces-
sing capacity on demand. Such a cloud computing approach is also an
integral part of a modern IoT framework (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014).
Moreover, it is important to note that the different nodes as well as the
connected objects themselves often enclose some processing cap-
abilities, as they contain some embedded operating systems (Porter &
9
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Heppelmann, 2014). The role of data centers, however, increases with
the advancement of big data analysis. Large amounts of data can be
analyzed and processed if they are collected and integrated in large
data sets. The strength of the IoT therefore depends on the fact that data
centers process large data sets and subsequently control connected
objects, rather than operating individual endpoints that are automated
on the basis of their limited data sets (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014).
Therefore, data centers – as decentralized as they may be – are the focal
point of all components of the technology model, as they constitute the
point in which the large data sets are compiled, analyzed and translated
into concrete action.
Examples of such big data-driven and automated actions can be the
control of smart traffic lights, smart garbage collection or the auto-
mated directing of an ambulance to a traffic accident. Endpoints serve
as sensors that send received and mostly unprocessed data to the data
centers. In reference to the large amount of environmental information
of the endpoints, the data center draws respective conclusions and
communicates corresponding orders to the endpoints, which then again
send data of the respective action's results. By automatically analyzing
and incorporating outcome data from previous machine orders, the
machine starts learning and thus enters to the concept of artificial in-
telligence (Wunder et al., 2014).
A promising example in the context of smart government respec-
tively smart city refers to smart and automated traffic steering, in which
elements of the urban traffic infrastructure, such as streets, cars, traffic
lights etc. are equipped with sensors or other respective IoT technology
and intelligently coordinated in order to reduce traffic congestion and
emissions and improve traffic safety. For instance, traffic light intervals
may be adjusted to the given traffic by incorporating historical data into
the automating process.
The combination of IoT technology and self-learning artificial in-
telligence software that learns from previous pattern recognition in-
creasingly gains in importance and is another technological milestone
in this context. Google's artificial intelligence group DeepMind has
developed such a self-learning artificial intelligence program named
AlphaGo Zero. David Silver, AlphaGo's lead researcher highlights the
significance of this innovation for the future of the IoT: “It's more
powerful than previous approaches because by not using human data,
or human expertise in any fashion, we've removed the constraints of
human knowledge and it is able to create knowledge itself” (Sample,
2017, p. 1). Not least, this example shows how complex the manage-
ment of IoT is in the smart government respectively smart city context.
However, particularly in the context of smart government and with a
principal security and privacy focus, most public IoT services still de-
pend on input from public service managers.
The above-described technology infrastructure layer forms the
conclusion of the integrative public IoT framework developed in this
article. Fig. 2 summarizes the foregoing deliberations with regard to the
four different layer and their individual components, presenting the
integrative public IoT framework.
4. Discussion and conclusion
The starting point of the study at hand refers to the increasing im-
portance of the IoT in the context of public management and research in
conjunction with its conceptual shortcomings, in particular, the lack of
an integrative perspective that bridges technology-related and public
business-related dimensions of the IoT concept in the public realm.
Against this background, the article identifies and analyzes previous
IoT frameworks, deducing respective essential dimensions and com-
ponents of the IoT and unifying them into a common integrative fra-
mework. This conceptual approach not only harmonizes and brings
greater clarity to the heterogeneous framework-based research land-
scape of IoT, but also enhances our understanding of the public man-
agement-specific key dimensions and aspects of IoT.
In doing so, it may serve as a useful and holistic frame of reference
B.W. Wirtz et al.
Fig. 2. Integrative public IoT framework.
that guides further scientific development of public IoT research and
practical IoT implementation in the context of smart government,
which in turn are important preconditions for successfully exploiting
the great potential that IoT holds for governments, public organizations
and the general public.
An initial contribution of this study refers to analyzing existing IoT
frameworks and providing a systematic overview thereof for the first
time. The findings of the literature-based framework analysis also de-
monstrate that so far the concept of IoT has only been fragmentarily
10
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
addressed in the literature and reflect the great novelty and complexity
of the IoT concept, which has often been emphasized in the literature,
especially in the context of public management and research.
The novelty of the IoT becomes particularly apparent when con-
sidering the fact that there have been hardly any public sector-specific
frameworks available so far. Those few available solely address the
smart city context and completely neglect the business model compo-
nent (Ang et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2013), which is particularly
important from the provider perspective of public management or
B.W. Wirtz et al.
administration on IoT, especially in terms of creating and delivering
value through the IoT. Accordingly, the framework developed in this
study is to the best of our knowledge the first respective public man-
agement approach that comprehensively conceptualizes IoT. Due to the
lack of public sector-specific approaches, developing a respective fra-
mework requires to draw upon more general and private sector-related
frameworks and translate them into the public context with the aid of
appropriate public management literature.
In doing so, five integrative framework components of the IoT were
deduced from previous IoT frameworks that were examined and com-
pared on an abstract level: (1) data centers, (2) M2M network/Internet
infrastructure, (3) connected objects, (4) services, and (5) business
model. These components should be generally taken into account when
it comes to comprehensively investigating the IoT or addressing the
design and implementation of IoT-based applications and services. In
addition, the synopsis of the different framework approaches reveals
the complexity and multifaceted character of the IoT, which manifests
itself in the broad spectrum of IoT framework components identified.
However, although previous research has acknowledged the com-
plexity of the IoT concept, it has omitted to take account of the full
range of relevant components and thus has failed to live up to the
multifaceted character of IoT (e.g., Bandyopadhyay & Sen, 2011;
Dijkman et al., 2015; Gomes & Moqaddemerad, 2016; Porter &
Heppelmann, 2014). Instead, the prevalent understanding of IoT is
particularly technology-driven and business-related aspects have been
widely neglected (Bernsteiner & Schlögl, 2017).
In accordance with this, the framework analysis demonstrates that
in particular the technological components – data centers, M2M net-
work/Internet infrastructure and endpoints/connected objects – iden-
tified within the analysis have received great attention, while the ser-
vice component and particularly the business model component have
been rather overlooked (e.g., Gubbi et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2013;
Porter & Heppelmann, 2014).
This is very surprising given the IoT's great impact on economy and
society, yielding new services or products and business models that
affect peoples' everyday and workaday life. Against this background,
the integrative framework developed greatly contributes to public IoT
research as it places special emphasis on the services and business
model components in addition to the above-mentioned technological
components, thus meeting the current demands for “[…] a holistic and
comprehensive approach […] to tackle the challenges inherited in IoT/
IoS systems.” (Bernsteiner & Schlögl, 2017, p. 524). Besides that, the
framework's particular nexus of a business model and technology per-
spective lives up to the expectations associated with smart government,
according to which the application of innovative business models and
technology are defining elements of smart government to address the
environmental, financial and service-related challenges the public
sector is struggling with (Jiménez et al., 2015, p. 19). Especially, the
business model perspective of the framework may help public admin-
istration to adjust its traditional structures and processes to the in-
novative field of the IoT, making the migration path and implementa-
tion process more effective and efficient.
Although, Taylor (2014), for instance, also provides a comprehen-
sive framework that addresses all of the framework components iden-
tified, it does not elaborate on these components in detail. However, the
degree of differentiation and elaboration with regard to individual
components plays a crucial role, as it determines the conceptual depth
of their understanding and of the IoT concept as a whole. This is par-
ticularly important for establishing a common and more fine-grained
understanding of the IoT concept among researchers and practitioners,
which in turn is necessary for providing both a solid and common
theoretical foundation for developing future research approaches, as
well as the appropriate specificity for successfully developing and im-
plementing IoT-based services and business models.
In this connection, the framework analysis reveals a major gap in
research since there is no IoT framework available that meets these
11
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
requirements and provides an acceptable level of differentiation across
all IoT framework components identified. This has been a major con-
cern in developing this integrative IoT framework, which thus makes a
significant contribution in filling in this research gap. Given the thin
research base with regard to the IoT, it seems not only reasonable but
especially necessary to see the bigger picture and to draw on related
well-established fields of research, such as strategic or innovation
management, transferring insights into public management research
and connecting them in a meaningful way with knowledge from the
latter. The integrative framework developed indicates that public
management research particularly with regard to the IoT may greatly
benefit from broadening the perspective and transferring knowledge
from other research areas. A good example in this context is the strategy
model introduced within the integrative framework adapted from
strategic management (Wirtz et al., 2016) and meaningfully combined
with the public value concept of Moore (2002) and specific IoT litera-
ture (e.g., Gomes & Moqaddemerad, 2016).
Furthermore, the integrative framework reveals that there exist in-
teractions among the different components, suggesting that the latter
may not be considered in isolation, but rather need to be studied within
a common framework. The strategy model, for instance, has an impact
on all other framework components, since strategic decision-making in
one area may affect other areas (e.g., an IoT outsourcing strategy affects
the information technology security strategy).
Another example refers to the IT platform as well as the respective
IoT hardware and software that play a crucial role in both the resources
model and the technology model, thus also demonstrating that the more
or less newly introduced business model component and the well-es-
tablished technology components of the IoT are connected to a certain
extent and therefore require to be examined by means of an integrative
perspective.
Furthermore, the integrative public IoT framework may be parti-
cularly essential for the emerging field of empirical IoT research, con-
tributing to and fostering both qualitative and quantitative research
endeavors. On the one hand, it may serve as structuring aid for quali-
tative research approaches such as exploratory case studies and expert
interviews to gain qualitative highly differentiated insights. On the
other hand, it can be used as conceptual foundation for developing and
testing hypotheses in quantitative-confirmatory research attempts, for
instance, for examining what factors (e.g., strategy model, technology
model etc.) to what extent impact implementation success of IoT.
Besides these research implications for academics, the study at hand
also holds practical implications for public managers dealing with the
IoT and the associated services and solutions. In doing so, the in-
tegrative framework provides a clear and holistic conceptual guidance
for public officers, who due to the conceptual fuzziness and inchoate-
ness of IoT may have had difficulties in the past to fully grasp the
concept of IoT and its individual components.
The framework's high level of differentiation makes it particularly
suitable for the application context, as it is associated with a high
specifity of implementation. Accordingly, public managers can use
these insights in the sense of a checklist to successfully develop and
implement IoT-based services and solutions.
Considering that technology-based government services may
sometimes be implemented without a clear strategic direction (Wirtz &
Langer, 2017), public managers should particularly take heed of the
strategy model and be aware that it is highly important for governments
and public organizations to define and follow a clear strategy – which in
principle refers to the superior objective of increasing public value – in
order to effectively implement IoT-based solutions and services.
In this connection, they should also keep in mind the necessity of
strategic flexibility, particularly in view of the dynamic nature of the
IoT and the respective technological environment. For instance, stra-
tegic flexibility is especially relevant when it comes to security and
privacy issues. Here, governments and public organizations need to be
strategically flexible in terms of providing an adaptive infrastructure
B.W. Wirtz et al.
that is able to cope with ever-changing security threats in the hetero-
geneous and dynamic IoT context (Sicari, Rizzardi, Grieco, & Coen-
Porisini, 2015).
Ensuring security and privacy in turn is closely connected with the
superior strategic objective of creating public value and an essential
requirement therefor, as it is crucial for building public trust and
adopting IoT services or solutions, and thus ultimately for creating
public value. Taken together, public managers should not only be aware
that strategy is a particularly important and influential building block
in the context of the IoT, but also something that they need to challenge
on a regular basis and adjust over time.
Despite the above-mentioned contributions to research and man-
agement, this study has some important limitations that deserve con-
sideration and bring to light interesting research opportunities for fu-
ture research. To begin with, the limiting factors within our literature
search, including peer-reviewed scientific publications in English-lan-
guage, may have excluded potentially relevant articles from the fra-
mework analysis.
However, considering size and quality of the article set in combi-
nation with the systematic and extensive search approach, we feel
confident that is a rather minor issue. In addition, these search lim-
itations represent a common form of quality assurance and therefore
may have likely enhanced the research foundation of our analysis.
Furthermore, the conceptual deductive approach of this study does not
allow to draw empirical conclusions. Therefore, the integrative frame-
work and its individual components require further empirical ex-
amination and need to be challenged by respective studies that scruti-
nize them more rigorously and prove their empirical tenability.
Moreover, given that some individual components and elements of the
framework, such as the strategy model, appear to stand out in im-
portance, it would be interesting to examine them with regard to their
relevance for success.
Given the early stage and ichoate state of IoT research there are
various research opportunities available, particularly in the public
sector context. In general, IoT research could greatly benefit from
comprehensive literature reviews and meta studies that help to struc-
ture this heterogeneous field of study and to point out clear research
directions and opportunities. Moreover, the findings of this study sug-
gest that IoT research in general needs to open up for a business or
administrative perspective that, for instance, investigates the role of
drivers and barriers with regard to organizational or governmental
implementation and acceptance among citizens, as well as business
model and value creation aspects. In the context of public IoT research,
the latter issues, for instance, pertain to questions of how the IoT can
contribute to public value, who are the key actors involved and so on.
From a methodological perspective, there is a great demand for further
exploratory studies that contribute to and elaborate on a common un-
derstanding of the IoT concept. Considering the heterogeneity of pre-
vious approaches, meta-analyses and review studies systematizing the
so far relatively scattered field of IoT research would also be expedient
and useful to the research community.
Overall, IoT research is still in its infancy and requires further
qualitative and quantitative research to conceptually extend and em-
pirically support the study findings. Nevertheless, this study does some
conceptual spadework with regard to the IoT in the public context and
thus provides a useful foundation for future research.
References
Al-Debei, M. M., El-Haddadeh, R. E., & Avison, D. (2008). Defining the business model in
the new world of digital business. Proceedings of the 14th Americas conference on in-
formation systems (pp. 1–11). (Toronto, ON, Canada).
Al-Qaseemi, S. A., Almulhim, H. A., Almulhim, M. F., & Chaudhry, S. R. (2016). IoT
architecture challenges and issues: Lack of standardization. 2016 future technologies
conference (FTC) (pp. 731–738). San Francisco, CA, USA: IEEE.
Ang, L. M., Seng, K. P., Zungeru, A. M., & Ijemaru, G. K. (2017). Big sensor data systems
for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(5), 1259–1271.
12
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer
Networks, 54(15), 2787–2805.
Bandyopadhyay, D., & Sen, J. (2011). Internet of things: Applications and challenges in
technology and standardization. Wireless Personal Communications, 58(1), 49–69.
Bernsteiner, R., & Schlögl, S. (2017). Design science and ThinkLets as a holistic approach
to design IoT/IoS systems. In L. Uden, W. Lu, & I.-H. Ting (Eds.). Knowledge man-
agement in organizations: 12th international conference, KMO 2017 (pp. 520–533).
Beijing, China. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Boos, D., Guenter, H., Grote, G., & Kinder, K. (2013). Controllable accountabilities: The
internet of things and its challenges for organisations. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 32(5), 449–467.
Bouwman, H. (2003). State of the art on business models. Retrieved December 15, 2017,
from https://de.scribd.com/document/14666/Bouwman-H-2003-State-of-the-Art-
Business-Models.
Cenedese, A., Zanella, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Padova smart city: An urban
internet of things experimentation. Proceeding of IEEE international symposium on a
world of wireless, mobile and multimedia networks 2014 (pp. 1–6). Sydney, Australia:
IEEE.
Chan, H. C. Y. (2015). Internet of things business models. Journal of Service Science and
Management, 8(4), 552–568.
Chen, S., Xu, H., Liu, D., Hu, B., & Wang, H. (2014). A vision of IoT: Applications,
challenges, and opportunities with China perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal,
1(4), 349–359.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation
landscape. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press.
Currie, W. (2004). Value creation from e-business models. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic con-
sistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 227–246.
Dijkman, R. M., Sprenkels, B., Peeters, T., & Janssen, A. (2015). Business models for the
internet of things. International Journal of Information Management, 35(6), 672–678.
Eisenhart, M. A. (1991). Conceptual frameworks for research circa 1991: Ideas from a
cultural anthropologist; implications for mathematics education researchers. In R. G.
Underhill (Ed.). Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the North American chapter of
the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 202–219). (Blacksburg, VA, USA).
Eklund, C., Marks, R. B., Stanwood, K. L., & Wang, S. (2002). IEEE standard 802.16: A
technical overview of the WirelessMAN/sup TM/ air interface for broadband wireless
access. IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(6), 98–107.
Eskelinen, T., Räsänen, T., Santti, U., Happonen, A., & Kajanus, M. (2017). Designing a
business model for environmental monitoring services using fast MCDS innovation
support tools. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11), 36–46.
Friess, P. (2013). Driving European internet of things research. In O. Vermesan, & P.
Friess (Eds.). Internet of things - converging technologies for smart environments and in-
tegrated ecosystems (pp. 1–6). Aalborg, Denmark: River Publishers.
Gomes, J. F., & Moqaddemerad, S. (2016). Futures business models for an IoT enabled
healthcare sector: A causal layered analysis perspective. Journal of Business Models,
4(2), 60–80.
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of things (IoT): A
vision, architectural elements, and future direction. Future Generation Computer
Systems, 29(7), 1645–1660.
Huang, Y., Chen, Z., & Xi, J. (2012). A new RFID tag code transformation approach in
internet of things. Journal of Networks, 7(1), 149–156.
Hudson, D. (2017). Value propositions for the internet of things: Guidance for en-
trepreneurs selling to enterprises. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11),
5–11.
International Telecommunication Union (2012): Series Y: Global information infra-
structure, internet protocol aspects and next-generation networks. Next generation net-
works – frameworks and functional architecture models. Overview of the internet of things.
Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.as-
p?lang=e&id=T-REC-Y.2060-201206-I!!PDF-E&type=items
Jiménez, C. E., Falcone, F., Solanas, A., Puyosa, H., Zoughbi, S., & González, F. (2015).
Smart government: Opportunities and challenges in smart cities development. In Z.
Mahmood, Dolićanin, E. Kajan, D. Randjelović, & B. Stojanović (Eds.). Handbook of
research on democratic strategies and citizen-centered e-government services (pp. 1–19).
IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA.
Johnson, M. W. (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for transformative
growth and renewal. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business Press.
Kennedy, R. (2016). E-regulation and the rule of law: Smart government, institutional
information infrastructures, and fundamental values. Information Polity, 21(1), 77–98.
Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-
based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.
Madakam, S., Ramaswamy, R., & Tripathi, S. (2015). Internet of things (IoT): A literature
review. Journal of Computer and Communications, 3(5), 164–173.
Mahadevan, B. (2004). A framework for business model innovation. Retrieved December
15, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.336.
3723&rep=rep1&ty pe=pdf
McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Understanding and evaluating research: A critical guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
McKinsey Global Institute (2015). The internet of things: Mapping the value beyond the hype.
Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://www.mckinsey.de/files/unlocking_the_
potential_of_the_internet_of_things_full_report.pdf
Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Zhang, J. (2014). Smart government, citizen partici-
pation and open data. Information Polity, 19(1), 1–4.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Miorandi, D., Sicari, S., de Pellegrini, F., & Chlamtac, I. (2012). Internet of things: Vision
B.W. Wirtz et al.
applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 10(7), 1497–1516.
Mitchell, S., Villa, N., Stewart-Weeks, M. & Lange, A. (2013). The internet of everything
for cities: Connecting people, process, data and things to improve the livability of
cities and communities. Edited by CISCO. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from http://
pie.pascalobservatory.org/sites/default/files/ioe-smart-city_pov.pdf
Moore, M. H. (2002). Creating public value: Strategic management in government (7th edi-
tion). Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for vision-
aries, game changers, and challengers. New York, NY, USA: Wiley&Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models: Origins,
present, and future of the concept. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 16(1), 1–25.
Pang, Z., Zheng, L., Tian, J., Kao-Walter, S., Dubrova, E., & Chen, Q. (2015). Design of a
terminal solution for integration of in-home health care devices and services towards
the internet-of-things. Enterprise Information Systems, 9(1), 86–116.
Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are trans-
forming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88.
Qiu, X., Luo, H., Xu, G., Zhong, R., & Huang, G. Q. (2015). Physical assets and service
sharing for IoT-enabled supply hub in industrial park (SHIP). International Journal of
Production Economics, 159, 4–15.
Reddick, C., & Ganapati, S. (2011). Open government achievement and satisfaction in US
federal agencies: Survey evidence for the three pillars. Journal of E-Governance, 34(4),
193–202.
Sample, I. (2017). 'It's able to create knowledge itself': Google unveils AI that learns on its own.
Edited by The Guardian. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://www. the-
guardian.com/science/2017/oct/18/its-able-to-create-knowledge-itself-google-un-
veils-ai-learns-all-on-its-own
Shehabuddeen, N., Probert, D., Phaal, R., & Platts, K. (1999). Representing and ap-
proaching complex management issues: Part 1 - role and definition. Centre for tech-
nology management (CTM) working paper no. 2000/03 (pp. 1–20). .
Sicari, S., Rizzardi, A., Grieco, L. A., & Coen-Porisini, A. (2015). Security, privacy and
trust in internet of things: The road ahead. Computer Networks, 76, 146–164.
Silva, E. M., & Maló, P. (2014). IoT testbed business model. Advances in Internet of Things,
4(4), 37–45.
Suresh, P., Daniel, J. V., Parthasarathy, V., & Aswathy, R. H. (2014). A state of the art
review on the internet of things (IoT) history, technology and fields of deployment.
2014 International Conference on Science Engineering and Management Research
(ICSEMR) (pp. 1–8). Chennai, India: IEEE.
Taylor, S. (2014). How to make money from smart cities. Edited by CISCO. Retrieved
November 21, 2017, from https://blogs.cisco.com/sp/how-to-make-money-from-
smart-cities.
Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2004). The wheel of business model
13
Government Information Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
reinvention: How to reshape your business model to leapfrog competitors. Journal of
Change Management, 4(3), 259–276.
Wirtz, B. W. (2016). Business model management: Design process instruments. Textbook for
the digital society (2nd edition). Speyer, Germany: Amazon Media.
Wirtz, B., & Daiser, P. (2017a). Business model innovation: An integrative conceptual
framework. Journal of Business Models, 5(1), 14–34.
Wirtz, B. W., & Daiser, P. (2017b). E-government: Strategy process instruments. Textbook for
the digital society (2nd edition). Germany: Speyer.
Wirtz, B. W., & Langer, P. F. (2017). Public multichannel management: An integrated
framework of off- and online multichannel government services. Public Organization
Review, 17(4), 563–580.
Wirtz, B. W., Piehler, R., Thomas, M.-J., & Daiser, P. (2015). Resistance of public per-
sonnel to open government. A cognitive theory view of implementation barriers to-
wards open government data. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1335–1364.
Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, de-
velopment and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36–54.
Wunder, G., Jung, P., Kasparick, M., Wild, T., Schaich, F., Chen, Y., ... Wiedmann, F.
(2014). 5GNOW: Non-orthogonal, asynchronous waveforms for future mobile ap-
plications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(2), 97–105.
Xia, F., Yang, L. T., Wang, L., & Vintel, A. (2012). Internet of things. International Journal
of Communication Systems, 25(9), 1101–1102.
Yelamarthi, K., Aman, M. S., & Abdelgawad, A. (2017). An application-driven modular
IoT architecture. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, 2017, 1–16.
Yip, G. S. (2004). Using strategy to change your business model. Business Strategy Review,
15(2), 17–27.
Bernd W. Wirtz holds the Chair for Information and Communication Management at the
German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, Germany. His research interests
include e-business, e-commerce, social media, business model management and e-gov-
ernment. E-Mail: Ls-wirtz@uni-speyer.de
Jan C. Weyerer works as a research associate and is a PhD candidate at the Chair for
Information and Communication Management at the German University of
Administrative Sciences Speyer, Germany. His main research interests are e-business, e-
government, big data and artificial intelligence. Email: weyerer@uni-speyer.de
Franziska T. Schichtel works as a research associate at the Chair for Information and
Communication Management at the German University of Administrative Sciences
Speyer, Germany. Her main research interests are social media, e-health and smart cities.
Email: schichtel@uni-speyer.de