International

Review of
Administrative
Article Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2019, Vol. 85(3) 587–606
In search of smart public ! The Author(s) 2017
governance: the case of Lithuania Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020852317707814
Jurgita Šiugždiniene_ journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Egle_ Gaule_
Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Rimantas Rauleckas
Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Abstract
Faced with rapidly changing economic and societal pressures and complex public policy
problems, governments must respond proactively to new challenges. It is just one of the
characteristics of being smart. This article analyses the recently introduced concept of
smart public governance, a concept that requires better conceptualization. This article
defines the characteristics and criteria of smart public governance and suggests an
instrument for its assessment. Piloting of the methodology at the central government
level in Lithuania suggests that the Lithuanian system of public governance cannot yet be
considered a smart social system. Some characteristics of smartness are already well
expressed, and some positive examples do exist. However, smart public governance is
not yet a part of Lithuania’s government culture.

Points for practitioners

The article advances the concept of smart public governance by discussing and refining
key dimensions of this construct and attempts to operationalize these dimensions and
various sub-dimensions using empirically testable indicators. To demonstrate the poten-
tial of the proposed framework, we present empirical results based on an expert survey
of top public executives in Lithuania. These results, first, provide a theoretically
grounded assessment of smart public governance within the Lithuanian system of cen-
tral government and, second, point to those areas of public governance that need to be
strengthened.

Corresponding author:
Jurgita Šiugždiniene_ , Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities,
A. Mickevičiaus St. 37, LT-44244 Kaunas, Lithuania.
Email: jurgita.siugzdiniene@ktu.lt
588 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

Keywords
collaboration, empowered citizenship, leadership, smart public governance, strategic
dynamics

Introduction
The concept of ‘smart public governance’ (SPG) has only recently appeared in the
scientific literature. Although researchers have been analysing selected facets of the
concept, such as smart systems, smart cities and smart regions, systemic studies are
difficult to find. In most cases, the concept of SPG has been applied to the appli-
cation and development of information and communication technologies (ICT)
in the public sector (Gil-Garcia et al., 2015; Scholl and Scholl, 2014) or as one
component of a smart city/region (Batty et al., 2012; Meijer and Bolı́var, 2015).
The term ‘smart’ is currently utilized in many strategic documents of different
organizations and governments, for example, the EU strategy ‘Europe 2020’ and
the Lithuanian Progress Strategy ‘Lithuania-2030’ emphasize smart growth and
smart public governance. The modernization of public administration is one of
the cornerstones of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth. The notion of SPG relates to other important topics, such as the ability of
governments to address difficult problems (Termeer et al., 2015), to overcome
existing impediments in coordination, leadership and structure (Head
and Alford, 2015), and to provide integrated service delivery (Kernaghan, 2009).
Thus, the notion of SPG requires more substantive discussion and
conceptualization.
The aim of this article is to present a conceptual framework and suggest an
approach for the assessment of SPG. We also aim to present the results of piloting
this methodology in the central government system of Lithuania.
The first section of this article outlines the conceptual framework for SPG. The
second section presents the results of the pilot survey carried out at the central
government level in Lithuania. This section also presents the survey instrument
used to assess the proliferation of different dimensions and characteristics of SPG.
In the third section, the survey results are discussed. Finally, some conclusions and
future steps are outlined.

Conceptual framework for SPG

The suggested methodological framework for assessing the implementation of SPG
was built on the logic described in the following. First, the definition of SPG and its
dimensions, as well as characteristics, were established by examining the notions of
‘smart’, ‘smart development’ and ‘smart social systems’ (Jucevičiene_ and
Jucevičius, 2014) and indicating key conceptual similarities and differences with
similar concepts, such as ‘good governance’, ‘public governance’ and so on (Gaule_
et al., 2014). Second, based on an analysis of the scientific literature (among others,
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 589

Farrell and Goodman, 2013; Kickbusch and Gleicher, 2014; Scholl and Scholl,
2014), we advocate that SPG can be realized through several dimensions.
Finally, a research instrument to assess the implementation of SPG was developed
and piloted: semi-structured expert interviews and an originally developed SPG
inventory with clearly defined and theoretically motivated sub-scales.

Conceptualization of SPG
This section serves as the starting point for the discussion about the need and
substance of an integrative and more comprehensive conceptualization of SPG
as a socio-technical phenomenon. It is difficult to formalize its definition as it
represents an entire governance process, that is, government structures, processes
and procedures.
‘Being smart’ or ‘smartness’ underscores the quality of showing quick intelli-
gence and acting quickly. These capacities in the public sector context are discussed
in academic discourse under the ‘public governance’ label. Due to the complexity
and uncertainty of the environment that governments face today and the multipli-
city and complexity of societal goals, public governance (not just government) is
needed to cope with contingencies, both looking at the whole system and ongoing
interactions between actors and contexts, as well as greater capacity to envisage,
adjust and innovate. This may be defined as ‘being smart’. Public governance refers
to the creation and implementation of activities backed by the shared goals of
society. The public value-based approach allows the multifaceted, interrelated
and dynamic structure of smart governance to be addressed (Castelnovo et al.,
2015). Furthermore, governance is not about what governments do, but more
about the outcomes of interactions between all actors in the public domain
(Bolı́var, 2015). Collaboration platforms – any physical, technological or social
bases on which socio-technical processes are built – are used for this.
The ‘smart city’ concept (Bolı́var, 2015; Castelnovo et al., 2015; Gil-Garcia
et al., 2015), although still contested (Meijer and Bolı́var, 2015), includes govern-
ance as one of its characteristics: the efficiency of the government; citizens’ access to
official documents; the efficient provision of public services; monitoring and mana-
ging public safety; and quick and effective responses in emergency situations
(Bolı́var, 2015; Yin et al., 2015).
Thus, SPG is about the contextual and specific interactions between social struc-
tures and processes using new technologies: the sophisticated process of collecting
all sorts of data and information, as well as proactive and open-minded governance
structures with actors collaborating across departments and with communities
(Meijer and Bolı́var, 2015). Although the concept of SPG is associated with
the use of modern ICT, as the concept of ‘electronic governance’ exemplifies
(Gil-Garcia et al., 2015), ICT is more an integral component and enabler than
the substance of smartness in public governance. In sum, we are proposing the
concept of SPG as the mode of governance that relies on rationally utilizing inter-
nal and external resources, making adequate progress, and making advanced
590 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

decisions relevant to specific circumstances in order to create shared value (Gaule_

et al., 2014), with the goal of making a social system (country, region or city) and
its actors (government, citizens, communities, businesses and non-governmental
organizations) operate effectively in a fast-changing and complex environment.

Substantiation of key dimensions of SPG

Strategic dynamics dimension. Strategic dynamics is defined as leadership ability to
foresee complex political challenges and proactively and flexibly respond to them
to avoid crises; it also requires addressing strategic and structural changes in an
organized and timely manner. Two main characteristics were identified to capture
the dimension of strategic dynamics: strategic insight and sensitivity and resource
flexibility (Doz and Kosonen, 2014; Hämäläinen et al., 2012) (see Table 1).
Strategic insight and sensitivity emphasizes governments’ ability to anticipate the
challenges of a complex and uncertain environment (emerging trends, converging
forces and risks) and to respond rapidly to them (Doz and Kosonen, 2014).
A government organization must systemically carry out an analysis of the external
environment and monitor emerging risks, challenges or opportunities.
Furthermore, public policy decisions should be based on reliable and high-quality
information, that is, they should be evidence-based (Alford and Hughes, 2008;
Meuleman, 2008). To collect reliable data and information, it is important to use
multiple and new sources of information, use advanced ICT, engage outside
experts, consult with various stakeholders, and analyse the experiences of other
countries (Farrell and Goodman, 2013). The speed of strategic decision-making is
also a very important criterion of this characteristic.
Resource flexibility is the ability and capacity of government organizations to
mobilize swiftly and (re)allocate effectively all types of resources (especially finan-
cial and human). Resource allocations should be tied to the government’s strategic
objectives or priorities rather than held hostage to legacy commitments (Doz and
Kosonen, 2014; Šiugždiniene_ and Kirstukaite_ , 2014). Government organizations
should be able to attract the necessary human resources from inside and outside the
system in order to carry out important long-term or short-term projects. In add-
ition, innovative tools in human resource management (HRM), such as ‘talent
pools’, ‘fast-track careers’ and so on, need to exist. Finally, the level of autonomy
that government organizations can exercise in managing their human and financial
resources to achieve results is another important criterion of resource flexibility.

Cross-sector collaboration dimension. Cross-sector collaboration is a form of interaction

between different actors or/and sectors (public, private and non-governmental) that
contributes to public decision-making. It relies on shared information and
resources to achieve the best possible results, which would be impossible when
different organizations and sectors work separately or on their own (Meuleman,
2008; Sorensen and Torfing, 2012). Three main characteristics of this dimension are
facilitative leadership, collaboration platform and shared responsibility (see Table 2).
Šiugždiniene_ et al.
Table 1. Strategic dynamics dimension.
Characteristic Criteria
Strategic insight – Regular monitoring, analysis
and sensitivity and evaluation of external
environment
– Timely measurement of risks,
challenges and opportunities
– Evidence-based strategic
decision-making
– Speed of strategic decision-
making
Resource flexibility – Adaptive systems of financial
resource (re)allocation
– Autonomy level of government
organizations
– HRM system ensures mobility
of HR and the possibility to
attract outside resources
591
Suggested indicators
 External environment changes
and risks are regularly monitored
and evaluated. Monitoring infor-
mation is stored, analysed and
evaluated (regular reports, ICT
tools and systems, normative
documents)
 Regulatory impact assessment
system is institutionalized and
rigorous
 Strategic decisions are made
in compliance with impact
assessment results
 Multiple sources of information
are utilized in the process of
strategic decision-making. These
should include external experts’
consultations and analysis of the
experiences of other countries
 Strategic decisions are made as
planned (on time)
 Prioritization system/mechanism
is active
 Percentage of allocations assigned
to the implementation of stra-
tegic priorities
 Financial resource (re)allocation
procedures are provided
 Government organizations have
autonomy in management of HR
and financial resources
 Government organizations have
the possibility to attract external
and internal resources to imple-
ment long-term and short-term
projects
 Employee rotation and mobility
systems are present and utilized.
Innovative HRM tools are estab-
lished and implemented (‘talent
pools’, ‘fast-track career’, etc.)
592 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)
Table 2. Cross-sector collaboration dimension.
Characteristics Criteria
Facilitative – Leaders demonstrate the
leadership competencies of facilitative
leadership
– Leaders facilitate collaboration
and involve stakeholders
Collaboration – Stakeholders are involved
platform in the process of strategic
decision preparation and
decision-making
– Various collaborative
platforms are available
– Strategic decision-making is
based on negotiation and
consensus
– Strategic decision-making is
based on information/compe-
tence exchange
Shared – Building trust among partners
responsibility in the process of decision-
making
– Shared commitment for deci-
sions made
– Shared understanding of
problems
Suggested indicators
 Leaders act as policy entrepre-
neurs – promote new ideas,
encourage innovations and allow
for mistakes
 Leaders are able to engage
stakeholders in a dialogue and
seek a consensus
 Leaders empower and involve
stakeholders, build trust in the
team
 Leaders demonstrate the ability
to discern trends in the face of
complexity, and to adapt and
capitalize on them (contextual
intelligence)
 Different stakeholders are
involved in and participate in the
process of strategic decision
preparation and decision-making
 Various interactive/collaborative
platforms are established
(working groups, committees,
etc.)
 Representatives of different
stakeholders are authorized to
represent their institution/inter-
ests
 Strategic decisions are made
by consensus
 Participants in the strategic
decision development process
share knowledge, information
and competences
 Stakeholders involved in the
strategic decision development
process trust each other
 Stakeholders share the responsi-
bility for the decisions made and
their implementation
 Participants in the strategic deci-
sion development process share a
similar view, that is, they speak
the same language
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 593

Facilitative leadership is widely seen as a critical ingredient in the process of

cross-sector collaboration. Scholars assert that cross-sector collaboration requires
a specific type of leadership (Ansell and Gash, 2007; Morse, 2008) because leaders
should be policy entrepreneurs. Facilitative leadership is crucial for setting and
maintaining clear ground rules, building trust, facilitating dialogue and exploring
mutual gains (Cufaude, 2004; Schwarz, 2005). Moreover, one critically important
skill has been termed ‘contextual intelligence’ (Kickbusch and Gleicher, 2014).
In developing cross-sector collaboration, governmental institutions play an
important role because they have to initiate this process, that is, they must
create collaboration platforms (working groups, committees, etc.) and ensure the
participation of non-state stakeholders (i.e. from business, the non-governmental
sector, etc.). The collaboration process must be based on negotiation and consen-
sus even if the ultimate decision-making authority lies with governmental institu-
tions (Agranoff and Yildiz, 2007; Ansell and Gash, 2007; Bryson et al., 2009;
McGuire, 2006).
According to Ansell and Gash (2007), in the cross-sector collaboration process,
stakeholders are no longer simply critics of the process; they ‘own’ the decision-
making process, making a shared commitment to the decisions taken. This is done
collectively with other stakeholders who may hold opposing views (Bryson et al.,
2009). This implies one more important criterion: shared responsibility for the deci-
sion. Trust among different stakeholders and shared understanding of the problems
(Bartenberger and Grubmuller-Regent, 2014) are critical aspects.

Inter-institutional collaboration dimension. Working across ministries, departments,

agencies and levels of government in a coordinated, cooperative and collaborative
manner can be considered as vital for SPG (Bakvis and Juillet, 2004; Halligan et al.,
2012; Hopkins et al., 2001; Phillips, 2004). Two important characteristics can be
defined for the implementation of inter-organizational cooperation: platforms for
interaction and the availability of coordination and collaboration competencies (see
Table 3).
To develop inter-institutional collaboration, governments should create appro-
priate mechanisms for collaboration (i.e. interaction platforms: working groups,
commissions, flexible teams, etc.) among governmental institutions to ensure the
achievement of common strategic objectives (Bakvis and Juillet, 2004; Hopkins
et al., 2001; Phillips, 2004). It is important that government institutions go
beyond their institutional boundaries and are able to unite capacities and available
expertise to develop and implement inter-institutional programmes to achieve
common priorities. This requires the sharing of information and expertise, trust
within a group/cooperation platform, and a consensus culture. To achieve this,
facilitative leadership is extremely important.
Successful inter-institutional collaboration depends very much on governments’
abilities, skills and capacities to support collaborative and integrative working
methods (Bouckaert et al., 2010). Inter-institutional collaboration requires collab-
oration competencies to be developed within the civil service as a whole. Public
594 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

Table 3. Inter-institutional collaboration dimension.

Characteristic Criteria Suggested indicators

Interaction – Institutions cooperate across  Horizontal (functional) and inte-

platform policy sectors grated (inter-institutional) pro-
– Flexible/support/hybrid grammes are institutionalized and
structures and teams implemented
are established  Government institutions collaborate
in achieving strategic priorities even
if this undermines the interest of
their own sector/institution
 Government institutions closely
cooperate in the implementation of
inter-institutional programmes
 Inter-institutional interaction plat-
forms (working groups, committees,
etc.) are established to develop and
implement inter-sectoral pro-
grammes
 Representatives of different institu-
tions within the platform are
authorized to represent their
institution and make decisions
 Representatives of different institu-
tions share knowledge, information
and competencies
 Work in the framework of inter-
action platforms is based on collab-
oration and teamwork
 Accountability procedures within
inter-institutional programmes are
established and responsibilities are
delineated
Collaboration – Facilitative leadership and  Leaders understand the importance
competencies collaboration competencies of collaboration and facilitate inter-
– Interoperability of institutional collaboration
performance management  Representatives of different institu-
systems tions participating in the process
trust each other
 Qualification programmes for
civil servants (especially at the
top level) contain training related
to cooperation and collaboration
competencies
 Government institutions have access
to common and integrated informa-
tion systems that allow the exchange
of information
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 595

leaders are expected to rely on interpersonal and inter-organizational processes as

complements to – and sometimes as substitutes for – authority. Nevertheless, gov-
ernments should also integrate interoperable systems of performance management,
such as financial management, human resources and ICT, across governmental
institutions (i.e. shared ICT management infrastructures and common HRM prin-
ciples enable the fast redeployment and sharing of information and human
resources).

Empowered citizenship dimension. Empowered citizenship (Farrell and Goodman,

2013) can be defined as a form of interaction between the government and citizens
in the process of decision-making and the joint development of public services that
is based on government transparency, openness and citizen empowerment. In the
framework of SPG, there is a shift from the information and consultation modality
towards real cooperation between government and citizens, and towards citizen
empowerment. To assess the implementation of this dimension, two key charac-
teristics have been derived: participation opportunities and feedback (see Table 4).
The emergence of empowered citizenship tends to replace the liberal notion of
citizenship that conceives of the citizen as a passive bearer of legal rights (Torfing
and Triantafillou, 2013). Active citizens’ participation requires providing new ways
and forms through which they can express their views and needs, and creating
perfect conditions for citizens to participate in the processes of decision-making
and public service co-creation, that is, creating participation opportunities.
Citizens play an active role in giving critical and constructive opinions on
policies, strategies and services in and through their participation in user boards,
consultation meetings, public hearings and so on (Sorensen and Torfing, 2012).
Receiving quality feedback from government institutions is critical to encourage
citizens’ continued participation and increase citizens’ trust in government
institutions.

Survey instrument and data

The development of the SPG scale follows the standard approach, involving the-
oretical and empirical construct validation (MacKenzie et al., 2011). First, the
dimensions of smartness were conceptualized using the available academic litera-
ture. The concept of SPG was defined via four major dimensions, several sub-
dimensions and possible third-level definitions (indicators). Second, based on the
relevant literature and the expertise available to scale developers, an initial list of
statements was generated that covered the domains of the identified sub-dimen-
sions in a representative way (based on the opinions of the three researchers). The
empirical indicators in the questionnaire are mostly updated or more specific ver-
sions of possible indicators presented in Tables 1–4 and are not presented here in
full due to limited space considerations. Third, to improve face and content valid-
ity, the initial list was critically reviewed several times by the team members, with
some items reworded and overlapping items removed to reduce the length of the
596 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)
Table 4. Empowered citizenship dimension.
Characteristics Criteria
Participation – Appropriate conditions for
opportunities citizens’ participation are
established
– Competence for active
participation developed
Feedback – Citizens receive quality
feedback
– Government is open,
accountable and transparent
Possible indicators
 Communication and public
participation strategies for strategic
government decisions are prepared
and implemented
 Procedures of citizen participation
in the public management processes
are established and prominent
 Various platforms for participation
in the process of strategic decision-
making are available and active (e.g.
public panels, cross-sectoral groups,
focus groups, national forums)
 Programmes and initiatives are
designed and implemented to pro-
mote active citizenship and commu-
nity involvement in the governance
processes (e.g. participation in com-
munity/public organizations, advisory
citizen committees)
 Governments cooperate with differ-
ent citizen communities in the pro-
cess of strategic decision-making
(business, educational, cultural, etc.).
For example, a trilateral council is
established and functional
 Websites of government institutions
are functional: information is easily
accessed (public services, news
provided), transactions are easily
performed (filling in requests and
forms, expressing one’s opinion)
and websites are user-friendly and
translated into several languages,
that is, indexes of e-websites,
e-services
 Government institutions share all
relevant public information through
integrated applications
 Citizens receive adequate answers
and comments regarding their ques-
tions or requests
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 597

instrument. Fourth, a pilot sample of six experts who are currently high-level civil
servants at the Government Chancellery, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry
of Education in Lithuania were approached. The experts filled in the questionnaire
and commented on the relevance, ambiguity and wording of the items. A seven-
point Likert scale was utilized, where the scale middle point is at 4; therefore, scale
averages of 4.5 and above indicate a positive assessment.
A questionnaire composed of 67 Likert-format positively formulated items
was finalized and shared with the target group – managerial staff of central gov-
ernment public administration institutions responsible for the formulation of
public policies, all heads of departments, heads of divisions and subdivisions in
ministries, as well as Chancellery of Government and government institutions. In
total, 500 respondents in top managerial positions were targeted with an online
questionnaire. A personal email was sent to the publicly announced email address
of each member of the population with a non-personalized link to the online survey
hosted by a selected national provider of online survey services. The survey started
on 1 April 2015 and was closed on 30 June 2015. After three reminders, the
response rate reached 30% (149 questionnaires). The response rate was the
lowest for Chancellery of Government, Office of the President and Office of the
Seimas (parliament), resulting in 5.4% of the sample compared to 10.7% in the
population.
In addition, 14 semi-structured interviews with selected experts were carried
out to validate and elaborate on important items within the questionnaire.
Interviewees were high-level civil servants within the Ministries of Interior,
Finance, Environment, Culture and Education (10 experts), the Chancellery of
Government (three experts), and government agencies (one expert).

Results and discussion

The quantitative and qualitative survey aimed to pilot our proposed methodology
by assessing the manifestation of SPG characteristics within the Lithuanian system
of central government. The survey results are presented in Table 5.
The total ‘smartness’ score of the public governance system in Lithuania as rated
by government employees was 4.56 out of 7 (see Table 5). We assume that all
dimensions are of equal importance. Thus, the overall score is only slightly
above the relative limit of 4.5 and very close to the position of ‘difficult to say’.
Interviews with experts suggested that the expressions of the characteristics of SPG
were quite fragmented and unsystematic. Overall, the experts were not more posi-
tive about the manifestation of SPG than were the respondents to the survey. They
indicated that there have been some positive developments and that some best
practice examples can be highlighted. Therefore, it could have been challenging
for the majority of respondents to choose an appropriate response within a Likert
scale: while some positive examples and best practices can be identified, a system-
atic approach is missing. For instance, there are some examples of positive devel-
opments in the area of personnel mobility and this is considered an important
598 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

Table 5. Scores for dimensions and sub-dimensions of SPG.

Dimension Sub-dimension Sub-sub-dimension Mean Sd dev.

1. Strategic dynamism 4.88 1.10

1.1 Strategic insight and sensitivity 4.93 1.32
1.1.1 Monitoring 5.03 1.60
1.1.2 Timeliness 5.13 1.62
1.1.3 Evidence 4.81 1.41
1.1.4 Operativeness 4.75 1.31
1.2 Resource flexibility 4.83 1.10
1.2.1 Adaptivity 5.32 1.17
1.2.2 Autonomy 4.87 1.66
1.2.3 HRM system 4.28 1.16
2. Cross-sectoral collaboration 4.62 1.25
2.1 Facilitative leadership 5.06 1.41
2.1.1 Facilitative leadership 5.04 1.48
2.1.2 Coordinative leadership 5.07 1.40
2.2 Collaboration platform 4.71 1.30
2.2.1 Stakeholders’ involvement 4.50 1.45
2.2.2 Decisions via negotiation/consensus 5.08 1.26
2.2.3 Decisions based on resources exchange 4.55 1.52
2.3 Shared responsibility 4.09 1.48
2.3.1 Mutual trust among partners 4.26 1.56
2.3.2 Shared understanding of problems 3.91 1.57
3. Inter-institutional collaboration 4.86 1.16
3.1 Interaction platform 5.09 1.19
3.1.1 Inter-institutional interaction 5.19 1.35
3.1.2 Decisions in line with long-term strategy 5.25 1.41
3.1.3 Flexible/support structures 4.84 1.19
3.1.4 Accountability/supervision mechanisms 5.07 1.45
3.2 Coordination and collaboration competencies 4.62 1.28
3.2.1 Leadership and coordination capacities 4.91 1.43
3.2.2 Interoperability of performance 4.34 1.61
management systems
4. Empowered citizenship 3.90 1.30
4.1 Citizen participation platform 3.90 1.30
4.1.1 Citizens’ participation in public management 4.38 1.31
4.1.2 Active participation competency 3.42 1.57
5. Horizontal dimensions
5.1 Innovativeness 4.16 1.25
5.2 Continuous improvement 4.52 1.27
5.3 Pragmatic decisions 4.94 1.37
Total SPG (average of 1–4 dimensions) 4.56

Note: N ¼ 149.
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 599

strategy to implement. However, no system has yet been created to encourage

mobility within and across institutions.
The highest overall scores were given to the dimensions of inter-institutional
collaboration (4.9) and strategic dynamism (4.9), as seen in Table 5. Under the
dimension of inter-institutional collaboration, the characteristic of the interaction
platform (5.1) was rated the highest: respondents support the statement that gov-
ernment institutions cooperate in the development and implementation of inter-
institutional action plans and that different interaction platforms are available for
collaboration. Interestingly, interviewed experts were less positive about this.
Almost all declared that while institutions do cooperate in a formal sense, the
success of inter-institutional collaboration is very much dependent on personal
relations and ‘who you know’. If you develop and maintain relationships, it is
easier to ensure inter-institutional collaboration. Interviewees thought that institu-
tional silos are entrenched and that there is a lack of one-government thinking.
Furthermore, several experts described a lack of trust among institutions. This
situation is rated even more negatively in relation to the abilities of institutions
to support collaborative and integrative working methods. The experts emphasized
that there is a positive trend towards facilitative leadership; however, they felt that
there is a lack of opportunities to develop those competencies. Inter-institutional
collaboration requires strong collaboration and cooperation competencies, includ-
ing integrated information systems (financial and HRM). Those characteristics
were rated quite low by the respondents. Although an integrated financial man-
agement system and a document management system have been established, there
is a shortage of common HRM information systems, as confirmed by the
interviewees.
The statistical significance of differences among dimensions, among sub-dimen-
sions within each dimension and among sub-sub-dimensions within each sub-
dimension was checked (39 pairs in total), employing the pairwise Bonferroni
tests (T tests with correction for alpha level: 0.05/c, where c is the number of
comparisons). Among the four major dimensions, only the difference between stra-
tegic dynamism and inter-institutional collaboration is not statistically different
from zero. The averages of lower-level dimensions are statistically significantly
different (p < 0.00128) from each other within every group.
The strategic dynamism dimension (see Table 5) got an overall score of 4.9 out
of 7. Respondents were on average positive (above 4.5) about the characteristic of
strategic insight and sensitivity (4.9). Respondents were most positive about the
regular monitoring of the external environment (5.0) and timeliness (5.1), but less
about the ability to react swiftly and evidence-based decision-making (4.8).
Similarly, experts suggested that there is a lack of analytical and foresight compe-
tencies at the centre of government, and in most situations, institutions act based
on a ‘firefighting’ model (OECD, 2015). In their opinions, quite often the reaction
of government institutions is stimulated by the media or by the discontent of the
public. Experts think that strategic decisions fall behind in rapidly changing situ-
ations. Furthermore, the survey results demonstrate that the regulatory impact
600 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

assessment does not function effectively. The experts indicated that strategic deci-
sions rarely rely on evidence and data analysis; quite often, they are based on
assumptions. Some experts explained that there is a lack of analytical competence
to carry out cost–benefit analyses. These statements are very much in line with the
conclusions of the ‘Regulatory policy review of Lithuania’ report (OECD, 2015).
Respondents were also positive about the resource flexibility characteristic (4.8),
evaluating their institutions’ ability and capacity to mobilize swiftly and reallocate
all types of resources, including financial ones. Respondents were least positive
(4.3) about the flexibility of the HRM system and its ability to attract outside
resources. The experts highlighted that there is no culture and system of mobility
across institutions. Regarding financial resource flexibility, they were in agreement
with the results of the survey; however, the majority indicated that everything
depends on there being enough political will to reallocate resources to implement
strategic priorities.
The cross-sectoral dimension received a score of 4.6. The results demonstrate
that statements under the characteristic of ‘shared responsibility’ were scored
rather low (4.1), which means that stakeholders in the process do not speak one
language or share a commitment to the decisions made. Furthermore, the results
revealed that mutual trust among partners is also quite low (4.3). The experts
outlined that some groups of stakeholders are very active and influential; they
are very good at lobbying. However, the majority of respondents stated that
they quite often defend the narrow interest of their group or associated structure.
The characteristic of facilitative leadership (5.1) received quite high evaluations by
the respondents. Some of the experts stated that the environment impedes the
development of leaders. There is no system to attract and maintain talent. The
lack of opportunities to develop modern leadership competencies was also
mentioned.
The dimension of inter-institutional collaboration is rated as high as strategic
dynamism (4.9), with the processes, mechanisms and structures evaluated very
positively (interaction platform ¼ 5.1), with the lowest score given to the flexibility
of supporting structures (4.8). However, less optimism is expressed towards existing
collaboration competencies (4.6): while leadership and coordination capacities are
positively evaluated (4.9), the respondents felt that institutions lack interoperability
between their performance management systems (4.3).
The dimension of empowered citizenship received the lowest rating (3.9). Some
statements, such as ‘Institutions develop strategies on how they are going to inter-
act with citizens’ (3.3), ‘Citizen interaction is encouraged in our institution’ (3.6)
and ‘We analyse the processes of citizen participation and suggest improvements’
(3.8), were among the 10 lowest-rated statements. The survey shows that there is
insufficient active participation competency (3.4), which relates to limited citizens’
participation in public management (4.4). The majority of experts revealed that the
main forms of interaction with citizens are limited to information provision and
citizens commenting on different legal acts. However, there is no provision for
feedback from citizens in most situations. In the experts’ opinions, there is still
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 601

a long way to go until real citizen participation is achieved. It was also mentioned
that citizens often miss opportunities to express their opinions on certain issues and
that they only engage in the process when decisions have already been made.
Some horizontal characteristics crucial to SPG, such as innovation (4.2),
pragmatism (4.9) and continuous improvement (4.5), were also assessed. The
respondents were not very positive about the presence of these characteristics.
Some statements were rated very low, for instance, ‘Quite often in our institution
we utilize nonstandard approaches’ (4.0) or ‘We apply innovative strategies for
human resource management’ (3.0). The experts interviewed were in agreement
with the results of the survey. They stated that while innovations do occur, they
are not systematic and are not encouraged by the culture of government institu-
tions (OECD, 2016).
In terms of the relatedness of various components of SPG to each other (see
Figure 1), we conclude that empowered citizenship is the least integrated dimension
considering its relatively low correlations with other dimensions (Spearman’s
rho ¼ 0.56–0.62). On the contrary, strategic dynamism, inter-institutional collab-
oration and cross-sectoral collaboration relate to each other consistently stronger
(rho ¼ 0.75–0.78). The horizontal dimensions of innovativeness and pragmatism
also appear to be the least related to empowered citizenship (0.54–0.60, p < 0.01),
compared with other dimensions (0.68–0.79, p < 0.01), though continuous
improvement relates to empowered citizenship similarly (in the range of 0.78–
0.82, p < 0.01). On the other hand, the four major dimensions and three horizontal
dimensions form an empirically unidimensional construct: a single component
using principal component analysis is extracted, explaining 76% of total variance.

Figure 1. Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients (p < 0.01) relating the major dimensions of
the SPG concept.
602 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

Therefore, there is some evidence that the SPG construct is an empirically valid
construct, at least in terms of convergent validity.
A strategic management system was launched in early 2000 and improved in
2009–2012, introducing the performance management framework. Special atten-
tion to the Government Priority System, as well as setting viable policy coordin-
ation mechanisms, was given to support high-level policy deliberations and
enhance responsibility for results. This helped to overcome the lack of linkages
between the political agenda and the strategic planning system, as well as difficul-
ties in influencing the budgeting process in a timely way. It can be considered as a
platform to tackle complex problems, reach joint agreement on the required
resources and find appropriate measures to solve problems. The Lithuanian gov-
ernment system has more experience in strategic planning when encouraging citizen
participation for several reasons. Some Lithuanian senior public servants have
quite well-developed planning skills from the Soviet period. Lithuania has received
significant support from the Canadian government at a very early stage of inde-
pendence and a strategic planning system has been established following their
example. Contrarily, true public participation was erased from the culture of
Soviet Lithuania and it was, and still is, much more difficult to rebuild.

Conclusion
Faced with rapidly changing economic and societal pressures and complex and
difficult public policy problems, governments are required to respond proactively
to these challenges – they need to be smart. This means that they must establish and
maintain a governance system that operates effectively in a rapidly changing and
complex environment, rationally uses its internal and external resources (pragma-
tism), and makes adequate progress (continuous improvement) and advanced deci-
sions (innovation) relevant to specific circumstances in order to create shared value.
Governments need to constantly pursue both new ways of working and continuous
improvement, as well as rely on combinations of different management strategies
depending on circumstances – both networking and inter-institutional, inter-
sectoral collaboration become vital. It becomes extremely important that
stakeholders are ready to contribute to collective decision-making and have the
necessary competencies to participate in networks. To achieve this, governments
should develop and demonstrate certain characteristics that would facilitate the
implementation of SPG.
The pilot survey carried out at the central level of the Lithuanian government
revealed moderate manifestations of SPG. The Lithuanian system of public gov-
ernance cannot yet be considered a smart social system. Based on survey results
and interviews with selected experts, we can conclude that the implementation of
SPG is very fragmented and unsystematic. In most cases, formal/procedural mech-
anisms are present (for instance, working groups, commissions to discuss policy
issues, a legal framework for consultations with citizens, information delivery
mechanisms, etc.); however, a systematic approach and real empowerment are
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 603

lacking. While some positive developments are evident and positive examples can
be identified, SPG is not yet a systematic part of Lithuania’s government culture.
The survey results demonstrate that the biggest challenge for the Lithuanian
system of governance is related to breaking the borders of government institutions,
that is, breaching institutional boundaries and empowering citizens and other
actors. The Lithuanian government and its institutions still function in a traditional
mode of public governance, utilizing the government-centric approach to achieving
public results (Meijer and Bolı́var, 2015). The shift from the information and con-
sultation modality towards real interaction between government and citizens in the
process of decision-making or joint service delivery is still at a very early stage of
maturity in Lithuania. Based on the survey, this is reinforced by lack of mutual
trust among partners and relatively low levels of trust of Lithuanian citizens in the
government institutions of Lithuania.
An extremely important horizontal dimension of SPG – innovation – was also
rated quite low. This reinforces the challenge of real interaction and collaboration
with citizens and partner organizations. It is evident that cross-sectoral, inter-insti-
tutional collaboration and citizens’ empowerment should be supported with
advanced and innovative ICT, such as sophisticated processes of exchanging all
sorts of data and information, providing quality feedback, integrating performance
management systems, and so on. However, those elements are not yet sufficiently
developed. Furthermore, non-traditional ways of thinking and decision-making are
not encouraged in Lithuanian government institutions.
In general, public organizations could be featured as conditionally closed
systems that tend to focus on inner processes and lack sufficient capabilities to
collaborate with the non-governmental sector and citizens. Therefore, the develop-
ment of public policies through strategic planning processes faces a shortage of
collaboration with stakeholders and society at large.
These survey results provide a strong background for policy discussions of pos-
sible strategies for strengthening Lithuania’s system of public governance. It is
expected that this methodology may become the roadmap for governance reform
when pursuing SPG. However, this conceptual framework has its limitations and
poses some questions for further research: the pilot survey suggested that it requires
some streamlining and revision; the horizontal characteristics require more atten-
tion within the framework; it is important to expand the respondent base to gov-
ernment stakeholders and community leaders; and further investigation should
explore the interconnectedness of key SPG dimensions in a causal manner.

References
Agranoff R and Yildiz M (2007) Decision making in public management networks.
In: Morcol G (ed.) Handbook of Decision Making. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Alford J and Hughes O (2008) Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public man-
agement. American Review of Public Administration 38(2): 130–148.
Ansell C and Gash A (2007) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 543–571.
604 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

Bakvis H and Juillet L (2004) The Horizontal Challenge, Line Departments, Central Agencies
and Leadership. Ottawa: Canada School of Public Service.
Bartenberger M and Grubmuller-Regent V (2014) The enabling effects of open government
data on collaborative governance in smart city context. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open
Government 6(1): 36–48.
Batty M, Axhausen KW, Giannotti F, et al. (2012) Smart cities of the future. European
Physical Journal 214: 481–518.
Bolı́var MPR (2015) Smart cities: Big cities, complex governance? In: Bolı́var MPR (ed.)
Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities. Vol. 8: Public Administration
and Information Technology Series, Springer, pp. 1–8.
Bouckaert G, Peters BG and Verhoest K (2010) The Coordination of Public Sector
Organizations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM, et al. (2009) Designing and Managing Cross-Sector
Collaboration: A Case Study in Reducing Traffic Congestion. IBM Center for the
Business of Government.
Castelnovo W, Misuraca G and Savoldelli A (2015) Smart cities governance: The need for a
holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Social Science
Computer Review 1–16.
Cufaude J (2004) The art of facilitative leadership: Maximizing others’ contribution. The
System Thinkers 15(10). Available at: http://asae.cms-plus.com/files/FileDownloads/
HandOuts/SmallPrograms/Pre-Reading%20December%20Facilitation.pdf (accessed 15
July 2016).
Doz Y and Kosonen M (2014) Governments for the Future: Building the Strategic and Agile
State. Sintra Studies Publications.
Farrell D and Goodman A (2013) Government by design: Four principles for a better public
sector. McKinsey Company. Available at: www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/
government_by_design_four_principles_for_a_better_public_sector (accessed 2 July
2015).
Gaule_ E, Šiugždiniene_ J and Buškevičiute_ J (2014) The need of smartness in public govern-
ance. In: Proceedings of the 8th Scientific Conference ‘Business and Management 2014’.
Vilnius: Technika, pp. 895–902.
Gil-Garcia JR, Pardo TA and Nam T (2015) What makes a city smart? Identifying core
components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization.
Information Polity 20: 61–87.
Halligan J, Buick F and O’Flynn J (2012) Experiments with joint-up, horizontal and whole-
of-government in anglophone countries. In: Massey A (ed.) International Handbook on
Civil Service Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hämäläinen T, Kosonen M and Doz YL (2012) Strategic Agility in Public Management:
New Perspectives from INSEAD-Sitra. INSEAD, The Business School of the World.
Head BW and Alford J (2015) Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and man-
agement. Administration & Society 47(6): 711–739.
Hopkins M, Couture C and Moore E (2001) Moving from the heroic to the everyday:
Lessons learned from leading horizontal projects. Available at: http://publications.gc.
ca/collections/Collection/SC94-81-2001E.pdf (accessed 2 July 2015).
Jucevičiene_ P and Jucevičius R (2014) What does it mean to be smart? In: Proceedings of the
8th Scientific Conference ‘Business and Management 2014’. Vilnius: Technika.
Šiugždiniene_ et al. 605

Kernaghan K (2009) Moving towards integrated public governance: Improving service

delivery through community engagement. International Review of Administrative
Sciences 75(2): 239–254.
Kickbusch I and Gleicher D (2014) Smart governance for health. In: Kickbusch I and
Gleicher D (eds) Smart Governance for Health and Well-being: The Evidence.
Denmark: World Health Organization.
McGuire M (2006) Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we
know it. Public Administration Review 66(Special Issue): 33–43.
MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM and Podsakoff NP (2011) Construct measurement and
validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing
techniques. MIS quarterly 35(2): 293–334.
Meijer A and Bolı́var MPR (2016) Governing the smart city: A review of the literature
on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82(2):
392–408.
Meuleman L (2008) Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks
and Markets: The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations.
Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Morse RS (2008) Developing public leaders in an age of collaborative governance. In: Morse
RS and Buss TF (eds) Innovations in Public Leadership Development. Armonk, NY: ME
Sharpe, pp. 79–100.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2015) Regulatory
policy review of Lithuania. GOV/RPC (2015) 5, Public Governance and Territorial
Development Directorate, Regulatory Policy Committee.
OECD (2016) OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Lithuania 2016. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Phillips S (2004) The myths of horizontal governance: Is the third sector really a partner?
Available at: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/working_papers_
toronto/phillips.susan.pdf (accessed 10 July 2015).
Scholl HJ and Scholl MC (2014) Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice.
iConference 2014 Proceedings, Illinois, ischools. pp. 163–176.
Schwarz R (2005) Using facilitative skills in different roles. In: Schwarz R and Davidson A
(eds) The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook: Tips, Tools, and Tested Methods for Consultants,
Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
pp. 27–32.
Šiugždiniene_ J and Kirstukaite_ I (2014) Dealing with wicked problems: Government priority
system as a tool for engaging leadership and focusing on changes. Social Sciences 86(4):
33–43.
Sorensen E and Torfing J (2012) Collaborative innovation in the public sector. The
Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 17(1): 1–14.
Termeer CJ, Dewulf A, Breeman G, et al. (2015) Governance capabilities for dealing wisely
with wicked problems. Administration & Society 47(6): 680–710.
Torfing J and Triantafillou P (2013) What’s in a Name? Grasping new public governance as
a political administrative system. International Review of Public Administration 18(2):
9–25.
Yin CT, Xiong Z, Chen H, et al. (2015) A literature survey on smart cities. Science China:
Information Sciences 58(10): 1–18.
606 International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(3)

Jurgita Šiugždiniene_ is Professor at Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of

Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Lithuania. Her research interests are stra-
tegic management, civil service reform and state development strategies.

Egle_ Gaule_ is Professor at Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Social

Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Institute of Public Policy and Administration,
Lithuania. Her research interests are public financial management, public govern-
ance decentralization, local economic development, public services delivery and
public reforms management.

Rimantas Rauleckas is Professor at Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of

Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Institute of Public Policy and
Administration, Lithuania. His research interests are social science methodology
and public policy analysis.