IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/ynt46.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Neue Technologien im öffentlichen Sektor: Bürgerinnen und Bürger haben nur geringe Erwartungen

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Caroline
  • Willems, Jurgen
  • Van den Bergh, Joachim

Abstract

Aktuelle technologische Entwicklungen (z.B. künstliche Intelligenz) führen immer wieder zu Debatten, wie diese sinnvoll für die öffentliche Verwaltung genutzt werden können. Die Verwaltung selbst und entsprechende Expertinnen und Experten diskutieren mögliche positive Wirkungen auch in Bezug auf Werte, wie Effizienz, Transparenz oder Fairness. Diese Studie untersucht, ob Bürgerinnen und Bürger von der Anwendung dieser Technologien in der öffentlichen Verwaltung ebensolche Wirkungen ebenso erwarten. Dabei wird auch analysiert, ob eine andere Erwartungshaltung als bei gewinnorientierten Unternehmen besteht. Die Befragungsergebnisse (N=1.577) zeigen, dass weder negative noch positive Erwartungen in Bezug auf Wirkungen dieser Technologien bestehen, das gilt für öffentliche wie für die privatwirtschaftliche Leistungserbringung. Es wird diskutiert, ob die Ergebnisse in der bisher mangelnden Anwendung der untersuchten Technologien begründet liegen oder aus einer unzureichenden Kommunikation mit und Einbindung von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in entsprechende Planungs- und Implementationsprozesse resultieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Caroline & Willems, Jurgen & Van den Bergh, Joachim, 2021. "Neue Technologien im öffentlichen Sektor: Bürgerinnen und Bürger haben nur geringe Erwartungen," OSF Preprints ynt46, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ynt46
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ynt46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6073fd0bf2ad3304faa7632b/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ynt46?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nikolaus Franke & Peter Keinz & Katharina Klausberger, 2013. "“Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?”: Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual’s Decision to Participate in Firm Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1495-1516, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    2. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Ben-Menahem, Shiko M. & Franke, Nikolaus & Füller, Johann & von Krogh, Georg, 2021. "Treading new ground in household sector innovation research: Scope, emergence, business implications, and diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    3. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    4. L. G. Pee, 2016. "Customer co-creation in B2C e-commerce: does it lead to better new products?," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 217-243, June.
    5. Franke, Nikolaus & Schirg, Florian & Reinsberger, Kathrin, 2016. "The frequency of end-user innovation: A re-estimation of extant findings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1684-1689.
    6. Anna S. Cui & Fang Wu, 2016. "Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 516-538, July.
    7. Täuscher, Karl, 2017. "Leveraging collective intelligence: How to design and manage crowd-based business models," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 237-245.
    8. Saleh M. Bajaba & Abdulah M. Bajaba & Abdulrahman S. Basahal, 2021. "Can Powerful Boards Increase Firm Innovativeness When Faced with Exploitative CEOs?," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(11), pages 171-171, July.
    9. Christoph Riedl & Tom Grad & Christopher Lettl, 2024. "Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: What happens when peers evaluate each other?," Papers 2404.14141, arXiv.org.
    10. Long, Thomas B. & Blok, Vincent, 2018. "Integrating the management of socio-ethical factors into industry innovation: towards a concept of Open Innovation 2.0," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    11. Jae-Yeoup Kim & Jang-Ho Choi, 2022. "The Impact of Adaptation-Oriented HRM on Exploration: Mediating Effects of Self-Organization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    13. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2019. "Jack of All, Master of Some: Information Network and Innovation in Crowdsourcing Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 389-410, June.
    14. Tekic, Anja & Alfonzo Pacheco, Diana Vilma, 2024. "Contest design and solvers' engagement behaviour in crowdsourcing: The neo-configurational perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Wang, Ding & Guo, Peng & Kilgour, D. Marc & Ponnambalam, Kumaraswamy & Hipel, Keith W., 2022. "The evolution of R&D collaboration in inter-organizational project networks: Effects of reference points for competitive preference," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 591(C).
    16. Ho-Dac, Nga N., 2020. "The value of online user generated content in product development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 136-146.
    17. Jürgen Bitzer & Ingo Geishecker & Philipp J. H. Schröder, 2017. "Is there a wage premium for volunteer OSS engagement? – signalling, learning and noise," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(14), pages 1379-1394, March.
    18. Dargahi, Rambod & Namin, Aidin & Ketron, Seth C. & Saint Clair, Julian K., 2021. "Is self-knowledge the ultimate prize? A quantitative analysis of participation choice in online ideation crowdsourcing contests," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Danping Liu & Hedan Fang & Yuanmao Tang & Salmi Mohd Isa & Jinquan Tang, 2023. "Intelligent Technology Solutions and Banking Efficiency: The Impacts of Institutional Innovation and Consumer Participation," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    20. Pankaj Kumar & Swanand J. Deodhar & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Cognitive sources of liability of foreignness in crowdsourcing creative work," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(4), pages 686-716, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ynt46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.