Strategizing and collaborating in the digital transformation of public administration

Abstract

The purpose of this special issue is to deepen our theoretical understanding and empirical exploration of the interrelations of digital transformation, collaborative governance and how government strategies at multiple levels address and shape these interrelationships. The special issue is based on an open call for papers and also brings together selected research findings from three EU-funded research projects (TROPICO, Co-VAL, and COGOV). All three were part of CULT-COOP-11-2016-2017, a call for research projects that emphasized the interconnection between the development of collaborative governance forms and digitalization initiatives with strategic management approaches.

Keywords

strategizing digital transformation collaborative governance strategic management public administration

Rationale

This special issue aims to enhance our understanding of the specific challenges, dynamics, and complexities that characterize various forms of collaboration in the context of strategic management and digital transformation within public services. It includes analyses of intergovernmental collaboration – both between government organizations and across different levels of government – as well as collaboration with external non-governmental actors, including consultancies, technology providers, service users and civil society organizations. By bringing together three perspectives on recent innovations in the public sector – digital transformation, collaborative governance, and strategic management (Ansell and Gash 2008; Bryson et al. 2006) – this special issue offers an integrated approach to how public services are being transformed in an increasingly complex and interconnected governmental and societal landscape. We begin with an introduction to these three perspectives and how they interconnect to each other.

Digital transformation

Over the last decades, digitalization has profoundly transformed government organizations – significant enough that some scholars argue it has ushered a new governing paradigm – Digital Era Governance (Dunleavy et al., 2005). Watershed technological disruptions, further reinforced by recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI), have led to a renewed emphasis on collaborative approaches to public sector innovation (e.g., Osborne 2010; Sørensen and Torfing 2011). Digital Era Governance (DEG - Margetts and Dunleavy 2013) implies a clear shift from a New Public Management (NPM frame around the notions of specialization, incentivization and marketisation, and it emphasizes reintegration of organizations through joined-up government, needs-based holism and collaborative governance, which DEG is allegedly suited for. It emphasizes, as the New Public Governance (NPG) or Network Governance (NG) models (Ferlie and Ongaro 2022; Osborne 2010), that public sector organizations need to actively engage clients, community stakeholders, and businesses in co-developing and implementing innovative strategies of service delivery.

Despite the increasing importance of collaborative arrangements within government digitalization, the two research fields are still rather separate. There are many unanswered questions about how public organizations should govern and organize collaborative processes within Information and Communication Technology (ICT) projects and the broader processes of digital transformation (Lopes and Farias 2020; but see Verhoest et al., 2024). While collaboration in the context of digital transformation is essentially no different from non-ICT collaboration, ICT projects typically involve large financial investments, deeply entrenched legal rules of accountability, a high failure rate, and the need to manage high-level, strategic goals for implementation (Anthopoulos et al., 2016; Luna-Reyes et al., 2021; Mergel 2016; Neumann et al., 2019). Many large-scale ICT projects not only represent radical technical and subsequent organizational change of a transformational nature (Cordella and Paletti 2019), but also require substantial collaborative approaches and institutional and cultural changes for their success (Ku et al. 2016; Rykkja et al., 2024; Van Winden and van Den Buuse 2017). This consideration brings us to considering the perspective of collaborative governance.

Collaborative governance

The drive to develop forms of collaborative governance, co-production and co-creation has its roots also beyond a technological perspective. Contemporary approaches to public leadership and strategic decision-making within public service organizations – both within government and the third sector – have also played a central role in promoting new forms of collaboration in public service delivery (Ferlie and Ongaro, 2022; Ongaro et al., 2021; Torfing et al., 2021; Verhoest et al., 2024). Internal and external collaboration networks can enhance the connections between stakeholders’ capabilities and help to align problem-solving efforts, thereby stimulating technological innovation and increasing the impact of digital transformation initiatives (Callens et al., 2022; Callens and Verhoest, 2023; Camarinha-Matos et al., 2019). While collaboration may occur also beyond technological innovation and it is not a necessary requirement for innovation to occur, it can perform an enabling function and lead to more and better technological innovations in public services.

Nevertheless, collaboration within and between governments, and between governments and external stakeholders (such as companies, non-profit organizations and citizens), remains difficult to achieve. Network complexity, power imbalances, and increased risks often hinder effective collective action (Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2015; Torfing, 2019). These factors are further exacerbated by contextual differences across jurisdictions and policy sectors. Collaboration in digital transformation projects is further complicated by the diversity of stakeholders involved, as well as the content, resources, and knowledge required for success (Picazo-Vela et al., 2018). Therefore, connecting collaborative governance with digitalization requires careful attention to strategic management across multiple organizational and governmental levels (Verhoest et al., 2024a).

Strategic management

A better understanding of the dynamics of collaboration and digital transformation, and how these are addressed by government strategies, has become crucial. Digital transformation and collaborative governance place new demands on strategy formulation and the development of transformation strategies to proactively address these challenges and build the necessary capacities (Hammerschmid et al., 2019; OECD, 2014). In a European context, it is important to situate the study of strategic management within the macro level context. One approach for this is by using public management governance models, such as Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management and New Public Governance (Osborne, 2010; Pollitt and Geert, 2017), to analyse the transformative effects of administrative reforms (or the absence thereof) and how they shape the context within which strategic management in public service organisation occurs (Ferlie and Ongaro, 2022, chapter 7).

At the meso-level of public service organizations and networks, strategic management has become a reference discipline for the advancement of this area of research and practice across diverse contextual conditions (Ferlie and Ongaro, 2022; Ongaro et al. 2024). Understanding ‘the dynamics of complex issues and systems that no single organisation can address effectively, and then working to clarify a set of interrelated changes that would make a significant difference in bringing about desired outcomes’ has been called ‘strategy management-at-scale’ (Bryson et al. 2024: 53; see also Ongaro et al., 2025). Strategies are also relevant to study at the micro level, such as the level of professionals and managers and their relationships with in- and external partners and clients in co-creation (Van Gestel, Kuiper, and Hendrikx 2019). A key argument in this special issue is therefore that the field of strategic management can provide conceptual tools for the study of change and transformation in public services across levels of analysis and shed light on processes of collaborative governance and digital transformation (see also Ongaro and Steven, 2025).

This special issue addresses all three the thematic areas in an interconnected way. In the next section we provide an overview of the special issue articles.

Overview of the articles in this special issue

The special issue consists of ten articles. These are divided into three groups related to their main focus on digital transformation, collaborative governance and strategic management (see Table 1, second column).

Table 1.

Overview of the special issue articles.

Authors	Focus	Sector	Country	Cases	Level	Methods
Breaugh et al.	Digital transformation	Diverse	4 European countries	8 digital projects	National and local	50 interviews with experts
Buyannemekh et al.	Digital transformation, collaboration	Public libraries	United States	220 public libraries	Local	Survey
Gleiß et al.	Digital transformation	Education	Germany	The digital education platform	National	Case study,10 interviews, 2 workshops
Weismuller et al.	Digital transformation	Local government	Switzerland	720 municipalities	Local	Survey data
Callens et al.	Collaborative innovation – Users’ views	Healthcare	5 European countries	19 public-private eHealth collaborations	Networks (public-private)	Q - methodology, 61 service users
Torfing et al.	Co-creation & innovation	Diverse	6 European countries	Six co-creation projects	Local	Design experiments, mixed methods
Langbroek et al.	Collaboration & innovation	Care and healthcare	Belgium	Two collaborative innovation projects	National and local	Social network analysis and Exponential Random graph model analysis
Van gestel et al.	Strategy, co-creation, multi-level analysis	Diverse	6 European countries	14 co-creation projects	National and local	Focus groups & interviews, with 107 professionals, 26 managers
Kitchener et al.	Co-creation & public value strategy	Culture	Wales, UK, Cardiff	Heritage centre	Local	14 interviews, documents
Regal et al.	Co-creation, strategy, leadership	Digital government, museums	Slovenia, Denmark	Municipality, 10 museums	Local	20 interviews with diverse stakeholders

The first set of articles focuses on digitalization as the key driver of collaboration, with the ultimate goal of creating public value. The articles respond to the critique of a long-running tendency within public administration to marginalize technological factors (Margetts and Dunleavy 2013) – albeit recent research is indeed addressing this area quite systematically. The second set of articles examines the intersection between collaborative forms of governance – such as co-creation and co-production – and public sector innovation. These articles investigate how collaborative dynamics function as drivers of innovation in public services. The third set of articles centres on strategic management and strategizing in public administration and public service organisations. Here, the focus is on how strategic management practices can serve as key levers for enabling co-creation and, in turn, fostering public value creation. A key thread interconnecting the three clusters of articles is public innovation and (often at least) transformative change in public services, with the drivers of change (broadly intended) being, respectively, digital transformation, (engagement in forms of) collaborative governance, and strategic management and strategizing. Cross-cutting lessons that can be drawn from the joint consideration of the special issue articles are presented in the final section.

An overview of the articles is reported in Table 1.

Methods-wise, the articles in this special issue employ a diverse methodological repertoire. The portfolio includes in-depth qualitative studies – drawing on methods such as focus groups, case studies and Q methodology – alongside conventional quantitative analyses (like Buyannemekh et al., 2026 and Weißmuller et al., 2026). It also features newer approaches, including Exponential Random Graph Models based on social network data and experimental design. An overview of the methodological distribution is provided in Table 1.

Country/jurisdiction-wise, the contributions mainly focus on European contexts. Most cases are drawn from EU member states, complemented by studies from Switzerland and Wales (outside the EU) as well as selected cases from the United States. The collection includes both single-country analyses and comparative, multi-country studies – thereby enabling sensitivity to contextual variation across jurisdictions and policy environments (Ongaro, 2026).

In the remainder of this section, we summarise the main findings of each article, necessarily in a succinct way. The next and final section presents key findings of the special issue through a comprehensive analysis of the results of the ten articles contained in this issue.

Articles on digital transformation as a tool for collaboration/co-creation

Breaugh et al. (2026): Deconstructing complexity: A comparative study of government collaboration in national digital platforms and smart city networks in Europe.

This article provides a more nuanced and empirical understanding of complexity as a salient component and challenge of collaborative digitalization projects. It explores how different types of complexity pose a challenge to government digital transformation endeavours and how these types of complexity interact within the collaboration process. The article uses Klijn and Koppenjan’s (2015) theoretical framework of substantive, strategic and institutional complexity to deconstruct complexity within collaborative digital government efforts. The article provides empirical evidence from eight digital projects in four different countries – both central government digital platform and local government smart city projects- and uses a cross-case design with 50 semi-structured expert interviews to explore the complexity challenges of these projects. The findings confirm the relevance of all forms of complexity across projects and demonstrate that these complexities are overlapping and interdependent and pose important collaborative challenges, which need a careful network management to be dealt with (Rykkja et al., 2024). They also show that digitalization tends to intensify the interconnectedness of the different types of complexity. The authors find clear differences between national and local government projects, suggesting that complexity in digitalization projects substantially varies across contexts and tends to be higher in national-level projects. Breaking down complexity into its different parts also allows for finding relevant mechanisms and interventions to cope with the complexity challenges and dynamics of collaborative government digitalization.

Buyannemekh et al. (2026) - Exploring Emergent Collaborations for Digital Transformation in Local Governments: The Engagement of Public Libraries in the Development of Smart Cities

Buyannemekh et al. (2026) stress the pivotal role of organizational capabilities, specifically strategic leadership and collaboration, in achieving digital transformation. Focusing on local government collaboration for digital transformation, particularly involving public libraries in smart city initiatives, the authors conduct a US-based survey to explore factors influencing collaboration extent and effectiveness. The study finds that public libraries generally perceive their collaborations as effective, with formal agreements broadening stakeholder involvement and increasing confidence in their impact on smart city development. Historical collaborations with diverse stakeholders are prime actors for continued successful collaboration. Furthermore, leadership significantly enhances partnership outcomes and influences collaboration extent. While financial incentives can initiate collaboration, they do not necessarily enhance perceived effectiveness in the context of smart cities. Success in collaborations therefore mainly relies on effective leadership and past collaborative experiences, and although financial incentives are important, they may not guarantee better outcomes or sustained partnerships.

Gleiß et al. (2026) - Governance Principles and Regulatory Needs for a National Digital Educational Platform

This article studies the establishment of a national digital education platform in Germany (NDEP), designed to enhance digital accessibility in education. The platform successfully connects stakeholders, fosters collaboration, and contributes to the creation of new digital services within the education sector. Drawing from public policy and administration, digital education, and platforms research, Gleiß et al. (2026) conduct a detailed qualitative analysis, addressing the platform’s architecture, functions, and values. They identify regulatory conflicts, emphasizing the platform’s role as an intermediary and motor for enhancing interoperability among education actors. Access for relevant groups and integration orchestration is crucial, and the authors find varying opinions on the platform’s level of active support. Conflicts arise over service scope, including innovation and market functions, influenced by both internal (openness, service diversity) and external factors (state role, funding, and steering). The findings illuminate crucial governance and infrastructure aspects of public-private platforms facilitating innovation and collaboration in education. However, concerns arise about the platform’s potential monopolization of educational services, posing a risk of power misuse. A purposeful orchestration of private and public stakeholders by the state is an important part of this.

Weißmuller et al. (2026) - Collaborating and Co-creating the digital transformation: Empirical evidence on the crucial role of stakeholder demand from Swiss municipalities

This article investigates digital-era governance challenges in municipal administrations, focusing on the collaborative capacity and organizational maturity for co-creation. Analyzing survey data from 720 Swiss municipalities uncovers factors influencing their engagement in digitalization-related collaborations. External factors, including stakeholder demand and impulses from digital change agents, significantly impact municipal involvement in digitalization-related collaborations. The study identifies barriers, such as organizational inertia and overconfidence, and success factors, such as external stakeholder demand and disruptive impulses. It emphasizes the importance of collaborative capacity and challenges the assumption that intra-organizational factors alone drive collaborative efforts. The findings contribute novel insights to theory, practice, and policy design, highlighting the role of both intra and extra-organizational factors in shaping collaborative efforts for digital transformation. The study sheds light on Switzerland’s unique participatory culture and underlines the catalytic role of external impulses, providing a comprehensive understanding of challenges and drivers in Swiss municipalities’ collaborative digital transformation.

Articles on collaboration

Callens et al. (2026) - How service users envision their engagement in processes of collaborative innovation: A Q-methodological study on user involvement in eHealth collaborations

In their engaging study, Callens et al. (2026) explore the diverse perspectives of service users on their roles in collaborative innovation arrangements, a realm fraught with challenges due to the varying expectations on user engagement. They delve into the dynamics of user-provider interaction within service innovation, identifying four theoretical roles: legitimators, customers, partners, and self-organizers. Through Q-methodology applied to service users across 19 eHealth public-private partnerships in five European countries, they unveil three distinct, hybrid profiles of user involvement: service consultants, co-designers, and hands-off supporters. Their study brings to the special issue the multifaceted views on user participation, held by service users themselves, underscoring its impact on both expectations and behaviors in innovation processes. The study underscores the critical need for innovators and governments, especially in complex public-private endeavors, to understand and harness these different user viewpoints on their own role to fully leverage the benefits of user involvement in innovation.

Torfing et al. (2026) - Reaping the fruits of co-creation through design experiments

The article by Torfing et al. (2026) takes a design orientation to delineate the processes whereby researchers and practitioners may engage in an interactive research strategy and work together to conduct design experiments aimed at improving the design of a co-creation process. Their contribution brings to this special issue an element of social engineering and a path for researchers in this field to engage with practitioners, to ultimately produce research which is designed to be impactful. Importantly, in design experiments, the impact of the interventions is measured by comparing the participants assessment of goal achievement before and after their application, thereby not requiring parallel trials nor control groups for their implementation. This article thus provides a strategic approach as well as a methodological path to put into effect interventions of co-creation in a context-sensitive way. It shares with other articles on co-creation and digitalization the advocacy for joint knowledge production by scholars and practitioners.

Langbroek and Verhoest (2026) - Explaining interactions in collaborative innovation arrangements. How organizations influence their members’ representatives’ interactions in collaborative innovation arrangements.

Studying the interactions within collaboration innovation arrangements which tackle wicked issues, Langbroek and Verhoest dive into the largely uncharted waters of how organizations shape their members’ interactions within such networks. Using the lens of social network analysis and inferential statistics with an Exponential Random Graph Model (ERGM) in their study of two arrangements in social care and healthcare policy areas in Belgium, they uncover that an organization’s support and the autonomy it grants its representatives to act in such arrangements are key drivers in fostering enthusiastic engagements with other innovation partners. They highlight that when the top management values the innovation project and when representatives have the freedom to maneuver, interaction intensifies. Furthermore, the roles of reciprocity and network coordination emerge as pivotal in steering these collaborative exchanges. This study sheds light on the crucial influence organizations holds in the dance of collaborative innovation.

Articles on strategy and co-creation

Van Gestel et al. (2026) - Strategies and transitions to public sector co-creation across Europe

Van Gestel et al. (2026) address the need for theoretical and empirical comparisons to better understand how models for public and strategic management are shaped in co-creation between public actors, citizens and other parties. They analysed 14 co-creation projects across Europe based on data from (group) interviews with 107 frontline professionals and 26 public managers. Findings show that macro public management models of TPA, NPM and NPG do not provide sufficient explanation for the way in which co-creation develops. Contrary to expectations, it turned out also that a strategic planning approach seems to be a prerequisite for co-creation, even in countries that are used to networking and participation. Finally, the article highlights that despite the many differences, local participants in co-creation encounter remarkably similar barriers across Europe. They point to public leaders’ support and a transformation of the vertical organisation within the public sector as important prerequisites for co-creation with citizens and third parties.

Kitchener et al. (2026) - Co-created public value: The strategic management of collaborative problem-solving

This article contributes significantly to advancing both conceptual and empirical understanding of co-created public value within the framework of the public value model of strategic management. Employing a theoretical elaboration approach, the study refines and updates theoretical and empirical knowledge through successive case analyses of co-created public value, emphasizing mid-range theoretical tools over testable propositions. Drawing from Ferlie and Ongaro’s analysis of strategic public management models, the article explores the integration of co-creation into models of strategic management, particularly addressing the question of accommodating broader involvement in public services. The argument underscores the indispensability of co-creation in public value models due to its implicit alignment with delivering valuable services, securing legitimacy, and meeting public expectations. A sensitizing model was discussed and illustrated with a case study of a Welsh community development organization, offering theoretical insights and empirical examples, exemplifying the practical application of co-created public. The article thus significantly enhances the understanding of co-created public value in the context of strategic management models.

Regal et al. (2026) - Governance Modes, Mayoral Leadership and transitions to public sector co-creation across Europe

Regal et al. (2026) clarify how different public management models such as TPA or NPG can influence political leaders’ attempts to lead co-creation. While proponents of co-creation emphasize the influence of political leaders in facilitating co-creation, empirical evidence across contexts is limited. The article focuses on how co-creation plays out in two cities, examining the role of local political leadership, especially mayors. Two examples were selected that reflect a different national tradition of public management. The first case concerns the Digital Service for Citizens’ Initiatives in Slovenia, where a mayor uses a hierarchical, TPA-like approach but strongly supported a digital platform for co-creation. The second case involved a mayor in an NPG-context of Denmark who collaborated on establishing a physical platform for co-creation within a network of museums, but with only limited success so far. These two examples illustrate how macro contexts shape the use of co-creation by political leaders in surprising ways.

Selected key findings

The set of articles of the present special issue provides a wide range of findings about the dynamic interplay of forms of digital transformation, collaborative governance/collaborations, and strategic management and strategizing in public services. We here focus on six cross-cutting findings that challenge common wisdom or are puzzling from an academic viewpoint.

First, building on the findings about the dynamics of digital transformation: a key point emerging here is that digitalization encompasses more than just technology (Gil-Garcia et al., 2018; Verhoest et al., 2024a), with technical coupling (e.g., shared data infrastructures) and/or organizational coupling (multi-actor workflows). But does collaboration and co-creation enable digital transformation, both in the conception and innovation phase and in implementation (Torfing et al., 2026; this issue; Callens et al., 2026; this issue)? We learned that digital transformation often requires mission alignment especially in public data-sharing contexts (Buyannemekh et al., 2026; this issue). A thoughtful governance of the collaboration and coordination of the network is crucial to achieve this effect (Langbroek and Verhoest this issue), with sufficient attention to complexity challenges (Breaugh et al., 2026; this issue) and the risk of power misuse by potential monopolization of (digital) services (Gleiß et al., 2026; this issue).

A second cross-cutting element in the articles can be summarized in the well-known expression that ‘context matters’: both the (national) cultural-social and the political-administrative context are important in public administration (Ongaro, 2026; Pollitt, 2013) and therefore also in the thematic areas discussed in this special issue (Ongaro et al., 2021). Specifically, we find that existing macro-models of public management in a given jurisdiction (whether Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management, or New Public Governance) tend to integrate into specific policies and influence co-creation processes. The prevailing macro-model of public administration in a given jurisdiction, as a key characteristic of the (administrative) context, influences the dynamics of co-creation processes, but does not necessarily promote “big steps” in collaborative innovation (Kitchener et al., 2026; this issue; Van Gestel and Grotenbreg 2021).

Third, while the broader national context is important, so too are the organizational-level conditions under which micro-level co-creation and digitalization practices can develop. This special issue adds the counterintuitive finding that certain forms of collaboration at the local level do not work as well as might have been expected in a relatively positive macro-level context for collaborative governance, such as in Denmark or the Netherlands (Van Gestel et al., 2026; this issue). Conversely, some local co-creation projects may work rather well in traditional hierarchical (TPA) contexts as in Slovenia (Regal et al., 2026; this issue) or Croatia (Van Gestel et al., 2026; this issue). Interesting differences between macro- and micro levels are also highlighted in findings on digitalization, where national-level projects typically entail “platformization” (central registries, identity systems), increasing institutional complexity, whereas local projects often deal with service-level integration (Breaugh et al., 2026; this issue). The macro context is therefore an important indicator for innovative projects in digitalization and collaboration, but not an automatic predictor of a corresponding organizational strategies and local solutions.

A fourth important finding concerns the importance of strategic management and strategy formulation at the organizational level for the process and dynamics of digitalization and co-creation. As both internal organizational factors, such as inertia and overconfidence, and external impulses, such as stakeholder demands, significantly impact organizational involvement in digitalization collaborations (Weißmuller et al., 2026; this issue), the issue points at the necessary strategy for organizational capacities, room to manoeuvre and encouraging support for individual staff to engage in co-creation and collaborative innovation for digital transformation (Langbroek and Verhoest, 2026; this issue; Van Gestel et al., 2026; this issue). Attention to strategy and strategic management in this special issue also highlights the temporal dimension and, in particular, the importance of considering the long term. A broader perspective on strategy and its consequences is necessary to assess whether—and under what conditions— initiatives for innovation can be sustained in the long term, as they are often struggling to survive in a vertically organized public organization and as temporary projects vulnerable in terms of financial and human resources (Kitchener et al., 2026; this issue).

Fifth, the role of public leadership in supporting/enabling co-creation projects is pointed out by the findings of this special issue, including the highlighting how the lack thereof – on the administrative and politicians side (Langbroek and Verhoest 2026; Van Gestel et al., 2026; this issue; see also Ongaro and Parker, 2025), may be detrimental to co-creation and digitalization efforts. Nevertheless, this special issue also stressed examples of supportive political level leadership (Kitchener et al., 2026; this issue; Regal et al., 2026; this issue). Such support is needed to bridge the collaborative efforts with external parties and service users, in distributed/participatory forms of leadership (Kitchener et al., 2026; this issue), and with democratic rules and procedures and the internally vertical operations of public organisations. Public leadership is particularly relevant in encouraging individual staff to engage in collaborative innovation for digital transformation (Langbroek and Verhoest, this issue; Dockx et al., 2022) and to create access for relevant groups, integrating orchestration (Gleiß et al., 2026; this issue). Success in collaborations strongly relies on effective leadership, to enhance better outcomes and lasting partnerships (Buyannemekh et al., 2026; this issue).

Finally, a crucial insight from this special issue is that involving service users implies taking into account their different perspectives on their own roles and activities (Callens et al., 2026; this issue). Users often have distinct (power) positions and motives, and may need different support to participate in collaborative innovation arrangements (ranging from hands-off supporters to real co-designers) (Callens et al., 2026; Callens and Verhoest, 2023). Those who regulate, facilitate, and manage such innovation initiatives need to be aware of such differences and balance the various needs, expectations and role performance in groups of service users, in order to make user involvement successful, both for the network and for the individual service users. Kitchener et al. (2026; this issue) described a mixed design of formal and informal structures to involve both more consistent participants and those who are only involved occasionally. Torfing et al., 2026 (this issue) show that design experiments – an approach with strong elements of social engineering – allow, in a context-sensitive way, to put into effect interventions of co-creation.

Conclusion and outlook

This special issue has brought together articles that aim at explaining the dynamic interplay of processes of collaborative governance with processes of digital transformation, and how such dynamics may bring about innovation in public services. Strategic management is shown to be a key lever to enable forms of co-creation and creation of public value.

With regard to future developments, the majority of empirical evidence presented in this special issue concentrates on the meso level of public organizations and policy networks. However, the most salient contemporary challenges facing European and other societies are situated at the macro level. This observation indicates that a promising avenue for future research and practice lies in scaling up the “solutions”—that is, the processes that ultimately foster positive innovation and the creation of public value—identified in the contributions to this special issue. Doing so would enable these solutions to be applied at scale and, consequently, to address the macro-level challenges confronting contemporary societies as well as public institutions and services (Bryson et al., 2024; Ongaro et al., 2025).

This upscaling process may also occur through mutual learning across the fields of inquiry considered here, namely collaborative governance, strategic management, and the digitalization of public services. These fields can develop by learning from one another how their respective approaches may be applied at the macro-level in order to address macro-level challenges. For example, recent research has shown how strategy management at scale can draw insights from collaborative governance at scale (see Ongaro et al., 2025). At the same time, both strategy management at scale and collaborative governance at scale are necessary for addressing contemporary public governance challenges and for fully harnessing the potential of digitalization (Lips, 2024; Verhoest et al., 2024a).

In summary, this special issue provides insights into the many dynamic interconnections between the development of collaborative governance, co-creation and innovation processes in public services, and processes of strategic management and strategizing – in several cases in the context of the development of digital public administration. By bringing together fields of scholarly inquiry and practice that have remained relatively separate, this special issue contributes to building connections between these important and rapidly expanding fields of research. It also offers readers a wealth of evidence and analyses that can benefit the further development of each of these areas, and especially their multiple interconnections.

Footnotes

Edoardo Ongaro

Koen Verhoest

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Horizon - CULT-COOP-11-2016-17 - Projects: COGOV, COVAL and TROPICO. COGOV grant agreement No 770591. COVAL grant agreement No 770356. TROPICO grant agreement No 726840.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ansell

Gash

(2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Anthopoulos

Reddick

Giannakidou

, et al. (2016) Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly 33(1): 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.003

Breaugh

Rackwitz

Hammerschmid

, et al. (2026) Deconstructing complexity: a comparative study of government collaboration in national digital platforms and smart city networks in Europe. Public Policy and Administration: 09520767231169401, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231169401

Bryson

Crosby

Stone

(2006) The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review 66: 44ö55–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x

Bryson

Barberg

Crosby

(2024) The future of public service and strategy Management-at-Scale. Policy Quarterly 20(1): 50–59. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v20i1.9052

Buyannemekh

Gil-Garcia

Gascó-Hernández

(2026) Exploring emergent collaborations for digital transformation in local governments: the engagement of public libraries in the development of smart cities. Public Policy and Administration: 09520767231197600. this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197600

Callens

Verhoest

(2023) Unlocking the process of collaborative innovation - combining mechanisms of divergence and convergence. Public Management Review 26(7): 1849–1870. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2171096

Callens

Wynen

Boon

Verhoest

(2022) Internal and external exploration for public service innovation–measuring the impact of a climate for creativity and collaborative diversity on innovation. Public Policy and Administration 41(1): 109–129. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221135686

Callens

Verhoest

Klijn

, et al. (2026) How service users envision their engagement in processes of collaborative innovation: a Q-methodological study on user involvement in eHealth collaborations. Public Policy and Administration 0(0): 09520767231170298. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231170298

10.

Camarinha-Matos

Fornasiero

Ramezani

, et al. (2019) Collaborative networks: a pillar of digital transformation. Applied Sciences 9(24): 5431. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9245431

11.

Cordella

Paletti

(2019) Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: the Italian case. Government Information Quarterly 36(4): 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409

12.

Dockx

Verhoest

Langbroek

, et al. (2022) Bringing together unlikely innovators: do connective and learning capacities impact collaboration for innovation and diversity of actors? Public Management Review 25(6): 1104–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2005328

13.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

, et al. (2005) New public management is Dead--Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3): 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057

14.

Ferlie

Ongaro

(2022) Strategic Management in Public Services Organisations: Concepts, Schools and Contemporary Issues. 2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge.

15.

Gil-Garcia

Dawes

Pardo

(2018) Digital government and public management Page 90 research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review 20(5): 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181

16.

Gleiß

Degen

Knoth

, et al. (2026) Governance principles and regulatory needs for a national digital education platform. Public Policy and Administration, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231202327

17.

Hammerschmid

Palaric

Rackwitz

, et al. (2019) Meta-analysis of digitalization strategies in eight European countries. TROPICO Report. https://tropico-project.eu/download/d6-1-meta-analysis-of-e-government-digitalization-strategies/?wpdmdl=1137&refresh=61e0aa2e54dd91642113582

18.

Huxham

Vangen

(2005) Managing to Collaborate - The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge.

19.

Kitchener

Ashworth

Elliott

(2026) Co-created public value: the strategic management of collaborative problem-solving. Public Policy and Administration, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231162407

20.

Klijn

Koppenjan

(2015) Governance Networks in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.

21.

Gil-Garcia

Zhang

(2016) The emergence and evolution of cross-boundary research collaborations: an explanatory study of social dynamics in a digital government working group. Government Information Quarterly 33(4): 796–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.005

22.

Langbroek

Verhoest

(2026) Explaining interactions in collaborative innovation arrangements: how organizations influence their representatives’ interactions in collaborative innovation arrangements. Public Policy and Administration: 09520767231200275, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231200275

23.

Lips

(2024) Chapter 2: digital transformation in the public sector Collaborating for Digital Transformation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

24.

Lopes

Farias

(2020) How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences 88: 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319893444

25.

Luna-Reyes

Andersen

Black

, et al. (2021) Sensemaking and social processes in digital government projects. Government Information Quarterly 38(2): 101570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101570

26.

Margetts

Dunleavy

(2013) The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasiparadigm for government on the web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 371(1987): 371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382

27.

Mergel

(2016) Agile innovation management in government: a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly 33(3): 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.004

28.

Neumann

Matt

Hitz-Gamper

, et al. (2019) Joining forces for public value creation? Exploring collaborative innovation in smart city initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 36(4): 101411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101411

29.

OECD (2014) Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. Paris: OECD.

30.

Ongaro

(2026) Context Analysis and Interdisciplinary Approaches in Public Administration. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

31.

Ongaro

Gong

Jing

(2021) Public administration, context and innovation: a framework of analysis. Public Administration and Development 41(1): 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1902

32.

Ongaro

Sancino

Pluchinotta

, et al. (2021) Strategic management as an enabler of Co-creation in public services. Policy & Politics 49(2): 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16119271520306

33.

Ongaro

Sancino

Sampierre

(2024) Strategizing under conditions of Weberian bureaucracy and ethnic consociationalism. Public Administration Review 85(4): 1070–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13906

34.

Ongaro

Steven

(2025) The contribution of project management to public management: developing conceptual linkages. International Journal of Public Sector Management 38(7): 847–871. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2024-0382

35.

Ongaro

Ulibarri

Bryson

, et al. (2025) Interrogating “Scale” in strategy Management-at-Scale: lessons from collaborative governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 9: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf021

36.

Osborne

(2010) The New Public Governance? London: Routledge.

37.

Picazo-Vela

Gutiérrez-Martínez

Duhamel

, et al. (2018) Value of inter-organizational collaboration in digital government projects. Public Management Review 20(5): 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1305702

38.

Pollitt

(ed) (2013) Context in Public Policy and Management: The Missing Link? Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

39.

Pollitt

Geert

(2017) Public Management Reform: A Compararative Analysis - Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40.

Regal

Ferlie

Aagaard

, et al. (2026) Governance modes, mayoral leadership and transitions to public sector co-creation across Europe. Public Policy and Administration: 09520767241231598, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241231598

41.

Rykkja

Hammerschmid

Klijn

E-H

, et al. (2024) Chapter 1: Introduction: collaborating for digital transformation in the public sector Collaborating for Digital Transformation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 2–12.

42.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2011) Introduction: collaborative innovation in the public sector. The Innovation Journal 17(1): 842–868.

43.

Torfing

(2019) Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument. Public Management Review 21(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248

44.

Torfing

Ferlie

Jukić

, et al. (2021) A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value. Policy & Politics 49(2): 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16108172803520

45.

Torfing

Sørensen

Dečman

(2026) Reaping the fruits of co-creation through design experiments. Public Policy and Administration: 09520767231197802, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197802

46.

Van Gestel

Grotenbreg

(2021) Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings. Policy & Politics 49(2): 249–265(17). https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16123785900606

47.

Van Gestel

Kuiper

Hendrikx

(2019) Changed roles and strategies of professionals in the (co)production of public services. Administrative Sciences 9(3): 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030059

48.

Van Gestel

Kuiper

Pegan

(2026) Strategies and transitions to public sector co-creation across Europe. Public Policy and Administration: 09520767231184523, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231184523

49.

Van Winden

van den Buuse

(2017) Smart City pilot projects: exploring the dimensions and conditions for scaling up. Journal of Urban Technology 24(4): 51–71.

50.

Verhoest

Hammerschmid

Rykkja

, et al. (2024) Collaborating for Digital Transformation. How Internal and External Collaboration Can Contribute to Innovate Public Service Delivery. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803923895

51.

Verhoest

Klijn

E-H

Rykkja

, et al. (2024a) Chapter 12: collaboration for digital transformation: so much more than just technology In: Collaborating for Digital Transformation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

52.

Verhoest

Callens

Klijn

, et al. (2024b) Designing cross-sector Collaboration to foster technological innovation: empirical insights from eHealth partnerships in five countries. Public Administration Review 84(6): 1200–1217. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13785

53.

Weißmuller

Ritz

Yerramsetti

(2026) Collaborating and co-creating the digital transformation: empirical evidence on the crucial role of stakeholder demand from Swiss municipalities. Public Policy and Administration, this issue. DOI: 10.1177/09520767231170100.