The knowledge-based development agenda:a perspective for 2010-2020

Abstract

Purpose - In the context of today's knowledge economy, development policies that are mainly based on knowledge as a primary source of wealth and added-value are increasingly adopted by cities and countries. This tendency is becoming much more common due to the global financial crisis. Thus, the knowledge-based development field has been in a state of important progress during the last decade. This paper seeks to discuss and highlight the major issues of knowledge-based development. By doing so the paper aims to present an agenda for future research directions for the present decade of 2010-2020. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents an agenda for future research by co-instantaneously presenting the status in relation to the major pending issues of the knowledge-based development field. This is accomplished through a wide-scope literature review and qualitative scoring of knowledge-based development (KBD) categories. Findings - The main finding is that research is needed in four main directions: development of holistic and unified approaches for the practical formulation of citizen-centric knowledge-based development strategies; knowledge-based urban planning; knowledge-based development assessment and metrics; practical aspects of implementation of knowledge-based development approaches. Research limitations/implications - Research in the paper is based on a wide literature review of the most important and added-value available resources in the KBD field and in qualitative scoring of research categories. Use of empirical components such as citation analysis, field surveys, knowledge network analysis as well as for a specific approach regarding the scoring system would be needed in future research. Originality/value - The discussion and issues presented in the paper should be of value not only to researchers and practitioners but also to cities and countries willing to design efficient and effective knowledge-based development strategies.

1. Introduction

During the last years, we have witnessed the rise of knowledge-based economy as main driver of global and local economic development ([54] Yigitcanlar, 2009). [7] Carrillo (2006) has identified the twenty-first century as the "century of Knowledge Cities (KCs)" since urban regions and KCs have become centers of knowledge generation, knowledge-based economy and knowledge-based development (KBD). In the context of the new knowledge area, concepts of knowledge, innovation and creativity have become primary factors of production and development ([16] Durmaz et al. , 2008). In this context, "knowledge-based urban development" has gained popularity as a powerful strategy for sustainable economic, social and urban growth, and for the post-industrial development of cities ([55] Yigitcanlar and Velibeyoglu, 2008).

However, the process of planning and implementing KBD approaches is neither quick nor simple. This seems to be already understood by the research community, which the last few years has begun to concentrate its efforts in order to develop appropriate frameworks, methodologies, tools, systems, metrics etc, so as to evolve the whole KBD field. In this respect, there are currently many research efforts as well practical approaches which are in progress and, consequently, create many pending issues to be addressed in relation to the KBD field. This paper attempts to present an agenda for future research, by co-instantaneously presenting the status in relation to the major pending issues of KBD, that will be in the centre of interest during the new decade of 2010-2020. This is accomplished through a wide-scope literature review and qualitative scoring of KBD categories. The discussion presented on these issues should be of great value not only to researchers and practitioners but also to cities and countries willing to design efficient and effective KBD strategies.

Section 2 presents the current status regarding four major fields of KBD, as well as the most important future research streams, based on literature review. In section 3, a synthesis of results is presented based on three criteria: existing research volume, existing research maturity, and research difficulty. Finally, section 4 discusses the main conclusions.

2. KBD research agenda

Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] illustrates the major streams of KBD research, based on a comprehensive review of the literature related to KBD. The main goal of this paper is, by reviewing available studies and exploring future research avenues, to present a new agenda to boost the research on the KBD phenomenon. It should be noted that the previous work of [10] Carrillo (2008) has been also taken into consideration for the review conducted in this paper.

2.1 Concepts, strategies, approaches, frameworks, methodologies

Although many international economic organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Bank (WB), European Commission (EC) and Asia-Pacific Co-operation (APEC) have provided some practical directions to build the knowledge economy in developed and developing countries ([52] World Bank, 1999; [40] OECD, 2001; [3] APEC, 2000; [26] European Commission, 2000), no viable framework to develop integrated KBD strategies exists ([15] Dang and Umemoto, 2009). In addition, despite the fact that many cities globally are now considered as successful examples of KBD, only very few of them such as Barcelona, Melbourne and Montréal have managed to formulate integrated strategic approaches, while the initiatives and approaches of the rest are rather ad-hoc and not based on structured and specific methodologies. Despite the tremendous transformation potential of KBD, local authorities in EU and worldwide seem to be unable to formulated integrated KBD strategies (i.e. comprehensive local authorities lead plans that outline the goals, stakeholders, process, budget, and monitoring mechanisms so as to make a city's knowledge future a reality) to tackle the knowledge divide, minimize social exclusion and improve the knowledge intensity in their regions. This is the major finding deriving from the review of approaches followed by cities so as to develop their KBD strategies ([18] Ergazakis and Metaxiotis, 2010). In this respect, it is clear that researchers need to focus on the development of specific models and methodologies that will support cities and governments to formulate integrated KBD strategies. The most important contributions from researchers regarding concepts, strategies, approaches, frameworks and methodologies regarding KBD are the following,

A framework for the design, development and operation of successful cities developed in a KBD way (as knowledge cities - KC) has been proposed ([20] Ergazakis et al. , 2006a). The authors were based on the analytical and in-depth review of ten case studies of succesful KC, identified important characteristics that such KC should have, expressed them as hypotheses and evaluated how and at which degree each city's approach was in line with these hypotheses. These characteristics were embedded in the proposed framework, which has been also recently updated, by examining their recent status ([23] Ergazakis et al. , 2009). This update offered the possibility to examine which characteristics remain important and, thus, can be considered as dominant.

The KnowCis methodology has as main purpose to assist and support local authorities in the process of developing a city as KC. KnowCis consists of five main phases and takes into account nine different dimensions. As far as strategy formulation is concerned, KnowCis provides the following features:

- Identification of appropriate strategic interventions.

- Modeling of the city's current status as a KC via the development of related indicators.

- Assessment of strategic interventions' necessity based on the indicators' values and through the benchmarking of other successful KCs cases.

- Selection of the most appropriate form for each proposed intervention, based on their efficiency during the last reference period.

- Prioritization of the proposed interventions, based on a multi-criteria approach.

For further details on KnowCis methodology please see [21], [22] Ergazakis et al. , 2006b, 2007. The newly proposed KnowCis 2.0 methodology has as purpose to add some new features to KnowCis (more specifically, in its Phase 3: Creation of detailed action plan). KnowCis 2.0 aims at the design of integrated citizen-centric interventions which consist of group of actions. These groups of actions are called "strings of actions". Each string of action comprises more than one action and has a common goal which refers to the real, daily life of citizens and enterprises ([18] Ergazakis and Metaxiotis, 2010). An important future research challenge is to include additional strings of actions to KnowCis 2.0 as well as to develop an IT system which will support its application.

[6] Carrillo (2004) presents a taxonomy of capital accounts for KCs. He outlines a theoretical and methodological framework for the design, assessment and benchmarking of KCs, based on social knowledge capital accounts as the common ground for work between KM and the field of urban studies and planning. He suggests several analytical dimensions of cities as critical triggers in the transition towards KC and he concludes that two sources of tension built into cities as value systems, are more important: the animal/human tension and the individual/collective tension. A research challenge here is the update of the framework, as per the most recent evolutions on the field.

[13] Chatzkel (2004) provides a strategic perspective to better understand the necessary elements for building a successful knowledge capital. He maps out this strategic perspective of the essential principals and practices for the creation of KCs, with a particular focus on the city of Phoenix. Consequently, a major challenge here is to verify and update this strategic perspective and generalize it so as it can be incorporated in a general approach.

[14] Cheng et al. (2004) provide some insights to policy makers in designing or developing global cities, by discussing the connection between KM and growth of KCs. They support that knowledge can be stored and transmitted via institutions, and they introduce the idea of knowledge "subnetworks", which is important when analyzing knowledge assets and resources. Two areas need further research here: An empirical study of this conceptual framework on knowledge subnetworks is needed as well as a cross-national comparison of KC in different countries, under the proposed prism.

[44] Raza et al. (2006) provide a cross-disciplinary analysis and a theoretical critique of the KBD concept and propose a broadening of the current paradigm on the economic development, by integrating psychological and anthropological points-of-view. Moreover, [45] Raza et al. (2007) examine the patterns of social management of knowledge in a knowledge-community, which particularly reflect the social forms of KM and knowledge sharing. The main identified research challenge is to integrate these theoretical approaches into real-life approached of KC development.

[56] Yigitcanlar et al. (2007) investigate ways to attract and retain knowledge workers in a globally successful KC. They review the literature on knowledge work and workers and provide useful recommendations on the fundamentals of how to attract and retain them. Their conclusion is that KC that are capable of addressing a series of desires of knowledge workers would likely to be successful in attracting and retaining them. The main research challenge is to propose ways in which these properties could be efficiently integrated / taken under consideration in policies for the development of KC.

[49] Sharma et al. (2009) are using a framework for the formulation of knowledge policies. The framework derived from a conceptual model for analyzing KBD, overviewed by the authors in a previous research work ([48] Sharma et al. , 2008). The framework consists in 13 dimensions (such as: geographic proximity to markets, net knowledge inflows, ICT accessibility, intellectual property regime, etc) for knowledge policy-making analysis and qualitative focus group discussions, by means of what is known as a knowledge SWOT analysis. The field research suggests that, whereas quantitative indicators are very commonly used for the purpose of benchmarking and progress tracking, they are limited in terms of determining causes, effects and encapsulating good practices. The proposed framework provides a means for policy-makers and analysts to engage in discussions, debates, story-telling and scenario building in order to understand net strengths and opportunities faced by a society in the context of a global knowledge economy. This process allows insights into gaps that may be addressed with appropriate KBD policies.

[34] Lerro and Schiuma (2009), define a conceptual framework addressing the knowledge assets categories affecting the development dynamics of regions and territories. They integrate the conceptual framework with the analysis of a case study of an Italian region (Basilicata). This region has planned and implemented policies aimed to activate and support regional strategic development, by focusing on knowledge assets dimensions. They highlight the strategic relevance of knowledge capital in sustaining and driving regional development dynamics. In terms of future research, the authors believe that the development of research projects aimed at exploring the stages of the definition, implementation and assessment of a regional development strategy which explicitly takes into account the region's knowledge dimensions, would be particularly useful. The authors also call for further research so as to investigate the interdependence among knowledge assets dimensions. In addition, studies are needed to support decision-makers to identify, understand and assess regions' knowledge assets ownership, in order to define and implement the corresponding policies, oriented to the exploitation of these assets.

[17] Edvinsson (2006), argues that the city might be viewed from many perspectives, and he focuses on dealing the city as a knowledge tool which supports the value creation from and for the knowledge workers and is designed so as to encourage and nourish the collective knowledge. In his emerging model, he highlights some of the major driving forces for the aspect of organization and relational capital surrounding the citizens as human capital. He suggests that the critical city leadership dimensions are related to his proposed model and should focused on: mapping capability; refinement of unique historical roots and context; speed of transformative renewal actions; flow of knowledge. Finally, he supports that the KC design is a unifying concept that will help to integrate perspectives of economics, urban studies and knowledge management.

2.2 Knowledge-based urban planning

Another critical issue for the successful KBD is that the formulation of respective policies/ strategies and the integrated urban planning is a particular complex procedure. The reasons for this complexity are related to the amplitude of the KBD concept and to the factors that should be considered when a development strategy for any city or region is being formulated. Consequently, appropriate and integrated KB-urban planning models, with the help of appropriate decision support methods, are needed. In addition, the role of technology, tools and IT systems should not be under-estimated in the KBD context. As already mentioned the procedure is complex, and in this respect, there is need for intelligent tools that will efficiently and effectively support any related initiatives. The current state of research regarding the KB-urban planning and related IT tools and systems, is as follows.

[4] Bañegil and Galván (2006), present a case study of the implementation of an intellectual capital model in a network of small cities, which work together by sharing knowledge. Using the SWOT methodology, a set of strategic criteria was established to guide local authority decision making in relation to KB-urban planning. An internet-based technology platform has been set up and is currently functioning. The main research issue is the generalization of their approach from the context of the case study to other situations.

[31] Goldberg et al. (2006) examine the subject of knowledge participation in their city's decision making processes, through the case study of the city of Holon, Israel. They present three distinct methods for citizen participation processes, which combine knowledge sharing and allow the city to be developed into a KC. The main research challenge is to discover how and at which degree Holon's experience can serve other cities to learn what processes are suitable and applicable for them.

[57] Yigitcanlar et al. (2008a), focus on online participatory planning support system tools. The key point made by the authors is that planning support systems can be powerful tools for urban development, urban planning and policy making. The advances in computer technology have made the practical integration of spatial (map-based) and non-spatial information. This integration brought a new technology called WebGIS, which enables geographic information systems functionalities through the internet for decision support. The authors support that there is a growing demand as more and more individuals want to use online government services to express their views and take part in decision-making process interactively. In addition, the authors argue that public participation offer an opportunity to enhance participatory planning activities and the use of online participatory planning systems to support the planning process is becoming common in many communities around the world. Implications of the GIS technology for the urban planning and decision support are enormous. Dispersed, network and communication-based planning support systems with embedded spatial objects will be the new paradigm for planning GIS.

[5] Baqir and Kathawala (2004) present a KC model by constructing knowledge homes, using building blocks of futuristic technology than can help in implementing the concept of virtual Ba to share, manage and create knowledge. Their model is based on five important technological components leading to knowledge sharing/creation for knowledgeable citizens. Further research is needed so as to systemically bring together relevant perspectives, to develop a framework towards this KC technological model.

[25] Ergazakis et al. (2008) have proposed an artificial intelligence-based decision support system for designing KBD strategies for KC, by selecting and prioritizing the most appropriate interventions and actions. The system is linked to the KnowCis methodology and consists of two sub-systems: the first (developed using the technology of expert systems) assesses the necessity of a particular intervention and proposes its most appropriate form. The second prioritises the selected interventions based on Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Important research challenges are the determination of indicators' thresholds by real decision makers, the use of fuzzy logic for the assessment of the need for each intervention and the interconnection of the system with existing information systems already in use by local authorities or governments.

[50] Tschangho (2008) focuses on the opportunities and challenges facing the development of strategic plans and policies regarding KC, in ubiquitous technology space. Considering South Korean cities, the author argues that ubiquitous cities or U-cities are defined as KC where public and private services can be delivered and received anywhere and at anytime. Considering how these have been developed in South Korea, the author argues that there are endless possibilities for ubiquitous information, coupled with ubiquitous computing and ICTs. However, planning for a U-city is a challenging and complicated task because it must take into account multiple facets of complex urban systems. Among the various challenges, standardization of the complex information systems and countless number of databases is a sine-qua-none condition for a U-city to function properly.

[33] Heywood (2008) introduces the discussion of knowledge and performance of cities and regions by specifically considering the role of integrated planning in coping with the issues associated with knowledge-based urban development. Noting that planning of metropolitan and creative urban regions faces a range of repeated challenges in producing sustainable outcomes, Heywood identifies a range of promising responses to these challenges and then develops a fourfold path towards sustainable outcomes. The framework developed provides an effective planning tool for knowledge-based urban development. However, the author notes several research challenges associated with this framework, as for example development of appropriate indicators, local integration with the global economy, etc.

[36], [37] Maeng and Nedovic-Budic (2008, 2010) explore the dynamic relationship between urban form and ICT, in the intra-metropolitan context of the Washington DC region. They examine if KBD coupled with ICT lead to new settlement forms and urban patterns. Their findings provide evidence of interdependence between ICT and urban form. Contrary to the expectation that ICT would trigger centrifugal decentralization forces in shaping the urban form, these findings suggest that ICT evoke centralization forces around the ICT cluster. Their ultimate conclusion is that geographic location still matters for ICT and related activities. In terms of future research, they suggest that further inquiry into the direction and nature of interaction among ICT and urban form would be valuable contribution to our understanding of the complexities that pervade urban environment and activities. Another challenge for urban planners and policy makers is to recognize the importance of ICT infrastructure at the communal and regional levels and to incorporate that recognition into plans and policies, so as to promote KBD.

[58] Yigitcanlar et al. (2008b), review the literature on recent knowledge precinct developments, within the frame of innovation and urban economic competitiveness. Their methodology develops a typological investigation and has as purpose to better understand the fundamentals of knowledge precincts. They examine the contemporary knowledge production in KC, and point out the changing spatial agglomeration of knowledge-intensive industries as well as the formation of new types of knowledge precincts as being the spatial core of knowledge-based urban development. In terms of future research, they support that the analysis of "knowledge hubs" and their elements/processes is still under-developed. Focus is also needed on knowledge precincts and their contribution to the KBD of rising KC and urban regions.

[54] Yigitcanlar (2009) investigates the engineering of creative urban regions, through the review of literature and examination of global best practice experiences, in order to determine how cities are engineering their creative urban regions so as to establish a base for KC formation. One major conclusion is that top-tier KCs specialize in a few sectors only, but set ambitious goals for each and they also develop their knowledge-based policies carefully. Planning for KBD of creative urban regions requires a broad intellectual team with expertise in urban development, urban studies, planning and management.

[2] Arima (2009) proposes a method and a decision support system for the Ubiquitous City (U-City) project promoted by the Korean government. His model uses a knowledge-based platform which is the database to utilize when stakeholders repeat discussion and decision in order to make plans and realize the ubiquitous service. The platform stocks the knowledge of the participants as well as the knowledge produced during discussion. The platform has the following main advantages: visualization of U-service; opinion and idea collection from stakeholders; database compilation and processing of information; opinion exchange and the decision making by stakeholders. The system also offers information through various media (web, television, public information magazines) to collect the opinions of people.

[11] Cevikayak (2009) explores the question of how to combine ICTs with local assets like culture, urban context and place, to maintain local characteristics in city-wide or global networks. He elaborates this research question within the notion of urban space and ICTs. He introduces his proposed approach with design study examples to illustrate the human scale level of the study in urban spaces. The design study examples contain the current state of end-user technologies in urban public spaces. He concludes with the evaluation of three major concepts (time, space, urban context) and of the design study examples so as to widen the understanding of the supportive and transformative power of ICTs, in urban context.

[43] Petruzzelli et al. (2007) analyze if and how technology districts use proximity dimensions (such as geographical, organizational and cognitive) as a communication resource for accessing external knowledge sources. For this purpose, the organizational and cognitive links between technology districts' actors and external ones are identified and, then, the new geographical boundaries of the districts are drawn. They provide a case study related to an Italian technology district, in order to identify how different research organizations located there use proximity dimensions for reaching knowledge sources external to the district, then re-shaping its geographical boundaries. Results show that organizational proximity is mainly adopted to link actors located near the district area. In terms of further research, they suggest that it is crucial to exploit all the three dimensions of proximity as well as to evaluate the impact of proximity on the innovative performance of technology districts.

2.3 Practical applications

Practical cases of cities that are already developing in a KBD way and are considered as successful KC or have elaborated strategic plans so as to be developed as KC, are also important and need to be examined, so as to conclude on useful remarks. Some important issues to be considered during practical application of KBD approaches are related to people and citizens, and the creation of a culture that is in favour of knowledge sharing and distribution among them.

Some of the most developed cities globally have been developed or are being developing as KC, while many others have elaborated strategic plans so as to be developed based on KBD approaches. [21], [23], [19] Ergazakis et al. (2006b, 2009, 2010) have presented a comprehensive analysis of various cities' approaches. One main conclusion is that strong political and societal support is needed for the development of a KC, guided from clear and well-defined strategic plan and in combination with strong financial support.

[28] Galindo (2007) presents a case study of a Mexican cooperative region which is engaged in growing agricultural activities such as organic culture. The purpose of the study is to illustrate the mechanism and factors of how organic agriculture standards and the attractiveness of the market change the rural setting by promoting knowledge creation and application in the field. The results of such knowledge generation are endogenous growth practices for people who, otherwise, abandon agriculture as a means of living. People co-ordinate, learn and improve processes. However, one main challenge in order to learn from this experience and capitalize in similar regions is to identify who are the intermediaries that can coordinate the diverse actors involved in rural regions.

The previously mentioned KnowCis methodology was applied in a Greek Municipality ([24] Ergazakis et al. , 2006c). The full implementation of the KnowCis methodology was impossible to be accomplished as it would require significant financial and human resources. For this reason, it has been applied in a pilot way, using two approaches: based on the experience of local administration's executives and based on the developed decision support information system. The comparison reveals that the results provided by the proposed methodology are accurate and realistic. However, it remains a major challenge to fully implement the proposed methodology so as valuable conclusions can be reached and used for its fine-tuning.

[51] Velibeyoglu and Yigitcanlar (2008) present an analysis of the ICT experience in Marmara, Turkey, in the wake of the European harmonization process. They present the results of the SWOT analysis of Marmara in comparison with national and EU-level evaluations in the field of Turkey's knowledge economy and information society. The authors present case studies of ICT best practices from Marmara and note that the efforts made to move towards a knowledge region have been hampered by the uncoordinated nature of supply instruments. They conclude that local actors play a central role in forming the strategies and policies for the KBD of a region.

[46] Rivera-Vasquez et al. (2008), aim to identify the cultural barriers that set back the knowledge production and sharing in organizations of the Municipality of Caguas at the Commonwealth. Their research shows that at the managerial level, both private and public agencies have overcome the identified barriers that set back knowledge sharing. Using the findings of previous studies conducted in the region, they identified four cultural barriers and they developed two hypotheses. These hypotheses have been tested using interviews and questionnaires surveys on four organizations. The main research challenge is to use these results as a basis so as to develop a methodology to analyze the presence or absence of cultural barriers in organizations/municipalities.

[39] Mohamed et al. (2008), outline the role of KM principles in constructing the knowledge society. They address initiatives towards narrowing the knowledge gap and building an egalitarian knowledge society in the Arab region. They identify some of the regionally relevant elements needed for building the knowledge society. In terms of additional research, they suggest some means of tapping the diversified workforce's tacit knowledge, reversing the "drain brain", and building potential leadership models.

[27] Fernandez-Maldonado and Romein (2010) investigate the case of Eindhoven city, which constitutes a remarkable case of KBD. They examine the roles of knowledge and technology, quality of place and organizational capacity, in mutual coherence to produce prosperity and deliver projects that could benefit all people of Eindhoven. The results point out the importance of achieving consensus between the regional partners, so as to elaborate and commit to a shared vision of the future development. The main conclusion is that the industrial reconversion of Eindhoven has been shaped by projects and processes which have been the fruit of regional synergy, driven by the region's remarkable organisational qualities. In terms of future research, they suggest that it would be interesting, in the context of nowadays' global crisis, to verify up to what extent the strong interaction between local partners is an asset for sustainable development and to research the effects of the crisis in the behavior and priorities of the main stakeholders.

[41] Olsson and Edvinsson (2009), present a new vision and concept called "MINDZONE - quality of place through quality of living", that puts people and their activities in the very centre for urban development, supported by a framework of spaces and places where they can unfold their lives. They refer to a prototype project, based on ongoing practice and theory of Intellectual Capital, in a renewal process of a city in Sweden, using the concept called MINDZONE. A MINDZONE is a unique concept for the design of the interplay of components of intellectual capital and the architectural embodiment for the growth of quality of living, as urban capital. MINDZONE is an in-between space that responds to local needs with global awareness. They argue that developing a knowledge environment or city is more than developing a plot of land. It is also focus on developing communities with the values of mix, share, connect and generate that will attract people and activities. Important aspects of MINDZONE in relation to KC are: developing the human capital of the city; Focusing on the interplay between education, business and public sector; A toolbox for urban development and attractive cityscape. In terms of future research, they argue that innovation of social services has to be rapidly both researched and prototyped for the essential emerging knowledge flow between talents. It should not be blocked by the old institutional frameworks. An approach for such research is to make it more interdisciplinary as well as clinical, i.e. in close cooperation with various stakeholders combined with new social media prototyping, such as Facebook, Twitter etc. Urban capital management of "soft" dimensions and MINDZONE approaches will then be an important prototyping activity with impact for the future as an asset.

2.4 KBD assessment and metrics

As explained before, the KBD field is in a state of full progress nowadays and this is apparent from the volume of research work as well as from the number of practical cases of cities and regions adopting KBD approaches. Consequently, an important parameter for the further evolution of the KBD field, it is that of assessment. The need to develop assessment methodologies and respective metrics and benchmarks so as to evaluate and measure KBD approaches seems to be more than urgent now. In what follows we present such methods and metrics proposed by researchers:

[47] Rodriguez and Viedma (2006) present the "Region's Intellectual Capital Benchmarking System" (RICBS), a strategic assessment methodology which aims to build a region's innovation capacity and provides development agencies with a tool for promoting knowledge-based policies and for allocating resources on a more effective way. However, there are various parameters affecting the proposed approach, such as the need to put in place a systemic way so as to evaluate the region's position and detect undesired deviation so as to take corrective actions; the need to take into account the multiplicity of actors involved in today's economic growth and development processes; the need to take into account the tacit knowledge of firms, etc.

[42] Passerini (2007) tries to synthesize the existing research on the measurement of key indicators that represent drivers of the knowledge economy. One main conclusion is that this research is still spanning several different (although interrelated) directions and that many institutions are still adopting a variety of approaches which are difficult to reconcile. The results of this review call for further integration on metrics through cross-disciplinary, multinational and organizational partnerships that could reconcile and define de facto standards for the assessment of the drivers of KBD.

The Most Admired Knowledge City Awards (MAKCi) in an international consulting process launched in 2007 and established to identify and recognize those communities around the world that are successfully engaging in formal and systematic KBD processes under the flag of KCs ([53] World Capital Institute, 2007). As [29] Garcia (2008) states, the MAKCi international consultation aims to identify and assess those worldwide cities and urban communities who are operating as social capital engines for their regions. Such cities would appear to be actively increasing their collective capital by transforming both traditional and knowledge-based wealth into innovative solutions to their development challenges. However, as leading KBD experts have highlighted, a core difficulty in creating and sustaining KCs is the "lack of benchmarks to identify leading cities and regions that are creating knowledge-driven global competitive advantage" ([12] Chase, 2007). In that sense, the MAKCi Awards aim to foster the creation of such benchmarks, through a consultation process that provides a space to "distill collective comparisons", and aim to contribute to the profile of KC, by means of "cross-fertilization of ideas" ([8], [9] Carrillo, 2007a, b). As the World Capital Institute (WCI) joined forces with Teleos to adapt the Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise (MAKE) Awards procedures, an integration of the two models took place. Following Carrillo's Generic System of Capitals (see [29] Garcia, 2008), the MAKCi exercise conveys the convergence of MAKE's Delphi methodology base, with a generic system of capitals, resulting in the MAKCi Framework, which gathers a number of criteria drawn from state-of-the-art research on the KBD discipline.

[32] Grant et al. (2009), examine the use of city ranking indices. They propose the use of a "super ranking" in five broad categories: global cities; nice cities; knowledge cities; intelligent cities and creative cities. They use a consolidated set of sources from major rankings, and they present a form of balanced scorecard for cities, called CITYCARD, that provide a scoring and visual presentation of cities in a way that facilitates a comparison of the relative performances of all cities. A limitation of the proposed method is that it is dependent on the scoring methods used in the original indices and the appropriateness of the combination of indices in each category. In terms of future research, they intend to complete a comparative analysis of the cities included in the indices examined and to develop a preliminary global ranking of cities, so as to refine the indices and the used weighting factors, in order to determine the relative impact of the different categories.

[30] Garcia (2009) explores aspects of emerging models of KBD benchmarking. She explores four key aspects of the identity capital existing in emerging cities and regions. Such aspects are part of capital systems approaches such as the Generic System of Capitals (GCS), which is a tool to benchmark how cities are leveraging their capacity for KBD. She emphasizes the elements of GCS' Identity Capital to observe a combination of clarity and differentiation aspects of a city identity in four city-regions. Some suggested issues for further research concern the issue of how a city identity is built and how the interplay of cities referential capitals play a part in the entire capital systems.

[1] Alfantookh (2009) explores the structure of the Digital Access Index (DAI) developed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and investigates its various categories and their associated variables. He illustrates the assessment benefits of these categories and variables and emphasizes their problems. Among the three identified problems, the one concerns the scope of DAI with regards to KC. The paper also provides recommendations on the future development of DAI towards providing improved "digital access" assessments for KC (by including for example e-government and e-business services).

[38] Matthiessen et al. (2006), assess cases of KC, by measuring research output in total and for three disciplines: biotechnology, information and communications technology, and nanotechnology. The research strength of the major research metropoles of the world is analyzed and interrelations between the centers using co-authorship as indicator are identified. They synthesize the analysis to a simple picture of the major global systems and identify nodes of research. They conclude that economic and political connections, language and distance play roles in the pattern of research networks.

[35] Lin and Edvinsson (2008) identify the problem of a lack of a comprehensive reference model for the measurements of IC of nations, and, they propose a model to measure national intellectual capital, including human, process, renewal and financial capital as key dimensions. The authors use data from the period 1994 to 2005 to compare the national intellectual capital of 40 countries based on an IC map of 29 indicators. Variables of the framework were selected in two rounds, using previous relevant studies and through the formulation of a focus group so as to obtain feedback regarding the appropriateness of the selected variables. From the application of the framework, it is confirmed that the Nordic countries have a high degree of national intellectual capital.

3. Synthesis of results

It is clear enough that the field of KBD has attracted the interest of researchers during the last years. However, from the status of research presented in the previous sections, it is obvious that we are still far from drawing appropriate and commonly accepted frameworks, methodologies, tools, systems etc. that could be used by cities or regions that plan to be developed using a KBD approach. In the following table, we present a qualitative assessment of the status of each research category based on three criteria:

Existing research volume . This criterion relates mostly with the volume of research that has been conducted until today in the particular category. The scale used is from 1 (low volume of research) to 10 (heavy volume of research)

Existing research maturity . This criterion shows how mature is the research in the particular category. The scale used is from 1 (low maturity) to 10 (status of research is very mature).

Research difficulty . This criterion relates to the research that is necessary to be conducted and in particular assess how difficult is to reach satisfactory results. The scale used is from 1 (easy to reach satisfactory results) to 10 (very difficult to reach satisfactory results)

It should be noted that the values used for each research topic have been assigned exclusively based on authors' personal opinion and taking into consideration the main results from the review presented above. Of course, these values are indicative and are provided in combination with comments, in order to help the reader be acquainted with the current status of each research category. In the last column of the Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], the number of reviewed citations for each research category is provided.

4. Limitations and future research challenges

The methodology that has been followed by the authors so as to conduct this research is based on the following basic principles:

- Wide literature review of the most important and added-value available resources in the KBD field.

- Categorization of major streams of KBD research, based on this review.

- Synthesis of results and assessment of each research category, based on criteria and following a qualitative, intuitive approach.

It should be noted that it is not within the purpose of this paper to present and follow an innovative methodological approach in order to conduct its research on the KBD field. This is the reason for which the approach is mainly based to simple literature review and qualitative (intuitive) scoring of KBD categories. As mentioned above, this scoring is based on author's personal opinion. Of course, future research calls for:

- Use of empirical components such as citations' analysis, field surveys, knowledge network analysis as well as for a specific approach regarding the scoring system.

- Conduction of a deeper and more distinctive conceptual and methodological analysis on the state of KBD discipline.

- Further exploration of all the issues discussed in this paper.

- Development of a specific and explicit model/approach regarding the scoring system of research categories.

The most efficient and effective way is to address these challenges through a specific research project which will provide the necessary context (mainly in terms of financial and human resources) so as to design a tailor-made approach for reviewing and synthesizing the whole KBD landscape.

5. Conclusions

KBD field has been considerably developed during the last years. The field is multi-disciplinary by nature and, in this respect, it attracts the interest of researchers and practitioners from various disciplines and backgrounds. The process of designing and applying KBD approaches is a really complex procedure, since many factors should be taken into consideration. This is the main reason creating the necessity to further elaborate on the existing pending issues in relation to KBD related research.

Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to present in a compact and coherent way the status of on-going research regarding the major aspects of KBD and to identify the main research challenges (research agenda) for the forthcoming years, by reviewing existing literature. The most important and influencing contributions from researchers in four main areas of KBD research have been examined and presented in a summarized way in this paper. In addition the main research challenges, as identified by these researchers, are also presented. The main categories examined are:

- concepts, strategies, approaches, frameworks and methodologies;

- KB-urban planning;

- practical applications; and

- assessment and metrics.

The results of this analysis were synthesized and an assessment of the status of each category has been accomplished (in a qualitative way), considering three main criteria:

The existing research volume, which indicates the volume of research conducted until today.

The existing research maturity, which assess how mature is the research conducted until today and able to provide useful results.

The research difficulty, which relates to the research that is necessary to be conducted in the future in relation to this category and how difficult is to reach satisfactory results.

The most important conclusions, that also constitute the perspective for 2010-2020 KBD research agenda, are the following:

- The research that needs to be conducted so as to develop holistic and unified approaches for the practical formulation of citizen-centric KBD strategies is important not only in terms of quantity but also of quality.

- The horizontal and complex nature of KB-urban planning also calls for further research in this field as well as regarding integrated tools and IT systems that will support this process.

- Regarding KBD assessment and metrics, the most important challenge is to define standardized and commonly accepted assessment methods and metrics.

- Focus should also be placed on the practical aspects of implementation of KBD approaches.

- Several themes have been discussed in this paper, and future work will continue to survey the different issues related to KBD. It is expected that the current and future work will provide researchers and practitioners with a solid baseline so as to research and practice in this emerging field.

References

1. Alfantookh, A.A. (2009), "Using the digital access index to assess the information and communication technology in knowledge cities", paper presented at the 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit, Shenzhen, 5-6 November.

2. Arima, T. (2009), "Decision-making support system by citizen participation for realizing u-service". paper presented at the 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit, Shenzhen, 5-6 November.

3. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) (2000), Towards Knowledge-based Economies in APEC, Economic Committee, APEC Secretariat, Singapore.

4. Bañegil, T.M. and Galván, R.S. (2006), "Intellectual capital within Iberian municipalities", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 55-64.

5. Baqir, M.N. and Kathawala, Y. (2004), "Ba for knowledge cities: a futuristic technology model", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 83-95.

6. Carrillo, F.J. (2004), "Capital cities: a taxonomy of capital accounts for KCs", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 28-46.

7. Carrillo, F.J. (Ed.) (2006), Knowledge Cities, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY.

8. Carrillo, F.J. (2007a), "The coming of age of knowledge-based development", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 3-5.

9. Carrillo, F.J. (2007b), Introduction to the Most Admired Knowledge City (MAKCi) Report, World Capital Institute and Teleos, available at: www.worldcapitalinstitute.org/makci.

10. Carrillo, F.J. (2008), "Towards a global knowledge-based development agenda", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 3-7.

11. Cevikayak, M. (2009), "PLACE 2.0: rethinking the spatial components of locals with ICTs". paper presented at the 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit,Shenzhen, 5-6 November.

12. Chase, R. (2007), Foreword to the Most Admired Knowledge City (MAKCi) Report, World Capital Institute and Teleos, available at: www.worldcapitalinstitute.org/makci.

13. Chatzkel, J. (2004), "Greater Phoenix as a knowledge capital", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 61-72.

14. Cheng, P., Choi, C.J., Chen, S., Eldomiaty, T.I. and Millar, C.C.J.M. (2004), "Knowledge repositories in KCs: institutions, conventions and knowledge subnetworks", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 96-106.

15. Dang, D. and Umemoto, K. (2009), "Modeling the development toward the knowledge economy: a national capability approach", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 359-72.

16. Durmaz, B., Yigitcanlar, T. and Velibeyoglu, K. (2008), "Creative cities and the firm industry", The Open Urban Studies Journal, Vol. 2008 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

17. Edvinsson, L. (2006), "Aspects on the city as a knowledge tool", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 6-13.

18. Ergazakis, K. and Metaxiotis, K. (2010), "Formulating integrated knowledge city development strategies: the KnowCis 2.0 methodology", Journal of Knowledge Management Research and Practice.

19. Ergazakis, E., Ergazakis, K. and Metaxiotis, K. (2010), "Building successful knowledge cities in the knowledge-based economy: a modern strategic framework", in Metaxiotis, K., Carrillo, F.J. and Yigitcanlar, T. (Eds), Knowledge-based Development of Cities and Societies: An Integrated Multi-level Approach, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 17-41.

20. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2006a), "A coherent framework for building successful KCs in the context of the knowledge-based economy", Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 46-59.

21. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Psarras, J. (2006b), "A unified methodological approach for the development of knowledge cities", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 65-78.

22. Ergazakis, E., Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Askounis, D. (2007), "An integrated decision support model for a knowledge city's strategy formulation", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 65-86.

23. Ergazakis, E., Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. and Charalabidis, Y. (2009), "Rethinking the development of successful knowledge cities: an advanced framework", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 214-27.

24. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., Psarras, J. and Grammatikos, K. (2006c), "Applying the KnowCis methodology to a Greek municipality: a case study", Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4, pp. 293-309.

25. Ergazakis, M., Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., Bellos, E. and Leopoulos, V. (2008), "An AI-based decision support system for designing knowledge-based development strategies", International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and Applications, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 201-33.

26. European Commission (2000), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-based Economy, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels.

27. Fernandez-Maldonado, A.M. and Romein, A. (2010), "The role of organisational capacity and knowledge-based development: the reinvention of Eindhoven", International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 79-96.

28. Galindo, I.M. (2007), "Regional development through knowledge creation in organic agriculture", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 87-97.

29. Garcia, B.C. (2008), "Global KBD Community developments: the MAKCi experience", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 91-106.

30. Garcia, B. (2009), "Identifying key elements in knowledge-cities benchmarking", paper presented at the 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit, Shenzhen, 5-6 November.

31. Goldberg, M., Pasher, E. and Levin-Sagi, M. (2006), "Citizen participation in decision-making processes: knowledge sharing in knowledge cities", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 92-8.

32. Grant, K.A., Chuang, S., Rashid, N. and Chan, A. (2009) Shenzhen, "CITYCARD - A new approach to ranking cities", paper presented at the 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit, 2009, Shenzhen, 5-6 November.

33. Heywood, P. (2008), "The place of knowledge-based development in the metropolitan region", in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.

34. Lerro, A. and Schiuma, G. (2009), "Knowledge-based dynamics of regional development: the case of Basilicata region", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 287-300.

35. Lin, C.Y. and Edvinsson, L. (2008), "National intellectual capital: comparison of the Nordic countries", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 525-45.

36. Maeng, D.M. and Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2008), "Spatial distribution of ICT in the Washington DC metropolitan region", in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.

37. Maeng, D.M. and Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2010), "Relationship between ICT and urban form in knowledge-based development: empirical analysis of Washington DC metro region", International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 97-117.

38. Matthiessen, C.W., Schwarz, A.W. and Find, S. (2006), "World cities of knowledge: research strength, networks and nodality", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 14-25.

39. Mohamed, M.S., O'Sullivan, K.J. and Ribiere, V. (2008), "A paradigm shift in the Arab region knowledge evolution", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 107-20.

40. OECD (2001), The New Economy: Beyond the Hype, Final Report on the OECD Growth Project, Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, Paris, available at www.oecd.org/EN/home/0,EN-home-33-nodirectorate-no-no-33,FF.html.

41. Olsson, J. and Edvinsson, L. (2009), "MINDZONE: quality of place through quality of life. Concepts, design methods and case study for urban capital renewal", paper presented at the 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit, Shenzhen, 5-6 November.

42. Passerini, K. (2007), "Knowledge-driven development indicators: still an eclectic panorama", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 115-28.

43. Petruzzelli, A.M., Albino, V. and Carbonara, N. (2007), "Technology districts: proximity and knowledge access", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 98-114.

44. Raza, A., Kausar, A.R. and Paul, D. (2006), "Culture, cognition and knowledge-based development", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 137-45.

45. Raza, A., Kausar, A.R. and Paul, D. (2007), "The social management of embodied knowledge in a knowledge community", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 45-54.

46. Rivera-Vasquez, J.C., Ortiz-Fournier, L.V. and Flores, F.R. (2008), "Overcoming cultural barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 257-70.

47. Rodriguez, B.M. and Viedma, J.M. (2006), "The region's intellectual capital benchmarking system: enabling economic growth through evaluation", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 41-54.

48. Sharma, R.S., Ng, E.W.J., Dharmawirya, M. and Lee, C.K. (2008), "Beyond the digital divide: a conceptual framework for analyzing knowledge societies", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 151-64.

49. Sharma, R.S., Samuel, E.M. and Ng, E.W.J. (2009), "Beyond the digital divide: policy analysis for knowledge societies", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 373-86.

50. Tschangho, J.K. (2008), "Planning for knowledge cities in ubiquitous technology spaces: opportunities and challenges", in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.

51. Velibeyoglu, K. and Yigitcanlar, T. (2008), "Understanding the supply side: ICT experience of Marmara region, Turkey", in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.

52. World Bank (1999), Knowledge for Development. World Development Report 1998-1999, World Bank, Washington, DC.

53. World Capital Institute (2007), The Most Admired Knowledge City (MAKCi) Report, World Capital Institute and Teleos, available at: www.worldcapitalinstitute.org/makci.

54. Yigitcanlar, T. (2009), "Planning for knowledge-based urban development: global perspectives", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 228-42.

55. Yigitcanlar, T. and Velibeyoglu, K. (2008), "Knowledge-based strategic planning", paper presented at the 3rd International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics, Matera.

56. Yigitcanlar, T., Baum, S. and Horton, S. (2007), "Attracting and retaining knowledge workers in knowledge cities", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 6-17.

57. Yigitcanlar, T., Saygin, O. and Hoon Han, J. (2008a), "Online participatory decision support tools for knowledge-based urban development", in Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (Eds), Creative Urban Regions, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.

58. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008b), "Rising knowledge cities: the role of urban knowledge precincts", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 8-20.

Appendix

About the authors

Kostas Ergazakis is a Senior Researcher at the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece. Kostas Ergazakis is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Kostas Metaxiotis is Assistant Professor at the Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus.

  

Illustration

Figure 1: Major streams of KBD research

  

Table I: