Digitalisierungsstrategien als Grenzobjekte: Akteurskonstellationen, Inhalte und institutionelle Grenzbearbeitung in Mittelstädten
Main Article Content
Abstract
Digitalization Strategies as Boundary Objects: Actor Constellations, Contents, and Institutional Boundary Work in Medium-Sized Cities
Digital transformation in municipalities requires the coordinated collaboration of heterogeneous actors. Digitalization strategies can serve as boundary objects by providing orientation and enabling alignment across stakeholders. Drawing on a qualitative document analysis of 24 strategy documents from medium-sized cities in North Rhine–Westphalia, the study examines how these boundary objects structure content and participation constellations. The findings show, first, that strategy development is predominantly organized internally and subsequently politically fed back. Second, broader actor involvement is associated with a wider coverage of policy fields, such that strategies more often extend beyond the digitalization of internal administrative processes and address city-wide transformation with interand transdisciplinary reference points. Third, key digital-government trends are largely independent of the extent of actor involvement. Overall, the results indicate that strategies as boundary objects, in the sense of common reference points, support structured coordination and negotiation processes, thereby facilitating comprehensive transformation.
Bibliography: Krebs, Marina/Korte, Niklas: Digitalisierungsstrategien als Grenzobjekte: Akteurskonstellationen, Inhalte und institutionelle Grenzbearbeitung in Mittelstädten, dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 2-2026, pp. 1-27.
Article Details
Literature
BBSR. (2026, 14. Januar). Raumbeobachtung – Stadt- und Gemeindetypen in Deutschland. https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/forschung/raumbeobachtung/Raumabgrenzungen/deutschland/gemeinden/StadtGemeindetyp/StadtGemeindetyp.html
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. v. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS quarterly, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3
Bitkom e. V. (2022). Kommentierung der „Kommunalstudie 2022“ des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. https://www.bitkom.org/sites/main/files/2022-09/Bitkom_Kommentierung_Kommunalstudie_2022.pdf
Brown, L., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review, 15(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.707681
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.
Bundesministerium des Innern. (2024, 27. September). E-Government-Gesetz. https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/themen/moderne-verwaltung/e-government/e-government-gesetz/e-government-gesetznode.html
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for Managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15(5), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government information quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
Edelmann, N., Mergel, I., & Lampoltshammer, T. (2023). Competences that foster digital Transformation of public administrations: An Austrian case study. Administrative Sciences, 13(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020044
eGov-Campus. (2026). Beirat. https://egov-campus.org/ueber-uns/beirat
Happ, M., & Kalevi Dieke, A. (2024). Analyse von Digitalisierungsstrategien deutscher Kommunen: Trends, Themen und Nachhaltigkeitsaspekte. WIK Diskussionsbeitrag.
Haug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2024). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: a systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-development projects fail: how can risks be reduced? iGovernment Working Paper Series (14).
Hornbostel, L., Tillack, D., Kraus, T., Nerger, M., Handschuh, A., Salden, J., & Bienek, C. (2023). Zukunftsradar Digitale Kommune: Ergebnisbericht zur Umfrage 2023.
International Monetary Fund. (2025). World Economic Outlook (October 2025): GDP, current prices (NGDPD) – All Country Data (Excel export). https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/export/excel.php?indicator=NGDPD
Kompetenzzentrum Öffentliche IT. (2025). ThemenRadar 2025: KI ist angekommen in den Amtsstuben (interaktive Ergebnismatrix; Jahresfilter: 2024). https://www.oeffentliche-it.de/umfragen/themenradar-2025/
Kuckartz, U. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa.
Lemmer, K., & Niehaves, B. (2020). Digital vorangehen. Eine Studie zum Stand der Digitalisierung deutscher Kommunen. Kompetenzzentrum Öffentliche IT (ÖFIT) & Kommunale Gemeinschaftsstelle für Verwaltungsmanagement (KGSt).
Marienfeldt, J., Kühler, J., Kuhlmann, S., & Proeller, I. (2024). Kommunale Verwaltungsdigitalisierung im föderalen Kontext: ein europäischer Ländervergleich. dms–der moderne staat–Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 17(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v17i1.03
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business & Information systems engineering, 57(5), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5
Mayring, P. & Fenzl, T. (2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (S. 633–648). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_42
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government information quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management journal, 6(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250060306
Niehaves, B., Röding, K., & Oschinsky, F. M. (2019). Structural features of digital strategies for municipalities. In K. Bergener, M. Räckers & A. Stein (Hrsg.), The art of structuring: Bridging the gap between information systems research and practice (S. 427–437). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06234-7_40
Niehaves, B., Röding, K., Oschinsky, F., Klein, H. C., Weigel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2018). Digitalisierungsstrategien für Kommunen. Wissen+, 2.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1993). Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic management. Journal of public administration research and theory, 3(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037167
OECD. (2025). OECD Economic Surveys: Germany. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/39d62aed-en
Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui027
Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public administration review, 70, 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02284.x
Soto-Acosta, P. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic: Shifting digital transformation to a high-speed gear. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1814461
Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization, 7(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127009102674
Stadt.Land.Digital. (2022). Kommunale Herausforderungen digital meistern.
Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, technology, & human values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2024). Alle politisch selbständigen Gemeinden mit ausgewählten Merkmalen am 31. 03.2024 (1. Quartal). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/Archiv/GVAuszugQ/AuszugGV1QAktuell.html
Strehmann, J. (2019). Smart-City-Atlas. Die kommunale digitale Transformation in Deutschland. Bitkom eV Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, TunMeV (Ed.), Berlin.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Thapa, B. (2024). Wer liest E-Gov-Strategien und wozu? https://background.tagesspiegel.de/smart-city-und-stadtentwicklung/briefing/wer-liest-e-gov-strategien-und-wozu
Thomann, E., Lieberherr, E., & Ingold, K. (2016). Torn between state and market: Private Policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics. Policy and Society, 35(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.12.001
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press on Demand. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
van Ryzin, G. G. (2004). Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services. Journal of policy analysis and management, 23(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20020
Vervaenen, V. & Danneels, L. (2024). Digital strategy in the public sector: An exploratory literature review In J. Ubacht, J. Crompvoets, C. Csáki, L. Danneels, M. Janssen, M. Rohde Johannessen et al. (Hrsg.), EGOV-CeDEM-ePart-Ongoing 2024: Ongoing Research, Practitioners, Posters, Workshops, and Projects at EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2024 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 3737). CEUR.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind-Jensen, T. (2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for information systems, 22(1), 102–129. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00655
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025). Intellectual property statistics: Germany: WIPO Statistics Database. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/statistics-country-profile/en/de.pdf
Share article
Title: Digitalisierungsstrategien als Grenzobjekte: Akteurskonstellationen, Inhalte und institutionelle Grenzbearbeitung in Mittelstädten
Issue: Jg. 19, Nr. 2-2026: Perspektiven der Verwaltungswissenschaft auf Transdisziplinarität (online first)