En 19 día(s), 6 hora(s) y 50 minuto(s): El Repositorio Institucional UNAL informa a la comunidad universitaria que, con motivo del periodo de vacaciones colectivas, el servicio de publicación estará suspendido: Periodo de cierre: Del 20 de diciembre al 18 de enero de 2026. Sobre los depósitos: Durante este tiempo, los usuarios podrán continuar realizando el depósito respectivo de sus trabajos en la plataforma. Reanudación: Una vez reiniciadas las actividades administrativas, los documentos serán revisados y publicados en orden de llegada.

Transformación digital en el Estado: modelo conceptual para impulsar procesos de innovación pública

dc.contributor.advisorBula Escobar, Jorge Ivanspa
dc.contributor.authorGarcia Camargo, Jhon Alexanderspa
dc.contributor.cvlachttps://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0001480272
dc.contributor.refereeOsorio Bustamante, Ferneyspa
dc.contributor.refereeMora Parra, Nicolásspa
dc.contributor.refereeNova Caldas, Germán Enriquespa
dc.contributor.refereeCastellanos Domínguez, Oscar Fernandospa
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-26T18:33:10Z
dc.date.available2025-11-26T18:33:10Z
dc.date.issued2025-11-25
dc.descriptionilustraciones, gráficas, tablasspa
dc.description.abstractSe propone un modelo de transformación digital robusto y adaptable, fundamentado en análisis de caso múltiple de iniciativas de innovación pública, a partir de un análisis teórico y empírico de los principales referentes tanto en la literatura como en estudios similares de un modelo previo y enriquecido con la perspectiva de expertos en el sector público colombiano. El principal objetivo de este modelo conceptual es impulsar procesos de innovación pública, maximizando la creación de valor para la ciudadanía. A partir de una metodología mixta, se ilustra cómo pueden las entidades públicas transformar digitalmente la prestación de sus servicios a partir de la coproducción y crear valor público en el proceso, con miradas y perspectivas diferenciadas para centrar la construcción del modelo en el ciudadano o usuario final de los servicios públicos del Estado. Los resultados permiten delinear una hoja de ruta integral para aquellas entidades que buscan superar enfoques de digitalización superficial y avanzar hacia una transformación organizacional profunda, que implique cambios estructurales en los procesos, la cultura institucional y los modelos de gestión. Asimismo, se destaca el papel estratégico de los laboratorios de innovación pública como catalizadores de procesos colaborativos, de coproducción y de articulación de iniciativas escalables y sostenibles. (Texto tomado de la fuente).spa
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation proposes a robust and adaptable digital transformation model, developed through a multiple case study analysis of public innovation initiatives. The model is grounded in both theoretical and empirical analyses of key references from academic literature and previous models, and is further enriched by insights from experts in the Colombian public sector. Its primary objective is to foster public sector innovation by maximizing public value creation. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study demonstrates how public entities can digitally transform their service delivery through co-production, thereby generating public value. The model is constructed from a citizen-centered perspective, incorporating diverse viewpoints to address the needs and experiences of public service end-users. The findings present a comprehensive roadmap for public organizations aiming to move beyond superficial digitalization toward a deep, structural transformation of their processes, organizational culture, and institutional frameworks. The research also underscores the strategic role of public innovation laboratories as enablers and catalysts of co-production, collaboration, and the development of scalable and sustainable initiatives.eng
dc.description.degreelevelDoctoradospa
dc.description.degreenameDoctor en Ingeniería – Industria y Organizacionesspa
dc.description.methodsDado que el objeto de estudio son organizaciones (públicas) lo que a su vez implica el entendimiento de las personas que orientan y/o son impactadas por iniciativas estatales en torno a la transformación digital en el sector público, esta investigación se adentró en el fenómeno a través de una metodología comprensiva y rigurosa (Osborne, 2017). El diseño se estructuró a partir de un enfoque exploratorio-explicativo, iniciando con estudios de caso múltiples de tres proyectos de transformación digital en entidades públicas (JRC., 2019; Mele & Belardinelli, 2018; Mertens, 2010; Moré et al., 2018). Estos casos fueron seleccionados a partir de varios criterios relacionados con la generación de valor público (Acar et al., 2023; Picazo-Vela et al., 2021), democratización y participación ciudadana (Schmidthuber et al., 2019; Sousa Santos, 1998), creación de soluciones digitales (Bogers et al., 2021; Ertiö et al., 2019; Lwoga & Sangeda, 2018) y de manera transversal, cada caso contó con el acompañamiento activo de un laboratorio de innovación para facilitar elementos de coproducción y colaboración (Alsina et al., 2020; Baretta et al., 2024; Bovaird, 2007; Brandsen & Honingh, 2015; Osorio et al., 2019, 2020; Picazo-Vela et al., 2021; Piqueiras Conlledo, 2020), un aspecto clave que permitió una comprensión detallada y contextualizada de las dinámicas que se dan en la interfaz entre la tecnología, la cultura organizacional y las políticas públicas. La fase inicial, de carácter cualitativo, tuvo como propósito identificar tanto patrones como particularidades en los casos analizados. Este trabajo permitió establecer las condiciones necesarias para avanzar posteriormente hacia un análisis cuantitativo centrado en una estrategia específica (García Camargo et al., 2025; Johnson & Christensen, 2024). Este paso fue fundamental para ir más allá de la descripción y adentrarse en la medición de impacto y la identificación de correlaciones, ofreciendo una visión macro que complementaba la profundidad de los casos. La metodología también incorporó la investigación-acción, un componente que facilitó una intervención directa en el campo y un aprendizaje continuo frente a la ejecución de los proyectos y su posterior reconstrucción y análisis (E. James et al., 2012; Molineux, 2018; Møller et al., 2022). Este ciclo iterativo de planificación, acción, observación y reflexión permitió que la comprensión teórica se informara y refinara con la experiencia directa, algo vital en un campo tan dinámico como la transformación digital en el ámbito público (García-Navarro et al., 2018; E. James et al., 2012; McKay & Marshall, 2002). La culminación de este proceso, que transitó de lo general a lo particular, fue el desarrollo de un modelo conceptual de transformación digital. Su validez y pertinencia fueron evaluadas mediante el método Delphi, una técnica que involucró a expertos en la temática para obtener un consenso informado y asegurar la robustez del modelo propuesto (El-Garem & Adel, 2022; Sablatzky, 2022). De otra parte, la triangulación constante de datos y hallazgos a lo largo de las fases metodológicas —que, si bien se sucedieron linealmente en su progresión, fueron inherentemente iterativas y se retroalimentaban— fue crucial. Este proceso contribuyó a asegurar la solidez y coherencia en la construcción del modelo, al tiempo que facilitó el contraste de perspectivas y el fortalecimiento de las conclusiones emergentes, otorgando a la investigación un nivel significativo de robustez (Arango Serna et al., 2019; Bason & Austin, 2021; Bianchi et al., 2021; Cui & Osborne, 2022; Paula et al., 2022). La elección de esta aproximación metodológica híbrida y secuencial ofreció ventajas significativas que respondieron directamente a la complejidad de la transformación digital en el sector público. En primer lugar, la combinación de enfoques cualitativos y cuantitativos no fue una mera amalgama; más bien, permitió una comprensión profunda y holística del fenómeno (Hanelt et al., 2020; Marcel et al., 2024; OECD, 2024b; Weißmüller et al., 2023). Los estudios de caso múltiples desentrañaron la riqueza contextual, capturando las particularidades organizacionales y proyectuales de manera que ningún otro método habría podido. Esto se complementó con la capacidad del análisis cuantitativo para identificar tendencias generales y medir el impacto de ciertas estrategias, ofreciendo una visión macro que validaba o complejizaba las observaciones cualitativas (Eisenhardt, 1989; García Camargo et al., 2025; Halkias et al., 2022). La investigación-acción, por su parte, aportó una dimensión práctica y de aprendizaje continuo, permitiendo que la teoría se informara y refinara con la experiencia directa, algo clave en un campo en constante evolución (McKay & Marshall, 2002; Møller et al., 2022). Finalmente, el método Delphi garantizó la solidez conceptual y la coherencia interna del modelo, al tiempo que permitió contrastar diversas perspectivas y consolidar las conclusiones emergentes, dotando a la investigación de una base analítica robusta (García Camargo et al., 2025; Johnson & Christensen, 2024; Mergel et al., 2019). Este enfoque metodológico también presentó limitaciones inherentes que vale la pena mencionar. La principal fue, sin duda, la intensidad de recursos y tiempo que demandó. La combinación de múltiples métodos, especialmente los estudios de caso y la investigación-acción, exigió una inmersión profunda y sostenida en el campo, lo que implicó una dedicación considerable (Fetters et al., 2013; Mele & Belardinelli, 2018; Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). La gestión y articulación de datos cualitativos y cuantitativos no fue un ejercicio trivial; representó un desafío constante que exigió rigor metodológico para garantizar la coherencia y consistencia de la información. Si bien el análisis cuantitativo aportó elementos valiosos al estudio, la generalización de los hallazgos derivados de los estudios de caso debe abordarse con cautela. Las particularidades del contexto organizacional de las entidades públicas analizadas podrían no ser directamente extrapolables a otras instituciones del sector, lo que resalta la importancia de realizar adaptaciones y consideraciones específicas según el entorno (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gasco-Hernandez et al., 2022; Halkias et al., 2022; Ridder, 2017; Scupola & Mergel, 2022). Por último, la participación y el compromiso continuo de los expertos en el método Delphi: si bien fue un aporte valioso para la validación del modelo, también se constituyó como un aspecto que requirió una gestión cuidadosa y proactiva para mantener la motivación y la calidad de las contribuciones por parte de los expertos, además de contar con tiempo y agenda para la revisión de la información entregada (Philip et al., 2023; Sablatzky, 2022).spa
dc.description.researchareaOrganizaciones, gestión de la tecnología y TIC’sspa
dc.format.extentvii, 419 páginasspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.instnameUniversidad Nacional de Colombiaspa
dc.identifier.reponameRepositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombiaspa
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/spa
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/89152
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad Nacional de Colombiaspa
dc.publisher.branchUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotáspa
dc.publisher.departmentDepartamento de Sistemas e Industrialspa
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Ingenieríaspa
dc.publisher.placeBogotá, Colombiaspa
dc.publisher.programBogotá - Ingeniería - Doctorado en Ingeniería - Industria y Organizacionesspa
dc.relation.referencesAbraham, R., Schneider, J., & Brocke, J. vom. (2019). Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. International Journal Information Management, 49, 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.008
dc.relation.referencesAcar, L., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2023). Public values? A systematic literature review into the outcomes of public service co-creation. Public Management Review, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2288248
dc.relation.referencesAdomako, S., & Nguyen, N. P. (2023). Digitalization, inter-organizational collaboration, and technology transfer. Th eJournal Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-023-10031-z
dc.relation.referencesAgostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2021). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 1.
dc.relation.referencesAguilar Viana, A. C. (2021). Transformação digital na administração pública: do governo eletrônico ao governo digital. Revista Eurolatinoamericana Derecho Administrativo, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.14409/redoeda.v8i1.10330
dc.relation.referencesAlcaide–Muñoz, L., Rodr𝚤guez–Bol𝚤var, M. P., Cobo, M. J., & Herrera–Viedma, E. (2017). Analysing the scientific evolution of e-Government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.002
dc.relation.referencesAlford, J. (2002). Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce?: Toward a Contingency Theory. Administration and Society, 34(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702034001004
dc.relation.referencesAlford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management. The American Review Public Administration, 38(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008314203
dc.relation.referencesAlipour, S. M., Farazmand, A., & Hakamizadeh, F. (2024). Digital Transformation Research: Identifying The Elements Influencing Digital Transformation at the National Level. InternationalJournal Information Communication Technology Research, 16(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.61186/itrc.16.4.57
dc.relation.referencesAlita, L., & Oosterveer, P. (2025). Co-Design for Public Service Innovation in China: The Enabling Role of Street-Level Bureaucrats. Public Performance and ManagementReview, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2025.2480694
dc.relation.referencesAlliance, S. (2016). The state of Scrum report 2017 edition. URL https://www.Scrumalliance.org/learnaboutScrum/state-scrum/2017-state-ofscrum (accessed: 1.09. 2020).
dc.relation.referencesAlmazrouei, F., Elias Sarker, A., Zervopoulos, P., & Yousaf, S. (2024). Organizational structure, agility, and public value-driven innovation performance in the UAE public services. Heliyon, 10(13), 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33261
dc.relation.referencesAlsaqqa, S., Sawalha, S., & Abdel-Nabi, H. (2020). Agile Software Development: Methodologies and Trends. InternationalJournal Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i11.13269
dc.relation.referencesAlsina, V., Gomez, V., & Noveck, B. S. (2020). Laboratorios de Innovación Pública en América Latina y el Caribe desde una Perspectiva Comparada. GOVLAB - IDB. https://files.thegovlab.org/govlab-paraguay-innovation-labs.pdf
dc.relation.referencesAngelopoulos, M., & Pollalis, Y. (2021). Digital Transformation: From Data Analytics to Customer Solutions. A Framework of Types, Techniques and Tools. Archives Business Research, 9(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.96.10291
dc.relation.referencesAnsell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Pathways to Co-created Public Value Outcomes. In Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy (pp. 136–160). Cambridge University Press.
dc.relation.referencesArango Serna, M. D., Branch, J. W., Castro Benavides, L. M., & Burgos, D. (2019). Un modelo conceptual de transformación digital. Openergy y el caso de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Education Knowledge Society (EKS), 19(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks201819495107
dc.relation.referencesArias, F. D., Navarro, M., Elfanagely, Y., & Elfanagely, O. (2023). Biases in research studies. In Translational Surgery (pp. 191–194). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-90300-4.00082-3
dc.relation.referencesArundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy, 48(3), 3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.001
dc.relation.referencesAsher, M., Leston‐Bandeira, C., & Spaiser, V. (2019). Do Parliamentary Debates of e‐Petitions Enhance Public Engagement With Parliament? An Analysis of Twitter Conversations. Policy & Internet, 11(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.194
dc.relation.referencesBáez, A. (2023). Gobernanza: estado del arte. Estudios la Gestión: Revista InternacionalAdministración, 13, 13. https://doi.org/10.32719/25506641.2023.13.6
dc.relation.referencesBaiocchi, G. (2003). Emergent Public Spheres: Talking Politics in Participatory Governance. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088902
dc.relation.referencesBank, T. W. (2007). Participatory Budgeting (A. Shah, Ed.). The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6923-4
dc.relation.referencesBannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
dc.relation.referencesBaretta, J. V., Hoffmann, M. G., Militao, L., & Farias, J. S. (2024). Coproduction, public sector innovation and governance: a systematic literature review. International Journal Innovation Science. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-05-2023-0107
dc.relation.referencesBarrios-Ulloa, A., Cama-Pinto, D., Arrabal-Campos, F. M., Mart𝚤nez-Lao, J. A., Monsalvo-Amaris, J., Hernández-López, A., & Cama-Pinto, A. (2023). Overview of Mobile Communications in Colombia and Introduction to 5G. Sensors, 23(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031126
dc.relation.referencesBartel, A., Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (2007). How Does Information Technology Affect Productivity? Plant-Level Comparisons of Product Innovation, Process Improvement, and Worker Skills. The Quarterly Journal Economics, 122(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1721
dc.relation.referencesBartocci, L., Grossi, G., Mauro, S. G., & Ebdon, C. (2022). The journey of participatory budgeting: a systematic literature review and future research directions. InternationalReview Administrative Sciences, 89(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221078938
dc.relation.referencesBason, C., & Austin, R. D. (2021). Design in the public sector: Toward a human centred model of public governance. Public Management Review, 24(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1919186
dc.relation.referencesBatlle-Montserrat, J., Abadal, E., & Blat, J. (2011). Benchmarking del e-Gobierno Local: Limitaciones de Los Métodos de Evaluación Comparativa. El Profesional la Informacion, 20(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2011.may.02
dc.relation.referencesBeattie, M., & Buisman, H. (2025). Innovation labs can’t do it all…. https://oecd-opsi.org/blog/innovation-labs-cant-do-it-all/
dc.relation.referencesBecerra, C. A. B. (2011). Presupuesto participativo herramienta para la democracia (G. (México) : C. del Estado de Jalisco : Instituto Electoral y de Participación Ciudadana de Jalisco, Ed.).
dc.relation.referencesBem Machado, A. de, Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2021). Knowledge management and digital transformation for Industry 4.0: a structured literature review. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 20(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2021.2015261
dc.relation.referencesBenczúr, A. (2003). The evolution of human communication and the information revolution — A mathematical perspective. Mathematical Computer Modelling, 38(7-9), 7-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7177(03)90055-0
dc.relation.referencesBertot, J. C., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P. T., Sarin, L. C., & Choi, H. (2014). Big data, open government and e-government: Issues, policies and recommendations. Information Polity, 19(1,2), 1,2. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-140328
dc.relation.referencesBewick, V., Cheek, L., & Ball, J. (2003). Statistics review 7: Correlation and regression. Critical Care, 7(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc2401
dc.relation.referencesBianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777
dc.relation.referencesBiswas, A. (2023). E-Governance: Meaning, Objectives, Features, and 4 Types. https://doi.org/https://schoolofpoliticalscience.com/what-is-e-governance/
dc.relation.referencesBlind, K., Petersen, S. S., & Riillo, C. A. F. (2017). The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets. ResearchPolicy, 46(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.003
dc.relation.referencesBogers, M. L. A. M., Garud, R., Thomas, L. D. W., Tuertscher, P., & Yoo, Y. (2021). Digital innovation: transforming research and practice. Innovation, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.2005465
dc.relation.referencesBogotá, A. M. de. (2020). Gobierno Abierto de Bogotá.
dc.relation.referencesBogotá, S. D. de Planeación de. (2023). Planeación y presupuesto participativo.
dc.relation.referencesBonnin Roca, J. (2024). Regulatory agencies as innovation enablers: a conceptualization. Science Public Policy, 51(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae049
dc.relation.referencesBovaird, T. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
dc.relation.referencesBovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. VOLUNTAS International Journal Voluntary Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
dc.relation.referencesBovaird, T., Loeffler, E., Yates, S., Van Ryzin, G., & Alford, J. (2021). International survey evidence on user and community co-delivery of prevention activities relevant to public services and outcomes. Public Management Review, 25(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1991665
dc.relation.referencesBoztepe, S., Christiansson, J., Götzen, A. de, Hepburn, L.-A., & Keinonen, T. (2024). Rethinking design in the public sector: A relational turn. https://doi.org/10.57698/V18I3.01
dc.relation.referencesBrandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
dc.relation.referencesBresciani, S., Ferraris, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technological Forecasting Social Change, 136, 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.002
dc.relation.referencesBrudney, J. L. (2019). Rethinking coproduction: amplifying involvement and effectiveness. Journal Chinese Governance, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1666542
dc.relation.referencesBryda, G., & Costa, A. P. (2023). Qualitative Research in Digital Era: Innovations, Methodologies and Collaborations. SocialSciences, 12(10), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100570
dc.relation.referencesBryer, J., & Speerschneider, K. (2022). Package ‘likert.
dc.relation.referencesBudayová, Z., Pavliková, M., Samed Al-Adwan, A., & Klasnja, K. (2022). The Impact of Modern Technologies on Life in a Pandemic Situation. Journal Education Culture Society, 13(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2022.1.213.224
dc.relation.referencesBuonocore, M. N., Martino, M. D., & Ferro, C. (2021). Digital transformation and cities: How COVID-19 has boosted a new evolution of urban spaces. Journal Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 15(1), 1.
dc.relation.referencesBurnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values. Journal Change Management, 11(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2010.524655
dc.relation.referencesCabannes, Y. (2015). The impact of participatory budgeting on basic services: municipal practices and evidence from the field. Environment Urbanization, 27(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247815572297
dc.relation.referencesCAF. (2023). Segundo Concurso Buenas Prácticas Regulatorias. https://www.caf.com/media/4019722/dictamen-de-ganadores-del-concurso.pdf
dc.relation.referencesCai, Y., & Lattu, A. (2021). Triple Helix or Quadruple Helix: Which Model of Innovation to Choose for Empirical Studies? Minerva, 60(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09453-6
dc.relation.referencesCantillo Arce, S., Osorio, F., Gabriel, A., Rodríguez, L. A., & Camargo, M. (2025). Sustainable Value Creation Methodology for Multistakeholder Collaboration: Application for InnoLabs. In Human-Centred Technology Management for a Sustainable Future (pp. 295–304). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72490-9_29
dc.relation.referencesCarter, L., & Belanger, F. (2004). Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2004.1265306
dc.relation.referencesCastellanos Aceros, H. (2001). Historiografía de la Ingeniería de Sistemas en la U. N. Ingeniería e Investigación, 47, 47. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.n47.21344
dc.relation.referencesCastiblanco Abril, O. L., & Vizcaino Arevalo, D. F. (2018). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Autor: Uwe Flick. http://hdl.handle.net/11349/18887
dc.relation.referencesCepiku, D., Marsilio, M., Sicilia, M., & Vainieri, M. (2022). A comprehensive framework for the activation, management, and evaluation of Co-production in the public sector. Journal Cleaner Production, 380, 135056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135056
dc.relation.referencesCette, G., & Lopez, J. (2012). ICT demand behaviour: an international comparison. Economics Innovation New Technology, 21(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2011.595921
dc.relation.referencesChakraborty, M., & Kundan, A. (2021). Monitoring Cloud-Native Applications. Apress L. P.
dc.relation.referencesChan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2020). Service Design and Citizen Satisfaction with E‐Government Services: A Multidimensional Perspective. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13308
dc.relation.referencesChang, W. C., Lin, W. Z., Chen, W.-Z., Chiou, W.-K., & Lin, O. S. (2025). Design-driven innovation in the public sector: insights from case studies of initiatives in Taiwan. Journal Asian Public Policy, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2025.2457166
dc.relation.referencesCharles Hodges, T. T. & A. B. Stephanie Moore Barb Lockee. (2020). The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning.
dc.relation.referencesChávez-Rivas, P. I., & Heredia-Llatas, F. D. (2024). Modernización de la gestión pública en los diferentes niveles de gobierno, una revisión literaria. Revista Nacional Administración, 15(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.22458/rna.v14i2.3978
dc.relation.referencesCiric, D., Lalic, B., Gracanin, D., Palcic, I., & Zivlak, N. (2018). Agile Project Management in New Product Development and Innovation Processes: Challenges and Benefits Beyond Software Domain. 2018 IEEE International Symposium Innovation Entrepreneurship(TEMSISIE), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMS-ISIE.2018.8478461
dc.relation.referencesCohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. Adv.Comput., 62(03), 03.
dc.relation.referencesCole, L. (2021). A framework to conceptualize innovation purpose in public sector innovation labs. Policy Design Practice, 5(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2007619
dc.relation.referencesColombia, M. de Educación Nacional de. (2021). Buenas prácticas en innovación educativa y transformación digital.
dc.relation.referencesColombia, S. de la República de. (2019). LEY 1978 DE 2019. Senado de la República de Colombia. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=98210
dc.relation.referencesCombita, J., Uribe, P., Sedano, J., Serrano, L., & Herrera, L. (2023). Transformación Digital: experiencias colectivas (E. U. N. de Colombia, Ed.). Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
dc.relation.referencesCommission, E. (2013). Powering European public sector innovation: towards a new architecture : report of the expert group on public sector innovation. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2777/51054
dc.relation.referencesComunicaciones, D. N. de Tecnologías de la Información y las. (2015). PETI UNAL 2015.
dc.relation.referencesComunicaciones MINTIC, M. de las Tecnologías de la Información y. (2022a). Política de Gobierno Digital. https://gobiernodigital.mintic.gov.co/portal/Politica-de-Gobierno-Digital/
dc.relation.referencesComunicaciones MINTIC, M. de Tecnologías de la Información y las. (2022b). Índice de Brecha Digital 2021. MINTIC Colombia. https://colombiatic.mintic.gov.co/679/articles-238353_recurso_1.pdf
dc.relation.referencesCordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Governmen tInformation Quarterly, 29(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004
dc.relation.referencesCordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005
dc.relation.referencesCoursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of E‐Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x
dc.relation.referencesCoyle, C. L., & Vaughn, H. (2008). Social networking: Communication revolution or evolution? BellLabs Technical Journal, 13(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/bltj.20298
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2020a). CRC liderará primer Sandbox Regulatorio en servicios de telecomunicaciones en el mundo. CRC. https://www.crcom.gov.co/es/noticias/comunicado-prensa/crc-liderara-primer-sandbox-regulatorio-en-servicios-telecomunicaciones
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2020b). REVISIÓN DEL FORMATO 1.2. “TARIFAS Y SUSCRIPTORES DE PLANES INDIVIDUALES Y EMPAQUETADOS” DEL TÍTULO DE REPORTES DE INFORMACIÓN DE LA RESOLUCIÓN CRC 5050 DE 2016 Documento Soporte. https://www.crcom.gov.co/system/files/Proyectos Comentarios/2000-71-15/Propuestas/documento_soporte1_2.pdf
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2020c). Agenda Regulatoria 2020-2021. https://www.crcom.gov.co/es/proyectos-regulatorios/5000-2020-1#: :text=La Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones (CRC) presenta,publicado por la CRC en octubre de 2019.
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2021). Con éxito concluyó la primera convocatoria del Sandbox Regulatorio en servicios de comunicaciones en el mundo liderado por la CRC. https://www.crcom.gov.co/es/noticias/comunicado-prensa/con-exito-concluyo-primera-convocatoria-sandbox-regulatorio-en-servicios
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2022). Comparador de planes de Internet, telefonía y TV por suscripción. https://comparador.crcom.gov.co/terms
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2024a). RESOLUCIÓN No. 7285 DE 2024 “Por la cual se adoptan medidas para la promoción de la competencia, se modifican algunas disposiciones de la Resolución CRC 5050 de 2016 y se dictan otras disposiciones. https://www.crcom.gov.co/sites/default/files/normatividad/00007285.pdf
dc.relation.referencesCRC. (2024b). RESOLUCIÓN No. 7285 DE 2024 “Por la cual se adoptan medidas para la promoción de la competencia, se modifican algunas disposiciones de la Resolución CRC 5050 de 2016 y se dictan otras disposiciones. https://www.crcom.gov.co/sites/default/files/normatividad/00007285.pdf
dc.relation.referencesCronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555
dc.relation.referencesCubo, A., Carrión, J. L. H., Porrúa, M., & Roseth, B. (2022). Guía de transformación digital del gobierno. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. https://doi.org/10.18235/0004402
dc.relation.referencesCui, T., & Osborne, S. P. (2022). New development: Value destruction in public service delivery—a process model and its implications. Public Money & Management, 43(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2022.2126645
dc.relation.referencesDavidson, P. (2024). Exploring the Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Delphi Studies: A Comparative Analysis of Human and AI Expert Panels. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:274959647
dc.relation.referencesDaymond, J., & Knight, E. (2023). Design Thinking in Business and Management: Research History, Themes, and Opportunities. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.386
dc.relation.referencesDeroncele-Acosta, A., Palacios-Núñez, M. L., & Toribio-López, A. (2023). Digital Transformation and Technological Innovation on Higher Education Post-COVID-19. Sustainability, 15(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032466
dc.relation.referencesDiercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028
dc.relation.referencesDíez-Guitiérrez, E.-J., & Gajardo Espinoza, K. (2022). Educar y evaluar durante el confinamiento en España: mundo rural y urbano. Education Knowledge Society (EKS), 23, e26312. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.26312
dc.relation.referencesDNP. (2019). POLÍTICA NACIONAL PARA LA TRANSFORMACIÓN DIGITAL E INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Económicos/3975.pdf
dc.relation.referencesDoherty, N. F., Coombs, C. R., & Loan-Clarke, J. (2006). A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal Information Systems, 15(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000653
dc.relation.referencesDonner, J., & Escobari, M. X. (2010). A review of evidence on mobile use by micro and small enterprises in developing countries. Journal International Development, 22(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1717
dc.relation.referencesDragičević, N., Vladova, G., & Ullrich, A. (2023). Design thinking capabilities in the digital world: A bibliometric analysis of emerging trends. Frontiers Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1012478
dc.relation.referencesDragu, T., & Lupu, Y. (2021). Digital Authoritarianism and the Future of Human Rights. International Organization, 75(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000624
dc.relation.referencesDuncombe, R. (2015). Mobile Phones for Agricultural and Rural Development: A Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research. The European Journal Development Research, 28(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.60
dc.relation.referencesEdquist, C. (2019). Towards a holistic innovation policy: Can the Swedish National Innovation Council (NIC) be a role model? Research Policy, 48(4), 4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.008
dc.relation.referencesEisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy Management Review, 14(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557
dc.relation.referencesEl-Garem, A., & Adel, R. (2022). Applying Systematic Literature Review and Delphi Methods to Explore Digital Transformation Key Success Factors. International Journal Economics Management Engineering, 16(7), 7. https://publications.waset.org/vol/187
dc.relation.referencesElia, G., Solazzo, G., Lerro, A., Pigni, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2024). The digital transformation canvas: A conceptual framework for leading the digital transformation process. Business Horizons, 67(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.03.007
dc.relation.referencesElmawazini, K., Atallah, G., Rafiquzzaman, M., & Guesmi, K. (2022). Do regulatory policies matter to corporate innovation? International Review Financial Analysis, 84, 102398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102398
dc.relation.referencesElo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
dc.relation.referencesEom, S.-J., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 2. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101690
dc.relation.referencesErtiö, T.-P., Tuominen, P., & Rask, M. (2019). Turning Ideas into Proposals: A Case for Blended Participation During the Participatory Budgeting Trial in Helsinki. In P. Panagiotopoulos, N. Edelmann, O. Glassey, G. Misuraca, P. Parycek, T. Lampoltshammer, & B. Re (Eds.), Electronic Participation (pp. 15–25). Springer International Publishing.
dc.relation.referencesFakhar Manesh, M., Pellegrini, M. M., Marzi, G., & Dabic, M. (2021). Knowledge Management in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Mapping the Literature and Scoping Future Avenues. IEEE Transactions Engineering Management, 68(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2019.2963489
dc.relation.referencesFalco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Digital Participatory Platforms for Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review. International Journal E-Planning Research, 7(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2018070105
dc.relation.referencesFernández, A., Gómez, B., Binjaku, K., & Meçe, E. K. (2023). Digital transformation initiatives in higher education institutions: A multivocal literature review. Education Information Technologies, 28(10), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11544-0
dc.relation.referencesFernández-Portillo, A., Almodóvar-González, M., & Hernández-Mogollón, R. (2020). Impact of ICT development on economic growth. A study of OECD European union countries. Technology Society, 63, 101420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101420
dc.relation.referencesFetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs—Principles and Practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 6pt2. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
dc.relation.referencesFischer, C., Heuberger, M., & Heine, M. (2021). The impact of digitalization in the public sector: a systematic literature review. Dermoderne Staat–Zeitschriftfür Public Policy, Rechtund Management, 14(1-2021), 1-2021. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.13
dc.relation.referencesFischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process management. Information & Management, 57(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103262
dc.relation.referencesFletcher, G., & Griffiths, M. (2020). Digital transformation during a lockdown. International Journal Information Management, 55, 102185.
dc.relation.referencesFresán Orozco, M. (2004). La extensión universitaria y la Universidad Pública. REencuentro. Análisis Problemas Universitarios. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=34003906
dc.relation.referencesGable, M. (2014). Efficiency, Participation, and Quality: Three Dimensions of E-Government? Social Science Computer Review, 33(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314552390
dc.relation.referencesGálvez Albarrac𝚤n, E. J. (2014). Tecnolog𝚤as de información y comunicación, e innovación en las MIPYMES de Colombia. Cuadernos administración (Universidad del Valle), 30(51), 51.
dc.relation.referencesGarcía, Á. L., & Satrústegui, A. U. (2017). De la Innovación Social a la Innovación Pública: un marco para la reflexión en la reforma de las políticas públicas.
dc.relation.referencesGarcia, C., Suarez, J., Niño, D., Roa, O., Barbosa, A., Plazas, J., Garcia, J., López, J., & Picón, I. (2023). Data as a tool for regulation and decision-making in telecommunications services: An academy-state innovation experience. Kalpa Publications Computing. https://doi.org/10.29007/s4j3
dc.relation.referencesGarcia, C., Suarez, J., Roa, O., Torres, A., & Garcia, J. (2021). Gobiernos abiertos, ciudadan𝚤a que decide. Transformación digital del mecanismo de presupuestos participativos en Bogotá. The 1st LACCEI International MultiConference Entrepreneurship, Innovation,Regional Development“Ideas Overcome Emerge Pandemic Crisis. https://doi.org/10.18687/leird2021.1.1.1
dc.relation.referencesGarcía Camargo, J. A., García Acevedo, A. C., Ramírez, C. S., & Martínez Medina, S. (2024). El sandbox regulatorio del sector de las comunicaciones: un ejemplo de innovación en la gestión pública en Colombia. Revista Doctrina Distrital, 4(3), 3. https://doctrinadistrital.com/ojs2/index.php/RevistaDoctrinaDistrital/article/view/121
dc.relation.referencesGarcía Camargo, J. A., Niño Torres, J. D., López-Castiblanco, J. A., Herrera-Quintero, L. K., & Bula Escobar, J. I. (2025). Digital Transformation: Perspectives and Post-Pandemic Adaptation in the Education Sector – A Case Study. Ingeniería e Investigación, 44(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.112661
dc.relation.referencesGarcia, J., Pacheco, L., Alarcón, L., Parra, N., Silva, M., & Bula, J. (2022, November). DIGITAL EDUCATIONAL CONTENT: INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY AS A PUBLIC INNOVATION SCHEME TO STRENGTHEN CITIZEN LEARNING PROCESSES. ICERI2022 Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2022.0161
dc.relation.referencesGarcía-Navarro, J., Ramírez, F. J., & Ruíz-Ortega, M. J. (2018). Using Action Research to Implement an Operating Efficiency Initiative in a Local Government. Systemic Practice Action Research, 32(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9451-1
dc.relation.referencesGarriga-Portolà, M., & López-Ventura, J. (2014). The Role of Open Government in Smart Cities. In Open Government (pp. 205–216). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9563-5_13
dc.relation.referencesGarzón, J. S. E., & Quintero, L. K. H. (2024). Ecosistema de transformación digital intersedes : gobernanza, experiencias y talento en cultura digital. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/85852
dc.relation.referencesGasco-Hernandez, M., Nasi, G., Cucciniello, M., & Hiedemann, A. M. (2022). The role of organizational capacity to foster digital transformation in local governments: The case of three European smart cities. Urban Governance, 2(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2022.09.005
dc.relation.referencesGawłowski, R. (2018). Co-production as a tool for realisation of public services. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 2(44)/2018, 2(44)/2018. https://doi.org/10.15678/zp.2018.44.2.05
dc.relation.referencesGemini. (2025). Respuesta Prompt a partir de las categorías y agrupaciones previamente realizadas, compara con el modelo que se te presenta y ofrece alternativas de mejora de este, fruto de la revisión de los expertos que ya procesaste.
dc.relation.referencesGil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2017). Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
dc.relation.referencesGill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review. Journal Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9210-y
dc.relation.referencesGillani, F., Chatha, K. A., Jajja, S. S., Cao, D., & Ma, X. (2024). Unpacking Digital Transformation: Identifying key enablers, transition stages and digital archetypes. Technological Forecasting Social Change, 203, 123335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123335
dc.relation.referencesGilman, H. R. (2016). Engaging Citizens: Participatory Budgeting and the Inclusive Governance Movement within the United States. Ash Center Occasional Papers.
dc.relation.referencesGiraldo, D. F. B., & Báquiro, J. C. A. (2020). Appropriation of ICT in the educational field: approach to public policy in Colombia years 2000-2019. Digital Education Review, 37, 37. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.109-129
dc.relation.referencesGoktas, H. O., & Yumusak, N. (2024). Applying the Delphi Method to Assess Critical Success Factors of Digitalization While Sustaining Lean at a Lean Automaker. Sustainability, 16(19), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198424
dc.relation.referencesGoldfrank, B. (2006). LOS PROCESOS DE “PRESUPUESTO PARTICIPATIVO” EN AMÉRICA LATINA: ÉXITO, FRACASO Y CAMBIO. Revista ciencia política (Santiago), 26(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2006000200001
dc.relation.referencesGómez, E. (2019). Gobierno Abierto: Un análisis de su adopción en los Gobiernos Locales desde las Pol𝚤ticas Públicas. Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública. https://books.google.com.co/books?id=zD24DwAAQBAJ
dc.relation.referencesGonzález-Zapata, F., & Piccinin-Barbieri, M. (2021). Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a Just Digital Transformation. In Development Co-operation Report. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en
dc.relation.referencesGoodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball Sampling. In The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (No. 1; Vol. 32, Issue 1, pp. 148–170). Institute of Mathematical Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
dc.relation.referencesGoodrick, D. (2016). Estudios de caso comparativos. In Methodological Briefs (No. 9; Issue 9, p. 20). UNICEF.
dc.relation.referencesGuadalupi, C., Figueroa, N., & Lemus, J. (2024). Regulation and Responsible Innovation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4984370
dc.relation.referencesGuillén-Gámez, F. D., Ruiz-Palmero, J., Sánchez-Rivas, E., & Colomo-Magaña, E. (2020). ICT resources for research: an ANOVA analysis on the digital research skills of higher education teachers comparing the areas of knowledge within each gender. Education Information Technologies, 25(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10176-6
dc.relation.referencesGurumurthy, R., & Schatsky, D. (2019). Pivoting to digital maturity: Seven capabilities central to digital transformation. Delloite insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/digital-maturity/digital-maturity-pivot-model.html
dc.relation.referencesGurusamy, K., Srinivasaraghavan, N., & Adikari, S. (2016). An Integrated Framework for Design Thinking and Agile Methods for Digital Transformation. In Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Thinking and Methods (pp. 34–42). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40409-7_4
dc.relation.referencesGuttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02288892
dc.relation.referencesGuzmán-Pardo, M. A., & Herrera-Quintero, L. K. (2023). Women at the Faculty of Engineering of Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá Campus: History, Present, and Future. Ingeniería e Investigación, 43(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.15446/ing.investig.101200
dc.relation.referencesHalkias, D., Neubert, M., Thurman, P. W., & Harkiolakis, N. (2022). The Multiple Case Study Design: Methodology and Application for Management Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003244936
dc.relation.referencesHanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Marante, C. A. (2020). A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. Journal Management Studies, 58(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
dc.relation.referencesHansen, M. B., & Nørup, I. (2017). Leading the Implementation of ICT Innovations. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12807
dc.relation.referencesHarpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents Pharmacy Teaching Learning, 7(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001
dc.relation.referencesHartley, J. (2005). Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x
dc.relation.referencesHaug, N., Dan, S., & Mergel, I. (2023). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: a systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
dc.relation.referencesHeilig, L., Schwarze, S., & Voss, S. (2017). An Analysis of Digital Transformation in the History and Future of Modern Ports. Proceedings 50th Hawaii International Conference System Sciences (2017). https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2017.160
dc.relation.referencesHenriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2015). The shape of digital transformation: A systematic literature review. https://doi.org/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301368251.pdf#page=438
dc.relation.referencesHernández-Bello, A., & Agudelo-Londoño, S. M. (2021). La pandemia de COVID-19 en Colombia y los desafíos de la respuesta sanitaria. Gerencia y Políticas Salud, 20, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.rgps20.covid
dc.relation.referencesHerrera, L. K., Combita-Pulido, J., Parra-Ortiz, N. P., Torres, J., & Perez Zapata, G. A. (2021). Estrategia De Digitalización Para Los Laboratorios De La Universidad Nacional De Colombia: Evaluación E Implementación. Proceedings 19th LACCEI International Multi-ConferenceEngineering,Education, Technology: “Prospective Trends technologySkills sustainable social development” “Leveraging emerging technologiesConstruct future. https://doi.org/10.18687/laccei2021.1.1.438
dc.relation.referencesHerrera Quintero, L. K., Adolfo, P. Z. G., Helena, S. R. L., Carolina, U. P. P., Eduardo, C. P. J., Alexander, S. D. J., Marisol, M. A., Fernanda, L. D. M., Fernando, G. V. J., Eduardo, B. G., Lizeth, R. C. D., Girlesa, L. Q. M., Constanza, P. G. L., Elizabeth, L. G., Gustavo, C. M. H., Mercedes, L. S. L., Marielys, F. A., Alejandra, B. R. C., M., A.-O. A., … Nubia, S. C. (2023). Transformación Digital: experiencias colectivas. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/83677
dc.relation.referencesHerrera Quintero, L. K., Jacobo, Z. F., & Carolina, U. P. P. (2024). Bit a bit : la transformación digital de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/86007
dc.relation.referencesHertzum, M. (2020). Usability Testing: A Practitioner’s Guide to Evaluating the User Experience. In Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02227-2
dc.relation.referencesHidalgo, E. S. (2019). Adapting the scrum framework for agile project management in science: case study of a distributed research initiative. Heliyon, 5(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01447
dc.relation.referencesHiller, R. M., Halligan, S. L., Meiser-Stedman, R., Elliott, E., Rutter-Eley, E., & Hutt, T. (2021). Coping and support-seeking in out-of-home care: a qualitative study of the views of young people in care in England. BMJ Open, 11(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038461
dc.relation.referencesHinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information Organization, 28(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
dc.relation.referencesHollweck, T. (2015). Robert K. Yin. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). CanadianJournal Program Evaluation, 30(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108
dc.relation.referencesHong, S., Kim, S. H., & Kwon, M. (2022). Determinants of digital innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101723
dc.relation.referencesHout, M. A. R. van, Braams, R. B., Meijer, P., & Meijer, A. J. (2024). Designing an instrument for scaling public sector innovations. Science Public Policy, 51(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae007
dc.relation.referencesHron, M., & Obwegeser, N. (2022). Why and how is Scrum being adapted in practice: A systematic review. Journal Systems Software, 183, 111110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111110
dc.relation.referencesHyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal Qualitative Studies Health Well-being, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606
dc.relation.referencesImgrund, F., Fischer, M., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2018). Approaching Digitalization with Business Process Management.
dc.relation.referencesImran, F., Shahzad, K., Butt, A., & Kantola, J. (2021). Digital Transformation of Industrial Organizations: Toward an Integrated Framework. Journal Change Management, 21(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1929406
dc.relation.referencesJack, E. P., & Raturi, A. S. (2006). Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research. Management Research News, 29(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170610683833
dc.relation.referencesJames, E., Slater, T., & Bucknam, A. (2012). Action Research for Business, Nonprofit, & Public Administration: A Tool for Complex Times. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387468
dc.relation.referencesJames, M. A. (2015). Managing the Classroom for Creativity. Creative Education, 06(10), 10. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.610102
dc.relation.referencesJanowski, T. (2015a). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. In Government Information quarterly (No. 3; Vol. 32, Issue 3, pp. 221–236). Elsevier.
dc.relation.referencesJanowski, T. (2015b). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001
dc.relation.referencesJanssen, M., & Voort, H. van der. (2020). Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal Information Management, 55, 102180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102180
dc.relation.referencesJiménez, M. T. (2021). Factores que influyen en la transformación digital en las instituciones de educación superior. Universidad Nacional de Colombia sede Bogotá. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/80121
dc.relation.referencesJohnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2024). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage publications.
dc.relation.referencesJohnston, K. A., Jali, N., Kundaeli, F., & Adeniran, T. (2015). ICTs for the Broader Development of South Africa: An Analysis of the Literature. THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, 70 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2015.tb00503.x
dc.relation.referencesJoia, L. A., & Michelotto, F. (2020). Universalists or Utilitarianists? The Social Representation of COVID-19 Pandemic in Brazil. Sustainability, 12(24), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410434
dc.relation.referencesJRC., C. (2019). Exploring digital government transformation in the EU: analysis of the state of the art and review of literature. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2760/17207
dc.relation.referencesJu, A., Sajnani, H., Kelly, S., & Herzig, K. (2021, May). A Case Study of Onboarding in Software Teams: Tasks and Strategies. 2021IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference Software Engineering (ICSE). https://doi.org/10.1109/icse43902.2021.00063
dc.relation.referencesKahn, T., Baron, A., & Vieyra, J. C. (2018). Digital Technologies for Transparency in Public Investment: New Tools to Empower Citizens and Governments. Inter-American Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.18235/0001418
dc.relation.referencesKankanhalli, A., Zuiderwijk, A., & Tayi, G. K. (2017). Open innovation in the public sector: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.12.002
dc.relation.referencesKhan, A., & Krishnan, S. (2021). Citizen engagement in co-creation of e-government services: a process theory view from a meta-synthesis approach. InternetResearch, 31(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-03-2020-0116
dc.relation.referencesKhine, P. K., Mi, J., & Shahid, R. (2021). A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services. Sustainability, 13(12), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126730
dc.relation.referencesKiki, T. E., & Lawrence, E. (2006). Government as a Mobile Enterprise: Real-time, Ubiquitous Government. Third International Conference Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG’06). https://doi.org/10.1109/itng.2006.68
dc.relation.referencesKlika, C., & Longinidou, E. (2024). The Role of Innovation Labs in Public Sector: Concepts and Conditions for Successful Transformation. EIPA. https://www.eipa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/EPSA-Briefing_Innovation-Labs.pdf
dc.relation.referencesKotamraju, N. P., & Geest, T. M. van der. (2012). The tension between user-centred design and e-government services. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2011.563797
dc.relation.referencesKraemer, K., & King, J. L. (2006). Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will E-Government Be Different? International Journal Electronic Government Research, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2006010101
dc.relation.referencesKraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. Sage Open, 11(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576
dc.relation.referencesKrogh, A. H. (2022). Embedding of public sector innovation labs. Politica, 54(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v54i3.133920
dc.relation.referencesKuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Voet, J. V. der. (2013). THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW. Public Administration, 92(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040
dc.relation.referencesKumar, R., & Thakurta, R. (2024). Digital Transformation: An Enterprise Transformation Theory Perspective: Exploring the underlying constituents of Digital transformation from the lens of Enterprise Transformation Theory. Australasian Journal Information Systems, 28. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v28.4259
dc.relation.referencesLAB101 UNAL, L. de innovación creatividad y nuevas tecnologías. (2023). Aprendizajes y reflexiones para políticas públicas. LAB101 UNAL. https://sites.google.com/view/lab101unal/blog-101
dc.relation.referencesLanter, D., & Essinger, R. (2017). User‐Centered Design. In International Encyclopedia of Geography (pp. 1–4). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0432
dc.relation.referencesLarios, V. M., Gomez, L., Mora, O. B., Maciel, R., & Villanueva-Rosales, N. (2016, September). Living labs for smart cities: A use case in Guadalajara city to foster innovation and develop citizen-centered solutions. 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2). https://doi.org/10.1109/isc2.2016.7580773
dc.relation.referencesLavonen, J. (2020). Curriculum and Teacher Education Reforms in Finland That Support the Development of Competences for the Twenty-First Century. In Audacious Education Purposes (pp. 65–80). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3_3
dc.relation.referencesLecours, A. (2020). Scientific, professional and experiential validation of the model of preventive behaviours at work: protocol of a modified Delphi Study. BMJ Open, 10(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035606
dc.relation.referencesLemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer Journey. Journal Marketing, 80(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
dc.relation.referencesLewis, J. M., McGann, M., & Blomkamp, E. (2023). When design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policy-making. In Policy-Making as Designing (pp. 125–150). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447365952.ch006
dc.relation.referencesLewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2021). USABILITY AND USER EXPERIENCE: DESIGN AND EVALUATION. In HANDBOOK OF HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS (pp. 972–1015). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119636113.ch38
dc.relation.referencesLi, L., Li, N., & Kong, Q. (2024). A Conceptual Framework for Digital Transformation in the Era of Digital Economy: A New Perspective. 2024 IEEE 7th International Conference Electronic InformationCommunicationTechnology(ICEICT), 1188–1192. https://doi.org/10.1109/iceict61637.2024.10670999
dc.relation.referencesLiang, D., & Tian, J. (2024). The Impact of Digital Transformation on the High-Quality Development of Enterprises: An Exploration Based on Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 16(8), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083188
dc.relation.referencesLinders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
dc.relation.referencesLips, M. (2024). Digital transformation in the public sector. In Collaborating for Digital Transformation (pp. 13–30). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803923895.00010
dc.relation.referencesLiu, S. M., & Yuan, Q. (2015). The Evolution of Information and Communication Technology in Public Administration. Public Administration Development, 35(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1717
dc.relation.referencesLiva, G., Codagnone, C., Misuraca, G., Gineikyte, V., & Barcevicius, E. (2020, September). Exploring digital government transformation: a literature review. Proceedings 13th International Conference Theory Practice Electronic Governance. https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428578
dc.relation.referencesLópez González, W. O. (2013). El estudio de casos: una vertiente para la investigación educativa. Educere. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=35630150004
dc.relation.referencesLucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., Werf, J. M. E. M. van der, & Brinkkemper, S. (2016). The Use and Effectiveness of User Stories in Practice. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 205–222). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_14
dc.relation.referencesLuna, D. E., Picazo-Vela, S., Buyannemekh, B., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2024). Creating public value through digital service delivery from a citizen’s perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101928
dc.relation.referencesLuna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 31(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001
dc.relation.referencesLwoga, E. T., & Sangeda, R. Z. (2018). ICTs and development in developing countries: A systematic review of reviews. THEELECTRONICJOURNALOFINFORMATIONSYSTEMSINDEVELOPINGCOUNTRIES, 85(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12060
dc.relation.referencesLy, B., & Ly, R. (2023). Emerging trends in social media for E-governance and citizen engagement: A case study of telegram in Cambodia. Computers Human Behavior Reports, 12, 100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100347
dc.relation.referencesLythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A.-N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. TechnologicalForecasting Social Change, 175, 121359.
dc.relation.referencesLyytinen, K. (2021). Innovation logics in the digital era: a systemic review of the emerging digital innovation regime. Innovation, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1938579
dc.relation.referencesMa, Q., & Liu, L. (2005). The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings. In Advanced Topics in End User Computing, Volume 4 (pp. 112–128). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-474-3.ch006
dc.relation.referencesMacLean, D., & Titah, R. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on the Impacts of e‐Government: A Public Value Perspective. PublicAdministrationReview, 82(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413
dc.relation.referencesMagistretti, S., Pham, C. T. A., & Dell’Era, C. (2021). Enlightening the dynamic capabilities of design thinking in fostering digital transformation. IndustrialMarketingManagement, 97, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.014
dc.relation.referencesMalhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2021). Hidden patterns of knowledge evolution in fluid digital innovation. Innovation, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1879653
dc.relation.referencesMallakin, M., Dery, C., Vaillancourt, S., Gupta, S., & Sellen, K. (2023). Web-Based Co-design in Health Care: Considerations for Renewed Participation. InteractiveJournal Medical Research, 12, e36765. https://doi.org/10.2196/36765
dc.relation.referencesMalodia, S., Dhir, A., Mishra, M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2021). Future of e-Government: An integrated conceptual framework. TechnologicalForecasting Social Change, 173, 121102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121102
dc.relation.referencesMao, Z., Zou, Q., Yao, H., & Wu, J. (2021). The application framework of big data technology in the COVID-19 epidemic emergency management in local government—a case study of Hainan Province, China. BMCPublicHealth, 21(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12065-0
dc.relation.referencesMarcel, Gaol, F. L., Supangkat, S. H., & Ranti, B. (2024). Toward Digital Transformation Adoption: A Conceptual Framework from Transformational Leadership Perspective. ProcediaComputerScience, 234, 1175–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.03.113
dc.relation.referencesMariani, I., D’Aleo, G., Mortati, M., & Rizzo, F. (2024, June). Shaping Public Sector Digital Transformation through Design. Translation approaches on training programs as multi-stakeholder ecosystems. DRS2024Boston. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2024.1048
dc.relation.referencesMayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozial forschung Forum Qualitative Social Research, Vol 1, No 2 (2000): Qualitative Methods in Various Disciplines I: Psychology. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-1.2.1089
dc.relation.referencesMazzucato, M., & Kattel, R. (2020). COVID-19 and public-sector capacity. OxfordReview Economic Policy, 36(Supplement_1), Supplement_1. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa031
dc.relation.referencesMbuyisa, B., & Leonard, A. (2016). The Role of ICT Use in SMEs Towards Poverty Reduction: A Systematic Literature Review: ICT Use in SMEs Towards Poverty Reduction. Journal International Development, 29(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3258
dc.relation.referencesMcGowan, D., Morley, C., Hansen, E., Shaw, K., & Winzenberg, T. (2024). Experiences of participants in the co-design of a community-based health service for people with high healthcare service use. BMCHealthServicesResearch, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10788-5
dc.relation.referencesMcKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2002). Action research: a guide to process and procedure. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (pp. 219–227). MCIL. https://doi.org/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235942689_Action_Research_A_Guide_to_Process_and_Procedure
dc.relation.referencesMeijer, A., Lorenz, L., & Wessels, M. (2021). Algorithmization of Bureaucratic Organizations: Using a Practice Lens to Study How Context Shapes Predictive Policing Systems. PublicAdministrationReview, 81(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13391
dc.relation.referencesMele, V., & Belardinelli, P. (2018). Mixed Methods in Public Administration Research: Selecting, Sequencing, and Connecting. Journal Public Administration ResearchTheory, 29(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy046
dc.relation.referencesMergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. GovernmentinformationQuarterly, 36(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
dc.relation.referencesMergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2025). Co-Production Phases in the Development and Implementation of Digital Public Services. Perspectives Public ManagementGovernance. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaf002
dc.relation.referencesMergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 35(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.04.003
dc.relation.referencesMergel, I., Kattel, R., Lember, V., & McBride, K. (2018, May). Citizen-oriented digital transformation in the public sector. Proceedings 19th Annual International ConferenceDigitalGovernmentResearchGovernance Data Age. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209294
dc.relation.referencesMertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative Mixed Methods Research. QualitativeInquiry, 16(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364612
dc.relation.referencesMessiha, K., Chinapaw, M. J. M., Ket, H. C. F. F., An, Q., Anand-Kumar, V., Longworth, G. R., Chastin, S., & Altenburg, T. M. (2023). Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health. Journal Public Health, 45(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdad046
dc.relation.referencesMiller, R. L. (2015). Rogers’ Innovation Diffusion Theory (1962, 1995). In Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption (pp. 261–274). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch016
dc.relation.referencesMINTIC. (2018). Manual para la implementación de Gobierno Digital.
dc.relation.referencesMINTIC. (2022a). Decreto 767 de 2022. Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones.
dc.relation.referencesMINTIC. (2022b). Decreto 1263 de 2022. Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones.
dc.relation.referencesMintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges. AustralianJournal Public Administration, 75(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211
dc.relation.referencesMishler, E. (1990). Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies. HarvardEducationalReview, 60(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.60.4.n4405243p6635752
dc.relation.referencesMolineux, J. (2018). Using action research for change in organizations: processes, reflections and outcomes. Journal Work-Applied Management, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwam-03-2017-0007
dc.relation.referencesMøller, C., Hansen, A. K., Palade, D., Sørensen, D. G. H., Hansen, E. B., Uhrenholt, J. N., & Larsen, M. S. S. (2022). An Action Design Research Approach to Study Digital Transformation in SME. In The Future of Smart Production for SMEs (pp. 51–65). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15428-7_5
dc.relation.referencesMontero, R. (2023). Transformación Digital: experiencias colectivas (E. U. N. de Colombia, Ed.; Primera). Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
dc.relation.referencesMoore, M. H. (1997). Creating Public Value (p. 416). Harvard University Press.
dc.relation.referencesMoré, R. P. O., Goncalo, C. R., Fiates, G. G. S., & Andrade, C. R. D. (2018). Governance structure promoting innovation: an exploratory study in Brazilian habitats. Journal technology management & innovation, 13(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242018000400061
dc.relation.referencesMu, R., Wang, Y., & Song, H. (2022). How does technological system design affect value creation? A systematic literature review of digital co-production. GlobalPublicPolicy Governance, 2(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-022-00051-0
dc.relation.referencesMüller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2018). Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. TechnologicalForecasting Social Change, 132, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019
dc.relation.referencesNabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. PublicAdministrationReview, 77(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
dc.relation.referencesNambisan, S., & Sawhney, M. (2011). Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence From the Field. Academy Management Perspectives, 25(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.3.zol40
dc.relation.referencesNarula, R., & Santangelo, G. D. (2009). Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry. ResearchPolicy, 38(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.005
dc.relation.referencesNavarro Burgos, A. J. (2023). La transferencia de pol𝚤ticas públicas de gobierno abierto en Colombia: análisis al CONPES de estado abierto, GANA y GAB.
dc.relation.referencesNguyen, D., Pietsch, M., & Gümüs, S. (2021). Collective teacher innovativeness in 48 countries: Effects of teacher autonomy, collaborative culture, and professional learning. Teaching Teacher Education, 106, 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103463
dc.relation.referencesNguyen, H. N., Lasa, G., Iriarte, I., Atxa, A., Unamuno, G., & Galfarsoro, G. (2022). Human-centered design for advanced services: A multidimensional design methodology. AdvancedEngineeringInformatics, 53, 101720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2022.101720
dc.relation.referencesNoll, J., Razzak, M. A., Bass, J. M., & Beecham, S. (2017). A Study of the Scrum Master’s Role. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 307–323). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_22
dc.relation.referencesNordberg, K., & Aflaki, I. N. (2024). Public sector readiness for value co-creation: the diffusion of a governance innovation. PublicMoney&Management, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2024.2397050
dc.relation.referencesNørgaard Olesen, S., & Giacalone, D. (2018). The influence of packaging on consumers’ quality perception of carrots. Journal Sensory Studies, 33(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12310
dc.relation.referencesNoticias UNAL, A. de. (2021). Inició estrategia de digitalización de laboratorios de la Facultad de Minas.
dc.relation.referencesO.Luna, A. J. H. d., Kruchten, P., E.Pedrosa, M. L. G. do, Neto, H. R. d. A., & Moura, H. P. d. M. (2014). State of the Art of Agile Governance: A Systematic Review. InternationalJournal Computer ScienceInformationTechnology, 6(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsit.2014.6510
dc.relation.referencesOCDE. (2017). Revisión de Gobierno Digital de Colombia. Hacia un sector público impulsado por el ciudadano. OCDE. https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Digital%20Gov%20Review%20Colombia%20[Esp]%20def.pdf
dc.relation.referencesOECD. (2016). Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in the Welfare Areas. In OECD Digital Government Studies. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/0d2eff45-en
dc.relation.referencesOECD. (2021). Supporting the Digital Transformation of Higher Education in Hungary (p. 158). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/d30ab43f-en
dc.relation.referencesOECD. (2024a). 2023 OECD Digital Government Index: Results and key findings. In OECD Public Governance Policy Papers. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/1a89ed5e-en
dc.relation.referencesOECD. (2024b). The Digital Transformation of Public Procurement in Ireland: A Report on the Current State. In OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/87912457-en
dc.relation.referencesOECD. (2024c). Global Trends in Government Innovation 2024: Fostering Human-Centred Public Services. In OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c1bc19c3-en
dc.relation.referencesOfoma, C. (2024). Digitalization and Public Value Co-Creation in Public Sector Organizations : The Citizens as Co-Creators. InstitutionesAdministrationis, 4(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.98
dc.relation.referencesOliveira, M., Zancul, E., & Salerno, M. S. (2024). Capability building for digital transformation through design thinking. TechnologicalForecasting Social Change, 198, 122947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122947
dc.relation.referencesOPSI, O. (2022). Innovative Capacity of Governments: A Systemic Framework. https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/OECD-OPSI-Innovative-Capacity-Framework.pdf
dc.relation.referencesOrozco, M. L. C. (2021). Capacidades digitales como base de la transformación digital. Una propuesta para la Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Manizales. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/81030
dc.relation.referencesOsborne, S. P. (2017). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? PublicManagementReview, 20(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461
dc.relation.referencesOsborne, S. P., Powell, M., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value Creation in the Public Service Ecosystem: An Integrative Framework. PublicAdministrationReview, 82(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13474
dc.relation.referencesOsorio, F., Cruz, F., Camargo, M., Dupont, L., & Peña, J. I. (2024). Exploring team roles for social innovation labs: Toward a competence-based role self-assessment approach. Journal EngineeringTechnologyManagement, 71, 101799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2024.101799
dc.relation.referencesOsorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Peña, J. I., & Alfaro, M. (2019). Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool. Creativity Innovation Management, 28(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12301
dc.relation.referencesOsorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Sandoval, C., & Peña, J. I. (2020). Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders. Journal Innovation Economics & Management, n° 31(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.pr1.0066
dc.relation.referencesOsorio, F., Giones, F., Dupont, L., & Camargo, M. (2025). Innovation labs strategy: unfolding the multifaceted role of strategic intent. Technovation, 141, 103170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103170
dc.relation.referencesOstrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. WorldDevelopment, 24(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x
dc.relation.referencesOstrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Percy, S. L. (1978). The Public Service Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services. PolicyStudiesJournal, 7(s1), s1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1978.tb01782.x
dc.relation.referencesOthman, N. Z., & Hussin, A. R. C. (2024). Public Value Creation towards a Seamless End-To-End Services in E-Government: A Systematic Literature Review. InternationalJournal Academic ResearchBusiness Social Sciences, 14(12), 12. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v14-i12/24185
dc.relation.referencesPanagiotopoulos, P., Klievink, B., & Cordella, A. (2019). Public value creation in digital government. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 36(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
dc.relation.referencesPanagiotopoulos, P., Protogerou, A., & Caloghirou, Y. (2023). Dynamic capabilities and ICT utilization in public organizations: An Empirical testing in local government. LongRangePlanning, 56(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102251
dc.relation.referencesParker, S., Cluley, V., & Radnor, Z. (2022). A typology of dis/value in public service delivery. PublicMoney&Management, 43(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2022.2124758
dc.relation.referencesParks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981). CONSUMERS AS COPRODUCERS OF PUBLIC SERVICES: SOME ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. PolicyStudiesJournal, 9(7), 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x
dc.relation.referencesParrado, Y., Barbosa, A., Mahé, D., Toro, S., & Garcia, J. (2020). Informe de barreras a la innovación pública. Departamento Nacional de Planeación DNP y Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Laboratorio de innovación, creatividad y nuevas tecnologías LAB101. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/ModernizacionEstado/EiP/Estudio_barreras_innovaci%C3%B3n_Regi%C3%B3n_Central.pdf
dc.relation.referencesPaula, D. de, Marx, C., Wolf, E., Dremel, C., Cormican, K., & Uebernickel, F. (2022). A managerial mental model to drive innovation in the context of digital transformation. Industry Innovation, 30(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2072711
dc.relation.referencesPentland, B. T., Recker, J., Wolf, J., & Wyner, G. (2020). Bringing Context Inside Process Research with Digital Trace Data. Journal AssociationInformationSystems, 21(5), 5. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00635
dc.relation.referencesPerikangas, S., & Tuurnas, S. (2023). Design for inclusive digital co-production. PublicManagementReview, 26(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2224819
dc.relation.referencesPhilip, J., Gilli, K., & Knappstein, M. (2023). Identifying key leadership competencies for digital transformation: evidence from a cross-sectoral Delphi study of global managers. Leadership&OrganizationDevelopmentJournal, 44(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-02-2022-0063
dc.relation.referencesPicazo-Vela, S., Luna, D. E., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2021). Creating Public Value Through Inter-Organizational Collaboration and Information Technologies. InternationalJournal Electronic Government Research, 18(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijegr.288069
dc.relation.referencesPiqueiras Conlledo, P. (2020). Del compromiso ciudadano a la coproducción. Análisis del concepto y casos de la administración pública. Cuadernos Gobierno y Administración Pública, 7(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5209/cgap.64948
dc.relation.referencesPlekhanov, D., Franke, H., & Netland, T. H. (2023). Digital transformation: A review and research agenda. EuropeanManagementJournal, 41(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.007
dc.relation.referencesPokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. HigherEducation Future, 8(1), 1.
dc.relation.referencesPortafolio. (2022). ¡De no creer! En Colombia hay más celulares activos que personas. https://www.portafolio.co/tendencias/celulares-en-colombia-hay-mas-telefonos-moviles-activos-que-personas-573094#: :text=En Colombia cada ciudadano posee,% del mercado de celulares).
dc.relation.referencesPoulose, S., Bhattacharjee, B., & Chakravorty, A. (2024). Determinants and drivers of change for digital transformation and digitalization in human resource management: a systematic literature review and conceptual framework building. ManagementReviewQuarterly. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00423-2
dc.relation.referencesQader, N. N., & Kheder, M. Q. (2016). Challenges and Factors affecting the implementation of e-Government in Iraq. Journal UniversityHumanDevelopment, 2(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v2n3y2016.pp476-481
dc.relation.referencesQiao, G., Li, Y., & Hong, A. (2024). The Strategic Role of Digital Transformation: Leveraging Digital Leadership to Enhance Employee Performance and Organizational Commitment in the Digital Era. Systems, 12(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12110457
dc.relation.referencesRamachandran, K. M., & Tsokos, C. P. (2014). Mathematical Statistics with Applications in R. Elsevier Science. https://books.google.it/books?id=5AJ0AwAAQBAJ
dc.relation.referencesRamírez Cano, D. E. (2017). Experiencias de gobierno abierto en Bogotá. CEPAL. https://repository.unad.edu.co/handle/10596/13922
dc.relation.referencesReis, J., Amorim, M., Melão, N., & Matos, P. (2018). Digital Transformation: A Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Research. In Trends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies (pp. 411–421). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77703-0_41
dc.relation.referencesReis, J., & Melão, N. (2023). Digital transformation: A meta-review and guidelines for future research. Heliyon, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12834
dc.relation.referencesRichaud, M. C. (2005). Desarrollos del análisis factorial para el estudio de ítem dicotomicos y ordinales. Interdisciplinaria. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=18022206
dc.relation.referencesRidder, H.-G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. BusinessResearch, 10(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z
dc.relation.referencesRíos Obando, J. F., & Cruz Aguilar, P. L. (2022). ANTECEDENTES Y MARCO DE REFERENCIA DE LA GOBERNANZA Y LA PROSPECTIVA ESTRATÉGICA. In El reto de la construcción de la gobernanza del sistema de competitividad, ciencia, tecnología e innovación en el Valle del Cauca. Un desafío para la región (pp. 197–205). Programa Editorial Universidad del Valle. https://doi.org/10.25100/peu.680.cap16
dc.relation.referencesRocha, J. A. O., & Zavale, G. J. B. (2021). Innovation and Change in Public Administration. OpenJournal Social Sciences, 09(06), 06. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.96021
dc.relation.referencesRodriguez Müller, A. P., Casiano Flores, C., Albrecht, V., Steen, T., & Crompvoets, J. (2021). A Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence on (Digital) Public Services Co-Creation. AdministrativeSciences, 11(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040130
dc.relation.referencesRoedder, N., Dauer, D., Laubis, K., Karaenke, P., & Weinhardt, C. (2016). The digital transformation and smart data analytics: An overview of enabling developments and application areas. 2016IEEEInternationalConference Big Data (Big Data), 2795–2802. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2016.7840927
dc.relation.referencesRoth, R. (2017). User Interface and User Experience (UI/UX) Design. GeographicInformationScience&TechnologyBody Knowledge, 2017(Q2), Q2. https://doi.org/10.22224/gistbok/2017.2.5
dc.relation.referencesRoutzouni, A., Vasilakis, N. D., Kapetanakis, S., Gritzalis, S., & Pouloudi, A. (2021). Public sector innovation through design thinking: Applying a participatory policy design practice to support the formulation of a national digital transformation strategy. 14thInternationalConference TheoryPractice Electronic Governance, 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494193.3494208
dc.relation.referencesRuijer, E., Détienne, F., Baker, M., Groff, J., & Meijer, A. J. (2019). The Politics of Open Government Data: Understanding Organizational Responses to Pressure for More Transparency. TheAmericanReview Public Administration, 50(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019888065
dc.relation.referencesRuvalcaba, E., & Criado, I. (2019). Gobierno abierto: Nuevas tendencias en la gestión pública. Innovación abierta, gobernanza inteligente y tecnologías sociales en unas administraciones públicas colaborativas. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública. Nóesis.Revista Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 28(56), 56. https://doi.org/10.20983/noesis.2019.2.5
dc.relation.referencesRyan, B. (2012). Co‐production: Option or Obligation? AustralianJournal Public Administration, 71(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00780.x
dc.relation.referencesSablatzky, T. (2022). Delphi Method. HypothesisResearchJournal Health Information Professionals, 34(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.18060/26224
dc.relation.referencesSacavém, A., Bem Machado, A. de, Santos, J. R. dos, Palma-Moreira, A., Belchior-Rocha, H., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2025). Leading in the Digital Age: The Role of Leadership in Organizational Digital Transformation. AdministrativeSciences, 15(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020043
dc.relation.referencesSaeedikiya, M., Salunke, S., & Kowalkiewicz, M. (2025). The nexus of digital transformation and innovation: A multilevel framework and research agenda. Journal Innovation & Knowledge, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100640
dc.relation.referencesSampaio, R. C. (2016). e-Orçamentos Participativos como iniciativas de e-solicitação: uma prospecção dos principais casos e reflexões sobre a e-Participação. Revista Administração Pública, 50(6), 6. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612152210
dc.relation.referencesSampieri, R. H., Collado, C. F., & Lucio, P. B. (2014). Metodología de la investigación. - 6. edición (p. 600). McGraw Hill Education.
dc.relation.referencesSánchez Bravo, Á. A. (2020). Marco Europeo para una inteligencia artificial basada en las personas: European framework for people-based artificial intelligence. InternationalJournal Digital Law, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.47975/ijdl/1bravo
dc.relation.referencesSánchez, N. R. O. (2013). Éxitos y fracasos en las spin-off académicas. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/11945
dc.relation.referencesSandoval-Almazan, R., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Luna-Reyes, L. F., Luna, D. E., & Rojas-Romero, Y. (2012, October). Open government 2.0: citizen empowerment through open data, web and mobile apps. Proceedings 6th International ConferenceTheory PracticeElectronicGovernance. https://doi.org/10.1145/2463728.2463735
dc.relation.referencesSantos, C. A. G. (2021). Generación de mecanismos de co-evolución de las SI/TI con la estrategia en una institución de educación superior (Caso Universidad Nacional de Colombia) [UNAL]. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/80759
dc.relation.referencesSantos Tavares, L. A. dos Ana Paula; Joia, & Fornazin, M. (2021). Digital Transformation for Development: A Multilevel Conceptual Framework. In GlobDev. Association for Information Systems.
dc.relation.referencesSavoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 31, S63–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.008
dc.relation.referencesSchmidthuber, L., Piller, F., Bogers, M., & Hilgers, D. (2019). Citizen participation in public administration: investigating open government for social innovation. R&DManagement, 49(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12365
dc.relation.referencesSchoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design. KZfSSKölnerZeitschriftfürSoziologieundSozialpsychologie, 69(S2), S2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
dc.relation.referencesSchot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2016). Framing innovation policy for transformative change: Innovation policy 3.0. SPRUSciencePolicyResearchUnit,University Sussex: Brighton, UK. http://www.tipconsortium.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/SchotSteinmueller_FramingsWorkingPaperVersionUpdated2018.10.16-New-copy.pdf
dc.relation.referencesSchuppan, T. (2009). E-Government in developing countries: Experiences from sub-Saharan Africa. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 26(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.01.006
dc.relation.referencesSchütz, F., Heidingsfelder, M. L., & Schraudner, M. (2019a). Co-shaping the Future in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Uncovering Public Preferences toward Participatory Research and Innovation. SheJiTheJournal Design, Economics,Innovation, 5(2), 2. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.002
dc.relation.referencesSchütz, F., Heidingsfelder, M. L., & Schraudner, M. (2019b). Co-shaping the Future in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Uncovering Public Preferences toward Participatory Research and Innovation. SheJiTheJournal Design, Economics,Innovation, 5(2), 2. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.002
dc.relation.referencesScupola, A., & Mergel, I. (2022). Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 39(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650
dc.relation.referencesSeri, P., & Zanfei, A. (2013). The co-evolution of ICT, skills and organization in public administrations: Evidence from new European country-level data. StructuralChange Economic Dynamics, 27, 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.07.003
dc.relation.referencesSeverance, T. (2025). What are Regulated Communications? Thetalake. https://thetalake.com/blog/regulated-communications/
dc.relation.referencesShahzad, K., Imran, F., & Butt, A. (2025). Digital Transformation and Changes in Organizational Structure: Empirical Evidence from Industrial Organizations. ResearchTechnologyManagement, 68(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2025.2465706
dc.relation.referencesSicilia, M., Sancino, A., Nabatchi, T., & Guarini, E. (2019). Facilitating co-production in public services: management implications from a systematic literature review. PublicMoney&Management, 39(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592904
dc.relation.referencesSilva Junior, A. C. da, Emmendoerfer, M. L., & Silva, M. A. C. (2024). Innovation labs in the light of the New Public Service model. RAM.Revista Administração Mackenzie, 25(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eramc240079
dc.relation.referencesSørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2015). Enhancing Public Innovation through Collaboration, Leadership and New Public Governance. In New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research (pp. 145–169). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137506801_8
dc.relation.referencesSousa Santos, B. de. (1998). Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a Redistributive Democracy. Politics&Society, 26(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329298026004003
dc.relation.referencesSpradling, C. D. (2007). SPEC CPU2006 benchmark tools. ACMSIGARCHComputerArchitectureNews, 35(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/1241601.1241625
dc.relation.referencesSraml Gonzalez, J., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2021). Innovation in established industries undergoing digital transformation: the role of collective identity and public values. Innovation, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1938578
dc.relation.referencesSreenivasan, A., & Suresh, M. (2023). Digital transformation in start-ups: a bibliometric analysis. DigitalTransformation Society, 2(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/dts-12-2022-0072
dc.relation.referencesSrivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A Practical Iterative Framework for Qualitative Data Analysis. InternationalJournal Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800107
dc.relation.referencesStare, A. (2014). Agile Project Management in Product Development Projects. ProcediaSocial Behavioral Sciences, 119, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.034
dc.relation.referencesSteiner, A., Farmer, J., Yates, S., Moran, M., & Carlisle, K. (2022). How to systematically analyze co‐production to inform future policies? Introducing <scp>5Ws</scp> of co‐production. PublicAdministrationReview, 83(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13571
dc.relation.referencesSumner, J., Chong, L. S., Bundele, A., & Wei Lim, Y. (2020). Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. TheGerontologist, 61(7), 7. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa064
dc.relation.referencesSverrisdottir, H. S., Ingason, H. T., & Jonasson, H. I. (2014). The Role of the Product Owner in Scrum-comparison between Theory and Practices. ProcediaSocial Behavioral Sciences, 119, 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.030
dc.relation.referencesTangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors. InternationalJournal Information Management, 60, 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
dc.relation.referencesThompson, F. J., & Riccucci, N. M. (1998). REINVENTING GOVERNMENT. AnnualReview Political Science, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.231
dc.relation.referencesTõnurist, P., & Hanson, A. (2020). Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making. In OECD Working Papers on Public Governance (No. 44; Issue 44). Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en
dc.relation.referencesTorres Melo, J., & Alba Abril, F. (2021). Apuesta por un gobierno abierto en Bogotá DC, Colombia: un marco de pol𝚤tica para la acción. GobiernoabiertoYciudadan𝚤aEnelCentro la gestión pública: selecciónArt𝚤culos investigación. Santiago: CEPAL, 2021. LC/TS. 2021/114. p. 213-226.
dc.relation.referencesTripathi, R., & Gupta, M. P. (2014). Evolution of government portals in India: mapping over stage models. Journal Enterprise Information Management, 27(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-09-2012-0068
dc.relation.referencesTrischler, J., & Westman Trischler, J. (2021). Design for experience – a public service design approach in the age of digitalization. PublicManagementReview, 24(8), 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1899272
dc.relation.referencesTsotsas, I., & Fragidis, G. (2024). The Contribution of Service Design in Public Sector Modernization: Challenges, Barriers and Opportunities of the Design Methods. ICPA2024, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2024111002
dc.relation.referencesTwizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A literature review. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 36(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
dc.relation.referencesUbaldi, B., Maria, E., Petrucci, E., & Biancalana, C. (2019). State of the art in the use of emerging technologies in the public sector. In OECD Working Papers on Public Governance (No. 31; Issue 31). Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/932780bc-en
dc.relation.referencesUNAL. (2020). Méntor y otros proyectos impulsan emprendimientos universitarios. https://agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/mentor-y-otros-proyectos-impulsan-emprendimientos-universitarios
dc.relation.referencesUNAL, A. (2022). LAB101 UNAL, contenidos pedagógicos al alcance de todos. https://agenciadenoticias.unal.edu.co/detalle/lab101-unal-contenidos-pedagogicos-al-alcance-de-todos
dc.relation.referencesUrbinati, A., Manelli, L., Frattini, F., & Bogers, M. L. A. M. (2021). The digital transformation of the innovation process: orchestration mechanisms and future research directions. Innovation, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1963736
dc.relation.referencesVagena, F., & Sneiders, E. (2024). Introducing co-creation into transformational Government. Proceedings 17th International ConferenceTheory PracticeElectronicGovernance, 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1145/3680127.3680149
dc.relation.referencesValle-Cruz, D., & Sandoval-Almazán, R. (2014). E-gov 4.0. Proceedings 15th Annual International ConferenceDigitalGovernmentResearchdg.otextquotesingle14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2612733.2612788
dc.relation.referencesVan Veldhoven, Z., & Vanthienen, J. (2023). Best practices for digital transformation based on a systematic literature review. DigitalTransformation Society, 2(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/dts-11-2022-0057
dc.relation.referencesVărzaru, A. A., & Bocean, C. G. (2024). Digital Transformation and Innovation: The Influence of Digital Technologies on Turnover from Innovation Activities and Types of Innovation. Systems, 12(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12090359
dc.relation.referencesVaskelainen, T., Münzel, K., Boon, W., & Frenken, K. (2021). Servitisation on consumer markets: entry and strategy in Dutch private lease markets. Innovation, 24(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1915791
dc.relation.referencesVassilakopoulou, P., & Hustad, E. (2021). Bridging digital divides: A literature review and research agenda for information systems research. InformationSystemsFrontiers, 25(3), 3.
dc.relation.referencesVeldhoven, Z. V., Etikala, V., Goossens, A., & Vanthienen, J. (2021). A Scoping Review of the Digital Transformation Literature Using Scientometric Analysis. BusinessInformationSystems, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.52825/bis.v1i.49
dc.relation.referencesVenkatraman, M. (1994). It-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34185076
dc.relation.referencesVerschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTASInternationalJournal VoluntaryNonprofitOrganizations, 23(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
dc.relation.referencesVial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. ManagingDigitalTransformation, 13–66.
dc.relation.referencesVillodre, J. (2019). Innovación pública abierta = Open innovation in the public sector. EUNOMÍA.RevistaEnCultura la Legalidad, 314–327. https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2019.5036
dc.relation.referencesVoorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. PublicManagementReview, 17(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
dc.relation.referencesVortico. (2025). FABLAB 4.0. https://www.vortico.co/fablab-unal
dc.relation.referencesVries, H. de, Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. SSRNElectronicJournal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638618
dc.relation.referencesWang, F., & Dai, X. (2020). Regulation and product innovation: the intermediate role of resource reallocation. Journal Evolutionary Economics, 30(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00676-6
dc.relation.referencesWang, H. (2023). How can digital government governance creates public value in the new era. In Proceedings of the 2023 2nd International Conference on Public Service, Economic Management and Sustainable Development (PESD 2023) (pp. 180–186). Atlantis Press International BV. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-344-3_23
dc.relation.referencesWeißmüller, K. S., Ritz, A., & Yerramsetti, S. (2023). Collaborating and co-creating the digital transformation: Empirical evidence on the crucial role of stakeholder demand from Swiss municipalities. PublicPolicy Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231170100
dc.relation.referencesWest, D. M. (2004). E‐Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. PublicAdministrationReview, 64(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x
dc.relation.referencesWilliamson, C., Kelly, P., Tomasone, J. R., Bauman, A., Mutrie, N., Niven, A., Richards, J., & Baker, G. (2021). A modified Delphi study to enhance and gain international consensus on the Physical Activity Messaging Framework (PAMF) and Checklist (PAMC). InternationalJournal Behavioral NutritionPhysicalActivity, 18(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01182-z
dc.relation.referencesWu, Y.-H., Ware, C., Damn ee, S., Kerherv e, H. el ene, & Rigaud, A.-S. (2015). Bridging the digital divide in older adults: A study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. ClinicalInterventions Aging, 193.
dc.relation.referencesYi, C., Qiu, X., & Li, H. (2025). Exploring the roles of non-profit organizations in co-production: a systematic literature review. PublicManagementReview, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2025.2484661
dc.relation.referencesYoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research Commentary—The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. InformationSystemsResearch, 21(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322
dc.relation.referencesYu, H., & Robinson, D. G. (2012). The New Ambiguity of “Open Government. SSRNElectronicJournal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012489
dc.relation.referencesYu, X., & Khazanchi, D. (2017). Using Embedded Mixed Methods in Studying IS Phenomenon: Risks and Practical Remedies with an Illustration. Communications AssociationInformationSystems, 41, 18–42. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.04102
dc.relation.referencesYunis, M., Tarhini, A., & Kassar, A. (2018). The role of ICT and innovation in enhancing organizational performance: The catalysing effect of corporate entrepreneurship. Journal Business Research, 88, 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.030
dc.relation.referencesZewge, A., & Dittrich, Y. (2015). Systematic mapping study of information communication technology research for agriculture (in case of developing Countries).
dc.relation.referencesZhao, Y., Zhang, T., Dasgupta, R. K., & Xia, R. (2022). Narrowing the agebased digital divide: Developing digital capability through social activities. InformationSystemsJournal, 33(2), 2.
dc.relation.referencesZhu, Z.-Y., Xie, H.-M., & Chen, L. (2023). ICT industry innovation: Knowledge structure and research agenda. TechnologicalForecasting Social Change, 189, 122361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122361
dc.relation.referencesZou, Q., Mao, Z., Yan, R., Liu, S., & Duan, Z. (2023). Vision and reality of e-government for governance improvement: Evidence from global cross-country panel data. TechnologicalForecasting Social Change, 194, 122667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122667
dc.relation.referencesZuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. GovernmentInformationQuarterly, 38(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
dc.relation.referencesZyzak, B., Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K., & Jensen, M. R. (2024). Public value management in digital transformation: a scoping review. InternationalJournal Public Sector Management, 37(7), 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-02-2024-0055
dc.relation.referencesAboal, D., & Tacsir, E. (2017). Innovation and productivity in services and manufacturing: the role of ICT. Industrial Corporate Change, 27(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx030
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc350 - Administración pública y ciencia militar::351 - Administración públicaspa
dc.subject.proposalTransformación digitalspa
dc.subject.proposalInnovación públicaspa
dc.subject.proposalCoproducciónspa
dc.subject.proposalAdministración públicaspa
dc.subject.proposalDiseño centrado en los usuariosspa
dc.subject.proposalDigital transformationeng
dc.subject.proposalPublic innovationeng
dc.subject.proposalCo-productioneng
dc.subject.proposalPublic administrationeng
dc.subject.proposalUser centered designeng
dc.subject.unescoInnovaciónspa
dc.subject.unescoInnovationeng
dc.subject.unescoFunción públicaspa
dc.subject.unescoCivil serviceeng
dc.subject.unescoSector públicospa
dc.subject.unescoPublic sectoreng
dc.titleTransformación digital en el Estado: modelo conceptual para impulsar procesos de innovación públicaspa
dc.title.translatedDigital transformation in the state: a conceptual model to promote public innovation processeseng
dc.typeTrabajo de grado - Doctoradospa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TD
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentPúblico generalspa
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentInvestigadoresspa
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentResponsables políticosspa
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Tesis doctorado Jhon Alexander Garcia Camargo.pdf
Tamaño:
15.1 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Tesis de Doctorado en Ingeniería - Industria y Organizaciones

Bloque de licencias

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
5.74 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción: