نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیارِ تاریخ و جامعه‌شناسیِ دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران

2 دکترای جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مطالعه حاضر با هدفِ اثرسنجیِ پروژه‍های هوشمند شهرداری منطقه 2 تهران به انجام رسیده است. در این مطالعه میزان اثربخشیِ پروژه‍های هوشمند در قالب مدلِ اثرسنجیِ کرک‍پاتریک انجام گرفته است. روشِ مورد استفاده، پیمایش؛ جامعۀ آماری، شهروندان بالای 15 سالِ منطقۀ 2 تهران؛ حجم نمونه 450 نفر و روش نمونه‍گیری خوشه‍ای بوده است. یافته‍های بخش کمی نشان داد که دو پروژۀ پیدو و بیدود با اختلاف بسیار فاحش نسبت به سایر پروژه‍ها اثربخش‍ترین پروژه‍های هوشمند اجراشده در منطقه 2 تهران محسوب می‍شوند. پروژه الوپارک در رتبۀ سوم قرار دارد و پروژه‍های پارک حاشیه‍ای هوشمند و ریالو در رتبه‍های بعدی جای گرفته‍اند. کم اثرترین پروژه‍های هوشمندِ اجراشده در منطقۀ 2 مربوط به دو پروژۀ کاپیتان‍کار و کیوسک هوشمند شهری است. نتایج بخش علت‍یابی نیز نشان داد که عدم موفقیت پروژه‍های موردبررسی در درجه اول به ضعف مدیریتی و تصمیمات نسنجیده و غیرکارشناسانه مربوط است. در درجۀ دوم، فقدان یک رویکرد تعاملی و مشارکت‍جویانه در بین بخش‍های مختلف قرار دارد و نهایتاً در درجۀ سوم مشکلات مربوط به فرایند اجرا و عوامل اجرایی مطرح می‍شود. در همین راستا، کاربست پژوهش در سه محور اصلی شامل لزوم تغییر در نظام تصمیم‍سازی، تغییر در نظام مشارکت و تغییر در نظام اجرا تدوین و ارائه شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of the Smartening Projects of Tehran Municipality District 2

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ismaeel Jahanai Dolatabad 1
  • Rahman Jahanai Dolatabad 2

1 Department of History and Sociology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

2 PhD of geography and Urban Planning, Kharazmi University.

چکیده [English]

The present study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of smart projects in the municipality of Region 2. In this study, the effectiveness of smart projects has been investigated in the form of Kirk Patrick's effectiveness model and using quantitative and qualitative methods and techniques including survey, interview and hierarchical analysis. The findings of the quantitative section showed that the two projects, Pido and Bidood, with a very large difference compared to other projects are considered to be the most effective smart projects implemented in Region 2 of Tehran. for other projects the effectiveness is much lower than the first two projects. However, From this perspective the Allo Park application is in the third place, and the Smart Marginal Park and Rialo projects are in the next ranks. However, Capitankar and Urban Smart Kiosk are the least effective smart projects implemented in Region 2 . The results of the causation section showed that the failure of the studied projects is primarily related to managerial weakness and unprofessional decisions. Secondly, there is a lack of an interactive and participatory approach among various sectors, including organizational managers and program makers, contractors and citizens, thirdly, there are problems related to the implementation process and executive factors. In this regard, the application of the present study in three main areas, including the need for change in the decision-making system, the need for change in the participation system and the need for change in the implementation system has been developed and presented

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Smart city
  • Effectiveness
  • Impact Assessment
  • Kirk Patrick Model
Belissent, Jennifer. (2011). The Core of a Smart City Must Be Smart Governance. Cambridge: Forrester Research, Inc.
Charles R. Emery; Tracy R. Kramer and Robert G. Tian. (2003). Return to academic standards: a critique of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Quality Assurance in Education.11(1): 37-46.
Chourabi, Hafedh; Taewoo, Nam; Shawn, Walker; Ramon, Gil-Garcia; Sehl, Mellouli, Theresa, Pardo. and Hans, Scholl. (2012). Understanding smart Cities: An integrative framework.. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Darmawan Aang K.; Siahaan, Daniel and Umam, Busro. (2019). "Identifying Success Factors in Smart City Readiness using a Structure Equation Modelling Approach", International Conference on Computer Science, Information Technology, and Electrical Engineering (ICOMITEE). Jember, Indonesia.
Ferraro, Saverio. (2013). Smart Cities, Analysis of a Strategic Plan. A thesis for the degree of Master of Management Engineering, Graduate Department of sociology, University of Bologna.
HABITAT III. (2015). Smart Cities. United Nations. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development.
Hogan R. Lance. (2010). The Historical Development of Program Evaluation: Exploring Past and Present. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development. 2(4): 5.
Joshi, Sujata; Saxena, Saksham; Godbole, Tanvi. and Shreya. (2016). Developing Smart Cities: An Integrated Framework, 6th International Conference on Advances on Computing and Communications, ICACC, 6-8 September 2016, Cochin, India.
Kirkpatrick, Donald. L. and Kirkpatrick, James. D. (2005). Transferring learning to behavior [electronic resource]: using the four levels to improve performance. 1 st ed. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, Donald. L. and Kirkpatrick, James. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Store.
Moseley, James, L. and Dessinger, Joan. C. (2010). Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Measurement and Evaluation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Nam, Taewoo. and Pardo, Theresa. A. (2011). Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions, in Proceedings of the 12th Annual Digital Government Research Conference, College Park, Maryland, June 12-15.
Ojo, Adegboyeg., Curry, Edward., Janowski, Tomasz. and Dzhusupova, Zamira. (2015). Designing Next Generation Smart City Initiatives: The SCID Framework. In Transforming city governments for successful smart cities (pp. 34-67). Springer international Publishing.
Praslova, Ludmila. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educ Asse Eval. 22(3): 215-25.
Rajeev P, Madan M, Jayarajan K. (2009). Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s model–an evaluation of an academic training course. Current science. 96(2): 272-6.
Sally P. Caird. and Hallett, Stephen. H. (2019). "Towards evaluation design for smart citydevelopment", Journal of Urban Design, 24(2): 188-209.
Silvaa, Bhagya. N., Khan, Murad. and Han, Kijun. (2018). "Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities." Sustainable Cities and Society. (38): 697-713.
Smidt, Andy., Balandi, Susan., Sigafoos, Jeff and Reed, Vicki. A. (2009). The Kirkpatrick model: A useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 34(3): 266-74.