31 2591-2259 / This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2023.1.02 1.01 Original scientific article Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Rio Yusri Maulana Doctoral Student at Joint Doctoral Study Program Governance and Economics in The Public Sector, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, Slovenia and University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business, Croatia rr3526@student.uni-lj.si https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0934-3707 Mitja Dečman University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, Slovenia mitja.decman@fu.uni-lj.si https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3395-4452 Received: 21. 3. 2023 Revised: 6. 5. 2023 Accepted: 30. 5. 2023 Published: 30. 5. 2023 ABSTRACT Purpose:  The article aims to provide an updated and comprehensive overview of academic research in the field of collaborative governance and digital transformation, with an emphasis on the emerging topic of collaborative digital transformation. Digital transformation is a recurrent theme in today’s society, fuelled by events such as the Covid-19 pandem- ic, global climate challenges, and other crises reshaping the world. As so- cieties increasingly rely on digital platforms and online communication, the prime urge and necessity of the human race – i.e., to communicate and collaborate in tackling these challenges – puts collaborative govern- ance in digital transformation high on the agenda of governments, the private sector, and citizens. Design/Methodology/Approach:  To address this topic, we performed a bibliometric analysis using various analytical and visualisation tools to evaluate and visualise existing scientific bibliographic materials. The analysis covers 286 articles published in the Scopus and Web of Science databases over the past two decades in the area of collaborative gov- ernance and digital transformation, employing established and innova- tive bibliometric approaches. Graphical analyses are used to illustrate co- authorship, keywords co-occurrence, research topics evolution, and the network of influential researchers within collaborative governance and digital transformation. Maulana, R.Y., Dečman, M. (2023). Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping. Central European Public Administration Review, 21(1), pp. 31–60 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202332 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Findings: The results show that the relationship between collaborative governance and digital transformation is still limited and needs further study, considering that these two concepts have been emerging trends in public administration over the past two decades. In addition, the findings reveal a significant growth in research of these topics over time, although not specifically focused on collaborative digital transformation. Practical Implications: The article provides a summary of key aspects of collaborative governance and digital transformation research and helps lay the foundations for shaping the future of this evolving field of public administration. Thus, it helps researchers understand the development of collaborative digital transformation research over the past two dec- ades, as collaborative digital transformation is a relatively new field of research characterised by rapid growth and evolution. Originality/Value: The research contributes to the understanding of col- laborative digital transformation as a distinct research area within the broader concepts of digital transformation and collaborative govern- ance, which is still seeking its own identity in academic literature, and of- fers a definition of collaborative digital transformation (CDT). Keywords: digital transformation, e-governance, collaborative governance, colla- boration, collaborative digital transformation, bibliometric mapping, literature review JEL: Z 1 Introduction The rapidly evolving digitalisation of our societies and economies, driven by data and digital tools has impacted people’s lives on an individual and soci- etal level, also bringing noticeable changes to the public sector and public governance. Transformational power has fundamentally impacted not only internal government operations, but also the government-citizen and the government-business relationship. Much of the literature has explored the concept of collaborative governance, which examines the relationships and participation of the government, citizens, and stakeholders in the decision- making process. However, the new technological disruption is paving the way for a different approach to public administration science, which emphasizes that digital transformation can accelerate and merge with existing collabora- tive processes and create the potential for new ones to erupt. However, the way this rapidly growing phenomenon in collaborative governance research has been labelled and has been subject to change over the last 20 years cre- ates confusion about the delineation between core concepts, especially when it comes to digital transformation. Collaborative governance (CG) is, as the name suggests, a type of governance that is heavily based on collaboration between a variety of stakeholders. An- sell and Gash (2008) define collaborative governance as the coordination of standards and rules jointly determined and projected to govern individual behaviour in a group context. In collaborative governance, the focus is on Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 33 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping governance processes that blur public, private, and community boundaries in response to the interconnected challenges that governments face today (Bradford, 2016). It is one of the main approaches towards a collaboration be- tween the community, the private sector, and the government, and eases the state’s burden in providing the community’s goods and services and welfare (Kim & Grant, 2010). Within collaborative governance, collaboration can be de- fined as a situation where a group of autonomous stakeholders from different sectors engages in an interactive process (Hajnal & Jeziorska, 2021). Research in this field is growing rapidly and is being adopted not only in public admin- istration, but also in various other disciplines, and has appeared in studies and practices in the American, European and Australian literature; therefore, constant improvements and clarification are needed. Several holistic frame- works and empirical studies have been published about collaborations (e.g. Agranoff, 2012; Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012). The use of multi- actor collaboration to advocate for policies, deliver services, and create public value has also led to a larger body of literature on public sector collaboration (Mischen, 2015), which has revolved around terms such as collaborative pub- lic management, network governance (Emerson et al., 2012; Rhodes, 2017), cross-sector collaboration (Bryson et al., 2015), governing collaborations (Van- gen et al., 2015), and collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash, 2008). In the context of collaboration, digital technologies have been recognised to play an important role (Bryson et al., 2015). Although not many have made digital technologies the centre of attention in this emerging literature of col- laboration, the contribution of collaboration to the creation of public value and the role of structures and processes embedded in key areas has been identified across different models of collaboration: technology, leadership, governance, and collaborative capacity (Bryson et al., 2015). Previous studies have identified two distinct roles that technology can play in interagency collaborations (Bryson et al., 2015). The first role considers tech- nology as a tool or equipment, and thus as a facilitator of collaboration. This traditional view of technology has been thoroughly explored in the literature on digital government (Gil-Garcia, 2012; Gil-Garcia et al., 2018; Luna-Reyes & Gil-Garcia, 2014), and to a lesser extent by scholars of public administration (Bryson et al., 2011). The second role views technology as a ‘nonhuman actor’ (Bryson et al., 2011; Gasco-Hernandez et al., 2022), capable of providing solu- tions and presenting a systematic understanding of complex interactions that surpass the perceptions of individual actors (Bryson et al., 2015). This idea of technology as an actor has been elaborated in actor-network theory (Latour, 2007), which distinguishes between human and nonhuman actors and advo- cates for treating them equally under the principle of generalised symmetry. Despite this, the notion of technology as an actor has not been widely integrat- ed into cross-sector collaboration or collaborative governance frameworks. Nevertheless, in line with the development of collaborative governance trends, the intersection with technological disruption is unavoidable today. The con- cepts and research field of digital transformation (DT) has become well-estab- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202334 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman lished, due to the widespread adoption of digital technologies in society, in- dustries, and organisational management (Nadkarni and Prügl, 2021; Verhoef et al., 2021; Vial, 2019). DT is a process that occurs at the intersection of prod- ucts, services, and media, and is centred around the use of digital technologies to transform and create value. As a research field, DT is constantly evolving and adapting to changes within the relevant area (Roth, 2019). Examining the existing literature, Vial (2019) found great inconsistency in existing research on digital transformation and, therefore, tried to define digital transformation as a process that aims to improve an entity by triggering significant changes in its properties through combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies.  Related to the digital transformation in the public sector, many recent works discuss the era of digital governance, such as e-government and digital government (Ravšelj et al., 2022). Governance in the digital era, or “digital era governance,” could be considered a contemporary umbrella term for all recent initiatives to modernise governance in public ad- ministration, based on the implementation of digital transformation. In this review, we systematically explore the topics of CG and DT in the most cit- ed articles from the last two decades, to observe and uncover the main trends, summarise the progress that research has achieved over the past years, and outline the limitations of the research. Furthermore, we want to provide the definition of collaborative digital transformation (CDT) as a fusion of the above- mentioned topics. The review focuses on the following research questions: 1. How are CG and DT defined in the existing literature? 2. What are the characteristics commonly used to fully define them? 3. What were the main research purposes, methodologies, and results on the most cited studies on these topics over the past 20 years? 4. If and how can we detect the concept of CDT? This article argues that CDT is a missing and important concept that can im- prove research in the area of public governance in the future, enabling a bet- ter outcome of digital transformation. Researchers emphasise the significance of categorising the literature of a particular research field based on primary development patterns to enhance comprehension of the extensive literature on the topics mentioned above. Bibliometrics is one of the most frequently utilised techniques for this pur- pose. Science mapping, or bibliometric mapping, is a crucial research area in bibliometrics. It monitors the scientific field, defines its cognitive structure and development, and acts as a spatial representation of how disciplines, fields, researchers, and individual documents are interrelated (Cobo et  al., 2012). Despite the significance of identifying key elements in specific areas of interest, there is a lack of bibliometric studies on collaborative governance and digital transformation issues. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to con- duct a literature review of the existing research on collaborative governance and digital transformation, as well as the correlation between the two. Addi- tionally, our goal is to define the collaborative digital transformation as a new Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 35 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping research area that would merge the two mentioned topics. The literature review further employs bibliometric mapping to analyse the bibliographic characteristics and content of articles written by various authors from various countries, covering the period from 2002 to 2022. The objective is to collect data from the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) databases and perform a bibliographic mapping using Biblioshiny tool for evaluation and visualisation. The objective is to establish a robust foundation for the concept of collabora- tive digital transformation. By analysing authors, research topics, keywords, journals, countries, and institutions, using a set of bibliometric indicators such as productivity, citations, H-index values, and total link strength (TLS) values, a comprehensive examination of the work conducted over the past two dec- ades is conducted. This analysis enables a thorough exploration of the field and provides a solid basis for future research. 2 Background The challenge for governments today is to fulfil public expectations in the era of digitalisation, where most of the population is using digital technologies as their main tools of living. Therefore, governments must adapt public service delivery and policy making to a new era of digitally driven and collaborative governance, since citizens increasingly expect to be active participants, not passive recipients in the process. Ansell and Gash (2008) explain the mean- ing of collaboration as “a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-mak- ing process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative, aiming to make or implement public policies or manage public programmes”. Multiple benefits are expected. First, bringing citizens actively on board through col- laboration in the design and implementation of policies and services could increase their legitimacy and effectiveness and create the feeling of owner- ship. Second, citizens’ and other stakeholders’ engagement could help to gain knowledge about needs, solutions, and impacts that could otherwise be over- looked by governing actors. Third, inclusive processes could help to address the differential impacts of various policies on outcomes that address differ- ent segments of society and their effects on growth and well-being. And fi- nally, citizens and other stakeholders can bring new knowledge and new in- novative ideas to the table. Collaboration therefore refers to the process of joint decision making (Stoker, 2004). Emerson et al. (2012) define collaborative governance broadly as the processes and structures of public policy decision-making and management that engage people in collaboration constructively, across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private, and civic spheres, to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accom- plished. In the realm of collaborative governance, this approach differs from other forms of governance and decision-making processes that seek con- sensus due to its targeted approach to resolving complex issues and prob- lems within the public sphere (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson and Nabatchi, Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202336 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman 2015). This is in response to the limitations and inability of governments to unilaterally address these issues (Agranoff, 2012; Bodin, 2017). Collabora- tive governance involves joint decision-making activities between public and private agents to increase public value by creating policies and managing re- sources, services, and public goods. It also aims to balance conflicting inter- ests among the agents involved to achieve the aspirations of all parties and minimize the power asymmetries and influence of coalitions that may arise in the process (Agranoff, 2012; Ansell and Gash, 2008; Bardach, 2001; Emerson et al., 2012; Torfing, 2016). Today’s governments should make use of digital technologies as a strategic component of their efforts to modernise the public sector. The concept of digital government entails using digital technologies as an integrated aspect of government modernisation strategies and activities aimed at creating pub- lic value. This approach involves a digital government ecosystem that compris- es government actors, non-governmental organisations, businesses, citizen associations, and individuals, which facilitate the production of and access to data, services, and content through interactions with the government (OECD, 2014). Consequently, there has been considerable research on digital technol- ogies in various aspects of digital transformation in the public sector. The term “transformation” is often used to indicate significant changes, modernisation efforts, or innovation based on the integration of digital technologies into government business processes, service delivery models, and culture. This re- structuring alters how government performs basic functions and governance (OECD, 2016). Other authors describe digital transformation as a means of rebuilding business models based on customer needs by using new technolo- gies (Berman, 2012; Shi et al., 2022). Transformation can also be viewed as the process of transitioning from traditional government through the initial forms of e-government to digital government (Vlahović and Vračić, 2015). According to McLoughlin et al. (2013), digital transformation results in digital government, which can sometimes be found as a synonym to e-government (American studies), or as a next evolution phase of e-government. Electronic government or e-government in its most generic form was defined as the use of IT in the public sector to ensure access to and delivery of government in- formation and user-centric services (Silcock, 2001), and/or to transform gov- ernment and its relationship with various stakeholders (Spirakis et al., 2010). The essence of e-government is embodied in efforts to make service delivery more efficient and accessible to citizens (Meijer and Bekkers, 2015; Meijer et al., 2009). However, the development of new literature focuses specifically on what we define as digital government, which emphasises digital innova- tions as something more than their digital bits: technologies drive transfor- mations that go deeper into public organisations and their relationships with the public. Vlahović and Vračić (2015) claim that the shift from e-government to digital government requires the introduction of the initiatives needed to make deeper changes in the provision of online services through government portals into a broader government business. Janowski et al. (2018) view this move as a potential of empowering citizens and other stakeholders to con- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 37 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping tribute to or lead the creation of public value, often recognised as one key feature of digital government transformation. So, digital transformation should potentially transform citizens to government interactions in two ways: by improving service delivery and by improving rela- tions between citizens and government (Fountain, 2004; Seifert and Petersen, 2002). Governments are progressively utilising the capabilities of digital tech- nologies to foster a network culture that is crucial for digital transformation. In this context, collaborative governance is facilitated by digitalisation, but the digital transformation itself also depends on the collaboration between government actors and private entities. This emphasises the significance of public administrations’ ability to collaborate and jointly create outcomes by sharing and pooling resources, both within and across different sectors. This means collaboration serves as a fundamental pillar for digital transformation (Vial, 2019). It is not surprising that governments are increasingly adopting inter-organisational and inter-sectoral collaboration as a crucial approach to effectively carry out the digital transformation (Edelmann, 2019). However, following the path of digital transformation, governments often forget that in some social groups access to digital technologies and digital skills is limited at the point of digital inequality. The government should re- think policy design and public service delivery to achieve a more inclusive approach, which refers not only to citizens’ access to technology but also to digital literacy. Social equity is only possible if institutional barriers to citizen inclusion are removed and opportunities for their participation through digi- tal technologies are equitably distributed (Anderson et al., 2015). For this rea- son, a strategic, collaborative and all-inclusive approach to digital transforma- tion is needed, and requires a strategy that establishes strategic and practical steps to mobilise state and non-state stakeholders to use digital technologies for a more collaborative, open and innovative government. The use of digital technologies can enable positive changes in the way public administrations conduct their work, communicate, and provide services. It can also have far- reaching impacts such as changing organisational structures and cultures, or engaging and integrating citizens and other partners in the co-design and co- delivery of public policy making (Bretschneider and Mergel, 2011; Sivarajah et al., 2015; Weerakkody et al., 2012). The existing literature reveals a significant lack of studies that address col- laborative governance on digital transformation issues simultaneously. It is mainly focused on the collaborative governance concept in general, while much less effort has been made to examine collaborative governance re- search on digital transformation issues. Furthermore, the literature review shows a significant lack of bibliometric studies on the topic related to the fusion of these two concepts, thus hindering a comprehensive understand- ing of collaborative governance on digital transformation issues. The existing paper therefore addresses these issues and contributes to the research of collaborative digital governance. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202338 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman 3 Materials and Methods In recent years, bibliometric analysis has become an increasingly widespread method for the evaluation of research work (Mukherjee et  al., 2022; Radu et al., 2021). In this research, we collected data from the SCOPUS and WoS da- tabases to retrieve the documents for bibliometric analysis. The search strat- egy was based on the title, abstract, and keyword search. Accordingly, we use the following search queries that were utilised for SCOPUS: 1. CDT: (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“e-government” OR “digital*” OR “digital transforma- tion”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(collaborative AND governance)) AND PUBYEAR > 2001 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE,”ar”) AND ( LIMIT- -TO ( LANGUAGE, “English” ) ), 2. DT: (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“e-government” OR “digital*” OR “digital transfor- mation”)) AND PUBYEAR > 2001 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE,”ar” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, “English” ) ), 3. CG: (TITLE-ABS-KEY(collaborative AND governance)) AND PUBYEAR > 2001 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE,”ar”) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE, “English” ) ), and for WoS: 1. CDT: TS=(“e-government” OR “digital*” OR “digital transformation” ) AND TS=(collaborative) AND TS=(governance) AND LA=(English) AND PY=(2001- 2023) AND DT=(Article) 2. DT: TS=(“e-government” OR “digital*” OR “digital transformation” ) AND LA=(English) AND PY=(2001-2023) AND DT=(Article) 3. CG: TS=(collaborative) AND TS=(governance) AND LA=(English) AND PY=(2001-2023) AND DT=(Article). By using this queries it was ensured that all relevant and corresponding docu- ments were captured in the search query. For the analysis, we filtered the re- sults to articles only, whereas other forms of publication, such as book chap- ters, conference proceedings, and white papers, were excluded. Additionally, the search was limited to English, since it is among the most widely used lan- guages in publications worldwide. The selected articles that were retrieved and analysed were restricted to the period 2002–2022. Finally, because of large number of the results and the limitations of the download process, we limited the selected results to the top 2,000 most cited documents from each database. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 39 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Table 1: The number of search results in SCOUPS and WoS queries focusing on digital transformation, collaborative governance, and collaborative digital transformation. WoS SCOPUS DT 392,492* 591,966* CG 5,003* 4,410* CDT 193 194 * Only 2000 top cited documents used Based on the search query, we obtained a broad set of documents from the SCOPUS and WoS databases that are associated with collaborative govern- ance, digital transformation, and collaborative governance in digital transfor- mation research (Table 1). First, we merged the SCOPUS and WoS databases and deleted duplicate documents matching in title. For collaborative digital transformation research, which was the focus of our research, the relevance of the results was tested by manually reviewing the documents retrieved in two consecutive steps (Figure 1). For collaborative digital transformation re- search, 286 documents were identified as relevant (Figure 1). Although 5 of these articles focused on the literature review of different topics (3 include a keyword review and only 2 more articles indicate a literature review as a primary research method), we included them in the analyses. Figure 1: The flow of the bibliometric research process for collaborative digital transformation research. Bibliometric Analysis of Collaborative Digital Transformation Research Literature Search Database : SCOPUS December 2022. Time period : 2002-2022. Article, Language : English. 194 document results Database : WoS Accessed on December 2022. Time period : 2002-2022. Article, early access, Language : English. 193 documents results Merging and deleting duplicates from both SCOPUS and WoS database Manual Examination; checking abstract, title, and keywords Document Final Result; 286 Documents, 214 Sources (Journal, book, etc) Literature Analysis Publication trend analysis Contribution of countries Highly cited articles and distribution of sources Bibliographic: Coupling analysis Keyword analysis Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202340 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman In the next step, aiming at data analysis and visualisation, we used Biblioshiny, which is the Bibliometrix R package that allows coding-less bibliometric analy- sis without coding and enables visualisation (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). This tool can use data such as journal names, article titles, author and journal key- words, authors’ data, their home countries, research organisations, etc., and allows analysis based on citation, co-authorship, co-occurrence, co-citation, bibliographic coupling links, etc. When practicing with Biblioshiny, it is impor- tant to understand the terminology provided by this software (Moral-Munoz et al., 2020; Ravšelj et al., 2022). The maps built, visualised, and analysed us- ing this analytical and visualisation tool consist of different elements. Among them, we focused on the results that prove the relationship of items, such as: co-author links for researchers, and co-occurrence links for terms and ideas. 4 Results 4.1 Publication Trends To begin with, a descriptive overview of the bibliometric analysis was con- ducted. We explored the characteristics of the scientific literature on collabo- rative governance and digital transformation, linking it to collaborative digital transformation (CDT) research. Table 2 presents an overview of the character- istics of the most cited scientific literature on collaborative governance (CG), digital transformation (DT), and collaborative digital transformation (CDT) re- search between 2002 and 2022, taken from the SCOPUS and WoS databases. Research on CDT has developed quite significantly. There are 286 documents written by 835 authors and 66 individual authors, and published in 214 sourc- es, with an average citation per document of 17.05. The search results on the topic of collaborative governance and digital trans- formation provid a comprehensive initial picture. As mentioned above, for the CG and DT result set the number of search query results was too large to analyse (Table 1), so we had to limit it to 2000 articles, selecting the highest citation order, since these documents make a major contribution to the que- ried research field. The number of citation rates per document is 33.76 for CG and 612.3 for DT. The huge difference is caused by a large standard deviation, since the most cited paper in the CG group has 2,924 citations, while in the DT group this number is 30,891. If we juxtapose the development of these two concepts with the topic of CDT, the analysis shows that CDT has established itself as a new area of scientific inquiry and has since been a fast-growing area (Figure 2). Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 41 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Ta b le 2 : O ve rv ie w o f th e co m p ar at iv e ch ar ac te ri st ic s o f th e to p 2 00 0 m o st c it ed s ci en ti fi c lit er at ur e o n C o lla b o ra ti ve D ig it al Tr an sf o rm at io n (C D T) , C o lla b o ra ti ve G o ve rn an ce (C G ), an d D ig it al T ra ns fo rm at io n (D T) r es ea rc h (2 00 2- 20 22 ) i n th e SC O P U S an d W o S d at ab as es . B ib lio m et ri c It em s C o lla bo ra ti ve D ig it al Tr an sf o rm at io n R es ea rc h (C D T) C o lla bo ra ti ve G o ve rn an ce (C G ) D ig it al T ra ns fo rm at io n (D T) D at ab as e SC O P U S an d W o S SC O P U S an d W o S (2 00 0 to p c it ed w er e fr o m e ac h so ur ce ) SC O P U S an d W o S (2 00 0 to p ci te d w er e fr o m e ac h so ur ce ) Ti m es p an 20 02 -2 02 2 20 02 -2 02 2 20 02 -2 02 2 So ur ce s 21 4 12 19 90 5 D o cu m en ts (w it ho ut d up lic at es ) 28 6 3, 10 2 2, 80 9 D o cu m en t A ve ra ge A ge 3. 96 8. 68 13 .1 A ve ra ge c it at io ns p er d o c 17 .0 5 33 .7 6 61 2. 3 R ef er en ce s 16 ,1 61 14 6, 42 0 14 2, 03 5 Si ng le -a ut ho re d d o cu m en ts 66 76 9 17 7 A ut ho rs 83 5 8, 16 6 26 ,6 13 A ut ho r' s K ey w o rd s (D E) 1, 12 9 7, 03 8 6, 51 2 C o -a ut ho rs p er d o cu m en t 3. 33 3. 26 14 .6 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202342 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Figure 2: Annual number of papers – results of the collaborative digital transformation query 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 4 1 5 9 5 7 10 20 20 31 40 47 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 NU M BE R OF P AP ER S 4.2 Distribution of journals and highly cited articles Tables 2, 3 and 4 list the data of the 10 most relevant documents by the num- ber of citations in the CG, DT, and CDT area of research. The most cited article for DT (Table 5) is the article written by Wang et al. (2004) entitled ‘Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,’ published by IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, with a total of 30,891 citations, or an average of 1,544 per year. In the article, a different approach to quality assessment that relies on the deterioration of structural information is ex- amined. The authors introduce a structural similarity index and provide sev- eral examples to demonstrate its potential. They also compare the index to subjective ratings and other objective methods using an image database. The article is among the top ten articles that highlighted the diverse areas that have been impacted by DT in recent times. The variety of journals is much lower among the top ten cited articles in the CG domain, covering themes of public administration, environment, and ecol- ogy. The most cited article in the CG domain (Table 4) is an article by Ansell and Gash (2008), entitled ‘Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice’, published by the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. It has been cited 2,864 times, with an annual average of 190.93. It discussed how collaboration brings public and private stakeholders together in collective fo- rums with public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision making. They found that a virtuous cycle of collaboration tends to develop when col- laborative forums focus on small victories that deepen trust, commitment, and shared understanding. This article is the main reference for scholars in various scientific fields to understand collaborative governance. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 43 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Ta b le 3 : T o p 1 0 m o st r el ev an t d o cu m en ts b y nu m b er o f ci ta ti o ns in C o lla b o ra ti ve D ig it al T ra ns fo rm at io n (C D T) (2 00 2– 20 22 ). A ut ho rs D o cu m en t Ti tl e So ur ce s D O I To ta l C it at io ns TC p er Y ea r (M ei je r et  a l., 2 01 5) G o ve rn in g th e Sm ar t C it y: A R ev ie w o f th e lit er at ur e o n sm ar t ur b an go ve rn an ce In te rn at io na l R ev ie w o f A d m in is tr at iv e Sc ie nc es , V o lu m e 82 , I ss ue 2 . 10 .11 77 /0 02 08 52 31 45 64 30 8 72 8 91 .0 0 (F un g, 20 15 ) P ut ti ng t he P ub lic B ac k in to G o ve rn an ce : Th e C ha lle ng es o f C it iz en P ar ti ci p at io n an d It s Fu tu re P ub lic A d m in is tr at io n R ev ie w , 75 : 5 13 -5 22 ht tp s:/ /d oi. or g/ 10 .11 11 /p ua r.1 23 61 38 6 42 .8 9 (H ar ri so n et  a l., 2 01 2) O p en g o ve rn m en t an d e -g o ve rn m en t: D em o cr at ic c ha lle ng es f ro m a p ub lic va lu e p er sp ec ti ve In fo rm at io n P o lit y, v o l. 17 , n o . 2, p p . 8 3- 97 , 2 01 2 10 .32 33 /IP -2 01 2- 02 69 22 7 18 .9 2 (Ö zd em ir & H ek im , 20 18 ) B ir th o f In d us tr y 5. 0: M ak in g se ns e o f B ig D at a w it h A rt ifi ci al In te lli ge nc e, 'T he In te rn et o f Th in gs ” an d N ex t- G en er at io n Te ch no lo gy P o lic y O m ic s: a J o ur na l o f In te gr at iv e B io lo gy 2 2( 1) 10 .10 89 /o m i.2 01 7.0 19 4 18 5 30 .8 3 (M ei je r, 20 15 ) E- G o ve rn an ce in no va ti o n: B ar ri er s an d st ra te gi es G o ve rn m en t In fo rm at io n Q ua rt er ly V o lu m e 32 , I ss ue 2 , A p ri l 2 01 5, P ag es 1 98 -2 06 10 .10 16 /j. giq .20 15 .01 .00 1 12 3 13 .6 7 (A lr es hi d i et  a l., 2 01 7) Fa ct o rs f o r eff ec ti ve B IM g o ve rn an ce Jo ur na l o f B ui ld in g En gi ne er in g V o lu m e 10 , M ar ch 20 17 , P ag es 8 9- 10 1 10 .10 16 /j. job e.2 01 7.0 2.0 06 10 3 14 .7 1 (Is m ai l & M at er w al a, 20 19 ) A R ev ie w o f B lo ck ch ai n A rc hi te ct ur e an d C o ns en su s P ro to co ls : U se C as es , C ha lle ng es , a nd S o lu ti o ns Sy m m et ry 2 01 9, 1 1( 10 ), 11 98 10 .33 90 /sy m 11 10 11 98 95 19 .0 0 (F un g et  a l., 20 13 ) Si x M o d el s fo r th e In te rn et + P o lit ic s In te rn at io na l S tu d ie s R ev ie w , V o lu m e 15 , I ss ue 1 , M ar ch 20 13 , P ag es 3 0– 47 10 .11 11 /m isr .12 02 8 81 8. 10 (N am & P ar d o , 20 14 ) Th e ch an gi ng f ac e o f a ci ty g o ve rn m en t: A c as e st ud y o f P hi lly 31 1 G o ve rn m en t In fo rm at io n Q ua rt er ly , V o lu m e 31 , Su p p le m en t 1, J un e 20 14 , P ag es S 1- S9 10 .10 16 /j. giq .20 14 .01 .00 2 77 7. 70 (K lie vi nk et  a l., 2 01 6) Th e co lla b o ra ti ve r ea liz at io n o f p ub lic va lu es a nd b us in es s go al s: G o ve rn an ce an d In fr as tr uc tu re o f p ub lic –p ri va te in fo rm at io n p la tf o rm s G o ve rn m en t In fo rm at io n Q ua rt er ly V o lu m e 33 , I ss ue 1 , Ja nu ar y 20 16 , P ag es 6 7- 79 10 .10 16 /j. giq .20 15 .12 .00 2 71 8. 88 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202344 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman The most cited publications on the CDT topic is the article ‘Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance’, by Meijer et al. (2015) with a total of 707 citations and an average annual citation of 101 This article provides a framework on how various smart city governance processes should craft new forms of human collaboration through the use of digital technologies to obtain better results and more open governance processes. Table 4: A comprehensive overview of the 10 most relevant documents by number of citations in collaborative governance research (2002-2022). Authors Document Title Sources DOI Total Citations TC per Year (Ansell & Gash, 2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume 18, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 543–571 10.1093/jopart/mum032 2864 190.93 (Emerson et al., 2012) An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume 22, Issue 1, January 2012, pages 1–29 10.1093/jopart/mur011 1278 116.18 (Olsson et al., 2004) Adaptive Co- management for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems Environmental Management volume 34, pages 75–90 (2004) 10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7 1234 64.95 (Berkes & Ross, 2013) Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach Society & Natural Resources An International Journal Volume 26, 2013 - Issue 1 10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 827 82.70 (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007) Social Learning and Water Resources Management Ecology and Society 12(2): 5. 10.5751/ES-02037-120205 728 45.50 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 45 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Authors Document Title Sources DOI Total Citations TC per Year (Zollo et al., 2002) Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances Organization Science, Jg. 13 (6), S. 701-713 10.1287/orsc.13.6.701.503 725 34.52 (Meijer et al., 2015) Governing the Smart City: A Review of the literature on smart urban governance International Review of Administrative Sciences, Volume 82, Issue 2. 10.1177/0020852314564308 707 101.00 (Armitage et al., 2008) Adaptive co- management and the paradox of learning Global Environmental Change Volume 18, Issue 1, February 2008, Pages 86-98 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002 693 46.20 (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003) Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance Academy of Management Review Vol. 28, No. 3 10.5465/AMR.2003.10196737 679 33.95 (Newig & Fritsch, 2009) Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multilevel, and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance Volume19, Issue3 10.1002/eet.509 626 44.71 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202346 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Tab le 5: A co m p rehensive o verview o f the 10 m o st relevant d o cum ents b y num b er o f citatio ns in D ig ital Transfo rm atio n R esearch (2002–2022). A utho rs D o cum ent Title So urces D O I To tal C itatio ns TC per Y ear (Zho u W ang et al., 2004) Im age q uality assessm ent: fro m erro r visib ility to structural sim ilarity IEEE Transactio ns o n Im age P ro cessing, V o lum e: 13 Issue: 4 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861 30891 1,544.55 (R o b inso n et al., 2010) ed geR : a B io co nd ucto r p ackage fo r d iff erential exp ressio n analysis o f d igital gene exp ressio n d ata B io info rm atics, V o lum e 26, Issue 1, January 2010, P ages 139–140 10.1093/bioinform atics/btp616 20172 1.440,86 (D o no ho , 2006) C o m p ressed sensing IEEE Transactio ns o n Info rm atio n Theo ry, V o lum e: 52 Issue: 4 10.1109/TIT.2006.871582 17685 982,50 (A kyild iz et al., 2002a) A survey o n senso r netw o rks IEEE C o m m unicatio ns M agazine, V o lum e: 40 Issue: 8 10.1109/M COM .2002.1024422 11128 505,82 (M o rtazavi et al., 2008) M ap p ing and q uantifying m am m alian transcrip to m es b y R N A -Seq N ature M etho d s vo lum e 5, p ages621–628 10.1038/nm eth.1226 9451 590,69 (A kyild iz et al., 2002b ) W ireless senso r netw o rks: a survey C o m p uter N etw o rks V o lum e 38, Issue 4, 15 M arch 2002, P ages 393-422 10.1016/S1389-1286(01)00302-4 9250 420,45 (G ub b i et al., 2013) Internet o f Things (Io T): A visio n, architectural elem ents, and future d irectio ns. Future G eneratio n C o m p uter System s V o lum e 29, Issue 7, Sep tem b er 2013, P ages 1645-1660 10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010 7805 709,55 (B ruzual & C harlo t, 2003) Stellar p o p ulatio n synthesis at the reso lutio n o f 2003 M o nthly N o tices o f the R o yal A stro no m ical So ciety, V o lum e 344, Issue 4, O cto b er 2003, P ages 1000– 1028 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x 7433 353,95 (K o ttek et al., 2006) W o rld M ap o f the K ö p p en-G eiger clim ate classifi catio n up d ated M eteo ro lo gische Zeitschrift V o l. 15 N o . 3 (2006), p . 259 - 263 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130 6795 377,50 (K o m atsu et al., 2011) Seven-Year W ilkinso n M icro w ave A niso tro p y P ro b e (W M A P ) O b servatio ns: C o sm o lo gical Interp retatio n The A stro p hysical Jo urnal Sup p lem ent Series, V o lum e 192, N um b er 2 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 6386 491,23 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 47 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping The tables above provide a comprehensive overview of the top ten research publications on the three topics. Interestingly, most of the CDT research fo- cuses on developing the concept of modern governance using digital technol- ogy, institutional capacity, open innovation research, and citizen participation in public governance (Harrison et al., 2012; Meijer et al., 2015). In a compar- ison of the citation numbers with the number of documents published on these three topics, we see that the intersection or link between the concepts of collaborative governance and digital transformation is very clearly illustrat- ed in the top CDT article. Meijer’s (2015) article (Figure 3) successfully merged the aspect of collaboration with the use of digital government in the smart city concept and, according to the number of citations, caused wide interest within the reader community. Figure 3: Most cited documents on collaborative governance in collaborative digital transformation. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 (Meijer et al., 2015) (Fung, 2015) (Harrison et al., 2012) (Özdemir & Hekim, 2018) (Meijer, 2015) (Alreshidi et al., 2017) (Ismail & Materwala, 2019) (Fung et al., 2013) (Nam & Pardo, 2014) (Klievink et al., 2016) TC per Year Total Citations 4.3 Countries with the highest scientific production based on the corresponding authors. Based on metadata obtained from the SCOPUS and WoS databases, Figure 4 shows the 10 universities with the most articles published in CDT research between 2002 and 2022, based on the corresponding authors. KU Leuven, Belgium, has the most documents, producing 8 papers, followed by Delft Uni- versity of Technology, The Netherlands, with 7 papers. The following are The University of Manchester, UK with 6 papers, Santa Catarina State University, Brazil with 5 papers, and The University of Nebraska, U.S. with 5 papers, and Utrecht University, Netherlands with 5 papers. The European countries domi- nate the chart. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202348 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Figure 4: Top 10 countries with the highest scientific production for collaborative digital transformation Figure 5 represents a three-field plot that explains the relationship between the authors (left column), keywords (middle column), and sources/journal (right column). The elements are also shown in rectangles of different colours and sizes. According to Janik and Ryszko (2018), the size depends on the val- ue of the total relationship that appears between the rectangular elements. Therefore, if a component has many relations, the rectangle will be taller. Furthermore, the figure also shows in which sources CDT research authors most frequently publish, which authors, and which keywords are most fre- quently used. Based on Figure 5, it can be seen that the relationship between the author, the keywords, and the sources has a unique correlation. Various sources (i.e. government information quarterly, public performance and man- agement review, international journal of public administration) are linked to various keywords of CDT topics (i.e. e-government, smart city, collaboration, collaborative governance) that are further linked to authors who used them as author keywords. For example, Chen is the author who covers wider CDT issues with the spread of the keywords used and published in journals that have a major influence on CDT issues. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 49 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Figure 5: Three-Field Plot: Relationship between main authors (left), keywords (middle) and sources (right) for collaborative digital transformation research. To analyse the main topics emphasised in CDT research, a strategic diagram (Figure 6) is used. The diagram groups highly relevant author keywords into clusters that represent the main themes, with the size of each cluster indicat- ing the proportionality to the number of associated documents. Using Cal- lon’s centrality and density method, the core themes are divided into four quadrants that represent different types of themes. The clusters highlight the themes of the research, while the size of each cluster indicates their significance based on the number of keywords. The upper-right quadrant contains themes with high centrality and density, indicating well-developed internal and external ties, and these themes are considered motor themes. The upper-left quadrant contains themes with low centrality but high density, indicating strong internal but weak external ties, and these themes are con- sidered highly developed and isolated. The third quadrant contains themes with low centrality and low density, indicating weak internal and external ties, and these themes are considered emerging or declining. Finally, the lower- right quadrant contains themes with high centrality but low density, indicat- ing weak internal but strong external ties, and these themes are considered basic and transversal themes (Horvatinović & Matošec, 2022; Ravšelj et  al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020). Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202350 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Figure 6. Thematic map of collaborative digital transformation. The results show that the focus of CDT research between 2002 and 2022 has varied. There are three drivers of niche themes related to CDT research: blockchain (including collaborative economy and digital economy), digital platforms (including digitalisation and sharing economy), and digitalisation (linked to the stakeholders perspective); these keywords appear more in- fluential within the digital transformation research. Keywords participation (related to local government and digital platforms) appear as motor themes, which means that these keywords are well covered and important for the structure of the CDT research field. Meanwhile, in the emerging and declining themes, the keywords smart city, collaborative innovation, and business ecosystem are in a position that inter- sects with the basic themes. For keywords that appear in basic themes, there is one major grouping on collaborative governance topics covering keywords smart cities (including social innovation and ICT), e-government (including governance and collaboration) and collaborative governance (including covid 19, and digital transformation). These keywords are in line with the develop- ment of the number of citations that emphasise relevant studies in CDT. 5 Discussion and Conclusions The bibliometric analysis presented above reveals that CDT has begun to re- ceive attention from scholars amid the development of the concepts of DT and CG which have gained a place in the field of public administration re- search in the last two decades. The results of the DT topic showed it as a broad and influential concept in the current times of the digital revolution. Titles, keywords, and journals of the analysed DT documents indicate a wide variety of research areas and therefore encourage many fields of science to develop their interest following technological advances, including public ad- ministration, which is “transforming from bureaucratic analogue public ser- vices to citizen-oriented digital services, incorporating dimensions of collabo- ration through CG” (Ansell & Gash, 2018). DT is identified as a universal and revolutionary concept that emphasizes contemporary technologies as drivers of innovative, sustainable, and competitive public administration, including new public governance, as indicated by the vast amount of DT query results Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 51 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping and high-citation indicators. On the other hand, the CG documents analysed bring together public actors and private stakeholders in a joint effort to solve complex social problems in a volatile world and to create governance solu- tions and outcomes that have high public value (Ciesielska & Janowski, 2019; Vial, 2019). In line with the development of digital transformation and col- laborative governance trends in the literature, the intersection with techno- logical disruption and government practices is unavoidable. The presented bibliometric study advances knowledge of the concept of collaborative digi- tal transformation (CDT) by emphasizing the research areas of collaborative governance and digital transformation, stressing that these two concepts are frequently discussed in the literature (see Table 6) but have never been thor- oughly explored from the viewpoint of the potential fusion between them. Since the CDT concept only grew recently, the scientific literature on CDT has been very limited, although the topic of CG and DT developed rapidly in the same period. However, the interception of the two shows great potential in the fast-developing digital society, where global wicked problems demand further development of this study in the future. Furthermore, CDT is the sub- ject of constant change and rapid evolution, also influenced by developments in other studies in public administration like the paradigm of the new public governance. Its emphasis is on a modern approach to public governance driv- en by multi-stakeholder participation to jointly produce an “all-win” collective policy, exploiting the potential of emerging technologies to ensure public ad- ministration is successfully transformed. Therefore we suggest 5 core dimen- sions of CDT presented in Table 7. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202352 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Tab le 6: The links b etw een C G and D T in the 4 m o st cited C D T literature. N o A uthors R elatio n betw een C G and D T 1 (Meijer et al., 2015) The autho rs fo cused o n the co ncep ts o f sm art city go vernance, crafting new fo rm s o f hum an co llab o ratio n thro ugh the use o f IC Ts to o b tain b etter o utco m es and m o re o p en go vernance p ro cesses. G o o d ad m inistratio n and go o d p o licies m ay result in stro ng interactio ns at the urb an level, w hereas a fo cus o n sm art co llab o ratio n m ay result in m o re attentio n to issues o f co llab o ratio n than actually m aking things w o rk. The m o st transfo rm ative level o f co ncep tualisatio n stresses that sm art go vernance is ab o ut sm art urb an co llab o ratio n b etw een the vario us acto rs in the city. W e q ualify this co ncep tualisatio n at the highest level o f transfo rm atio n, since it is no t o nly ab o ut the transfo rm atio n o f the internal o rganisatio n b ut also o f the external o rganisatio n. 2 (Fung, 2015) The autho r fo cused o n p articip ato ry go vernance, w here increasing citizen p articip atio n is so m etim es seen as a w ay to increase the eff ectiveness o f regulatio n and im p ro ve the p ro visio n o f p ub lic go o d s and services. A utho r exp ects that the d em and fro m citizens fo r greater engagem ent w ith the institutio ns that aff ect them and a shift to w ard s d igital techno lo gies that can m ake info rm atio n m o re accessib le, w o uld increase the d evelo p m ent o f the avenues fo r co llab o ratio n. 3 (Harrison et al., 2012) The autho rs d iscuss transp arency, p articip atio n, and co llab o ratio n as d em o cratic p ractices in ad m inistrative agencies thro ugh o p en go vernm ent (O G ) w ithin the co ntext o f e-go vernm ent and its b ro ad er im p licatio ns fo r the future o f p ub lic ad m inistratio n. The autho rs co nclud e that o p en go vernm ent reco nciles the d ivergent p aths o f e-d em o cracy and e-go vernm ent. W hile transp arency, p articip atio n, and co llab o ratio n m ay initially take m o re tim e and reso urces, they b ear the p ro m ise o f ultim ately im p ro ving p o licy p erfo rm ance b y creating shared und erstand ings o f current p erfo rm ance and generating p ressure to im p ro ve, increasing the p o o l o f ap p licab le id eas, tap p ing into new so urces o f exp ertise, and b uild ing civic cap acity. A ll these m ay ultim ately turn o ut to b e the key to co ncrete im p ro vem ents in p o licy o utco m es and the q uality o f p ub lic services. 4 (Meijer, 2015) The autho r p resents a theo retical fram ew o rk o f the d iff erent b arriers to e-go vernance inno vatio n and p resents strategies. ‘Fixing’ and ‘fram ing’ are p resented as the m ain strategies fo r realizing e-go vernance inno vatio n research and later d evelo p ed a theo retical m o d el o f e-go vernance inno vatio n. The research d iscussed the system to engage citizens in the co p ro d uctio n o f safety in The N etherland s, C itizens N et, using a d atab ase w ith geo grap hical and p erso nal info rm atio n ab o ut citizens and a system fo r send ing vo ice and text m ail m essages b ased o n geo grap hical characteristics. The system can b e characterised as an interesting fo rm o f e-go vernance since new techno lo gies are b eing used b o th w ithin the o rganisatio n and in co ntacts w ith citizens to strengthen co llab o ratio n b etw een go vernm ent and citizens and p ro d uce p ub lic value, in this case the p ro d uctio n o f safety. Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 53 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Table 7: Main dimensions of CDT. Dimension Description Guidelines C o lla bo ra ti ve m in ds et Ali included stakeholders, especially stakeholders from the public sector should shift their mindset and organisational culture towards collaboration for better public policies and services. Sharing ideas, knowledge, and expertise freely is an integral part of the collaboration process. The process must include employees, customers, suppliers, and partners. C ro ss - fu nc ti o na l te am s by de fa ul t Collaboration teams should include various organisations and stakeholders from different backgrounds and departments. Working together to identify digital opportunities, incorporate new technologies, and implement transformative initiatives. D ig it al t o o ls a nd pl at fo rm s Various advanced digital tools and platforms that facilitate communication, information sharing, and collaborative work should be incorporated, with a focus on security and data protection. Tools like project management software, collaboration tools, cloud-based platforms, big data, AI and social networks should be used to maximise the benefits of collaborative digital transformation. A gi le m et ho ds Due to the constant changes in the world, fast development and advances in technology and wicked problems, agile methods should be used to enable constant and dynamic collaborative digital transformation. Use agile methodologies with the support of digital tools for iterative collaborative development using quick feedback loops and continuous improvements to adapt to changing requirements during the transformation process. C o nt in uo us le ar ni ng a nd ad ap ta ti o n Collaborative digital transformation is an ongoing process, and the public sector needs to continuously learn, adapt, and refine its policies and services. Continually gather information, evaluate outcomes, and make informed decisions for future transformations. In this paper, this picture of CDT research development is based on articles published in the Scopus and WoS databases between 2002 and 2022. It of- fers an understanding of the CDT research area in the concepts of DT and CG, which is still seeking its own identity in the academic literature. Referring to our findings, the article by (Meijer et al., 2015) is an example of a meet- ing point between DT and CG, with the smart city concept, an emphasis on collaboration, and the application of digital technologies in various aspects, including decision-making processes, coordination, electronic administration, and policy outcomes. In the changing and developing literature, the CDT con- cept continues to seek the best formula and the most ideal form. In view of its initial conception, and to support the definition we propose the 5 dimensions of CDT, namely: collaborative mindset, cross-functional teams by default, dig- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202354 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman ital tools and platforms, agile methods, continuous learning and adaptation (Table 7). , We conclude that CDT could therefore be interpreted as a joint ef- fort between authorities at different levels of government, private organisations and civil society to drive change and innovation in public policies and services based on collective decision-making through the use of digital technologies. CDT involves leveraging digital tools and technologies to streamline processes, im- prove efficiency, and enhance overall business performance, while fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing across all stakeholders that can benefit to the process. Our research provides bibliometric support for CDT research to emerge as a new approach in the public administration field. This study helps to under- stand the development of collaborative digital transformation research in the last two decades, as CDT research is a relatively new field characterised by rapid growth and evolution. Since CDT focusses not only on the implemen- tation of digital technologies but mainly on fostering a culture of collabora- tion and empowerment of teams to work together toward shared objectives, combining the power of digital tools with effective collaboration, it will en- able organisations to drive meaningful change and achieve successful digital transformations. Nevertheless, we encourage future studies to further examine this emerg- ing approach on CDT. For instance, it would be valuable to investigate and compare the factors that contribute to the success of CDT in particular con- texts. This could involve studying more literature in countries with similar administrative traditions. By conducting these studies, we can enhance our understanding on the CDT. This knowledge will be instrumental in guiding scholars, governments, and organisations as they navigate the complexities of the digital era. 6 Limitations There are some limitations to the current research that should be acknowl- edged. Firstly, the bibliometric analysis is limited to CG, DT, and CDT related documents indexed in the Scopus and WoS databases. Although these are highly regarded peer-reviewed literature databases, they may not encompass all of the research available. Furthermore, since the topic itself pertains to national governments as well as non-governmental stakeholders influenced by national political systems, many ideas and changes are communicated and explored in domestic or native languages. Therefore, these resources might contain information that may provide either different or additional insight in this research topic. Another limitation is that only titles, abstracts, and keywords in English were included in this study, which could introduce pub- lication bias. However, it could also be argued that English is widely used for publishing research globally, suggesting that all significant scientific contribu- tions should be detectable in databases such as the one used. Despite the aforementioned shortcomings, the results could be beneficial not only for the scientific community, but also for evidence-based policymaking to com- Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 55 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping prehensively address CDT-related issues. Moreover, the findings could be an essential resource for identifying related research gaps in the field of CDT in the future. Acknowledgment The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (Research Programme - Digital transformation for Smart Public Govern- ance, no. P2-0426). Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202356 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman References Agranoff, R. (2012). Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Georgetown University Press. https://books.google.si/books?id=Axz3zT9RRqAC Akyildiz, I. F. et al. (2002a). A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(8), pp. 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2002.1024422 Akyildiz, I. F. et al. (2002b). Wireless sensor networks: A survey. Computer Networks, 38(4), pp. 393–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286 (01)00302-4 Alreshidi, E., Mourshed, M. and Rezgui, Y. (2017). Factors for effective BIM governance. Journal of Building Engineering, 10, pp. 89–101. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jobe.2017.02.006 Anderson, D. et al. (2015). E-Government Strategy, ICT and Innovation for Citizen Engagement. Springer New York. https://books.google.si/books?id=VIdNCwA AQBAJ Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), pp. 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative Platforms as a Governance Strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), pp. 16–32. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030 Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 Armitage, D., Marschke, M. and Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), pp. 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002 Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental Dynamics: Interagency Collaboration as an Emergent Phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), pp. 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003497 Berkes, F. and Ross, H. (2013). Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 8941920.2012.736605 Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), pp. 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1 108/10878571211209314 Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aan1114 Bradford, N. (2016). Ideas and Collaborative Governance: A Discursive Localism Approach. Urban Affairs Review, 52(5), pp. 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1078087415610011 Bretschneider, S. and Mergel, I. (2011). Technology and public management information systems: Where have we been and where are we going. In The State of Public Administration: Issues, Problems and Challenges (pp. 187–203). Bruzual, G. and Charlot, S. (2003). Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 344(4), pp. 1000– 1028. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. and Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), pp. 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 57 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Bryson, J. M. et al. (2011). The urban partnership agreement: A comparative study of technology and collaboration in transportation policy implementation. Ciesielska, M. and Janowski, T. (2019). Inter-governmental Collaborative Networks for Digital Government Innovation Transfer – Structure, Membership, Operations. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & D. Antonelli (Eds.), Collaborative Networks and Digital Transformation (pp. 295– 307). Springer International Publishing. Cobo, M. et al. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, pp. 1609–1630. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22688 Donoho, D. L. (2006). Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52(4), pp. 1289–1306. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2006.871582 Emerson, K. and Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. and Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011 Fountain, J. E. (2004). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press. https://books.google.si/ books?id=bBGIDwAAQBAJ Fung, A. (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), pp. 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361 Fung, A. et al. (2013). Six Models for the Internet + Politics. International Studies Review, 15(1), pp. 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12028 Gasco-Hernandez, M. et al. (2022). Unpacking the role of technology, leadership, governance and collaborative capacities in inter-agency collaborations. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), p. 101710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2022.101710 Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Enacting Electronic Government Success: An Integrative Study of Government-wide Websites, Organizational Capabilities, and Institutions. Springer New York. https://books.google.si/ books?id=OLhtFJdf18cC Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S. and Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), pp. 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181 Gubbi, J. et al. (2013). Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Including Special Sections: Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing for Ubiquitous Cloud and Network Services & Cloud Computing and Scientific Applications — Big Data, Scalable Analytics, and Beyond, 29(7), pp. 1645–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010 Hajnal, G. and Jeziorska, I. (2021). Collaborative Governance Regimes in Illiberal Democracies: A Comparative Case of Drug Harm Reduction Policy in Central- Eastern Europe. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences; 62, E/ February. https://rtsa.ro/tras/index.php/tras/article/view/655 Harrison, T. M. et al. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17(2), pp. 83–97. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-0269 Horvatinović, T. and Matošec, M. (2022). A decade for the books: Bibliometric analysis of Economics Letters. Economics Letters, 216, p. 110542. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110542 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202358 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Ismail, L. and Materwala, H. (2019). A Review of Blockchain Architecture and Consensus Protocols: Use Cases, Challenges, and Solutions. Symmetry, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11101198 Janik, A. and Ryszko, A. (2018). Scientific landscape of smart city concept: A bibliometric analysis. Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32, pp. 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001 Janowski, T., Estevez, E. and Baguma, R. (2018). Platform governance for sustainable development: Reshaping citizen-administration relationships in the digital age. Platform Governance for Sustainable Development, 35(4, Supplement), S1–S16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.002 Kim, D.-Y. and Grant, G. (2010). E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/13287261011070858 Klievink, B., Bharosa, N. and Tan, Y.-H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public– private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), pp. 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.002 Komatsu, E. et al. (2011). Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 18. https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 Kottek, M. et al. (2006). World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15(3), pp. 259–263. https://doi. org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130 Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oup Oxford. Luna-Reyes, L. F. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 545–555. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001 McLoughlin, I., Wilson, R. and Martin, M. (2013). Digital Government at Work: A Social Informatics Perspective. OUP Oxford. https://books.google.si/ books?id=zqVoAgAAQBAJ Meijer, A. (2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), pp. 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2015.01.001 Meijer, A. and Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), pp. 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.006 Meijer, A., Boersma, K. and Wagenaar, P. (2009). ICTs, Citizens and Governance: After the Hype! IOS Press. https://books.google.si/books?id=s\_bumrjXAEkC Meijer, A., Rodríguez, B. and Pedro, M. (2015). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308 Mergel, I., Edelmann, N. and Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), p.101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 Mischen, P. A. (2015). Collaborative Network Capacity. Public Management Review, 17(3), pp. 380–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822527 Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/2023 59 Collaborative Governance in the Digital Transformation Age: A Systematic Literature Review with Bibliometric Mapping Moral-Munoz, J. et al. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El Profesional de La Información, 29. https:// doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 Mortazavi, A. et al. (2008). Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nature Methods, 5(7), pp. 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nmeth.1226 Mukherjee, D. et al. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2022.04.042 Nadkarni, S., and Prügl, R. (2021). Digital transformation: A review, synthesis and opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 71(2), pp. 233–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7 Nam, T. and Pardo, T. A. (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case study of Philly311. ICEGOV 2012 Supplement, 31, S1–S9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.002 Newig, J. and Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: Participatory, multi- level – and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), pp. 197– 214. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.509 OECD. (2014). Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. OECD Publishing; OECD/LEGAL/0406. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/ instruments/OECDLEGAL-0406 OECD. (2016). Digital Government in Chile. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264258013-en Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Hahn, T. (2004). Social-Ecological Transformation for Ecosystem Management: The Development of Adaptive Co-Management of a Wetland Landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9, 2. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-00683-090402 Özdemir, V. and Hekim, N. (2018). Birth of Industry 5.0: Making Sense of Big Data with Artificial Intelligence, “The Internet of Things” and Next-Generation Technology Policy. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 22. https://doi. org/10.1089/omi.2017.0194 Pahl-Wostl, C. et al. (2007). Social Learning and Water Resources Management. Ecology and Society, 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02037-120205 Radu, V. et al. (2021). Bibliometric Analysis of Fuzzy Logic Research in International Scientific Databases. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS COMMUNICATIONS & CONTROL, 16. https://doi.org/10.15837/ ijccc.2021.1.4120 Ravšelj, D. et al. (2022). A Review of Digital Era Governance Research in the First Two Decades: A Bibliometric Study. Future Internet, 14, 126. https://doi. org/10.3390/fi14050126 Rhodes, R. A. (2017). Network governance and the differentiated polity: Selected essays (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J. and Smyth, G. K. (2010). EdgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics, 26(1), pp. 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/ btp616 Roth, S. (2019). Digital Transformation of Social Theory. A Research Update (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3317606). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3317606 Seifert, J., and Petersen, R. (2002). The Promise of All Things E? Expectations and Challenges of Emergent Electronic Government. Perspectives on Global Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 21, No. 1/202360 Rio Yusri Maulana, Mitja Dečman Development and Technology, 1, pp. 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691 5002100419808 Shi, L., Mai, Y. and Wu, Y. (2022). Digital Transformation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 34, pp. 1–20. https://doi. org/10.4018/JOEUC.302637 Silcock, R. (2001). What is E-government. Parliamentary Affairs, 54, pp. 88–101. Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z. and Weerakkody, V. (2015). Evaluating the use and impact of Web 2.0 technologies in local government. Government Information Quarterly, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.004 Spirakis, G., Spiraki, C. and Nikolopoulos, K. (2010). The impact of electronic government on democracy: E-democracy through e-participation. EG, 7, pp. 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2010.029892 Stoker, G. (2004). Designing institutions for governance in complex environ- ments: Normative rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship Paper No. 1. Sundaramurthy, C. and Lewis, M. (2003). Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 397–415. https://doi. org/10.5465/AMR.2003.10196737 Torfing, J. (2016). Collaborative innovation in the public sector (p. 353). Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P. and Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing Cross-Sector, Inter- Organizational Collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), pp. 1237– 1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.903658 Verhoef, P. C. et al. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, pp. 889–901. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022 Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), pp. 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003 Vlahović, N. and Vračić, T. (2015). An Overview of E-Government 3.0 Implementa- tion. IGI Global. https://www.bib.irb.hr/804840 Wang, C. et al. (2020). The evolution of Omega-The International Journal of Management Science over the past 40 years: A bibliometric overview. Omega, 93, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.08.005 Weerakkody, V., Al-Sobhi, F. and El-Haddadeh, R. (2012). Building Trust in E-Government Adoption through an Intermediary Channel. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 8, pp. 91–106. https://doi. org/10.4018/jegr.2012040105 Wang, Z. et al. (2004). Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4), pp. 600– 612. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2003.819861 Zollo, M., Reuer, J. and Singh, H. (2002). Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances, Organization Science, Jg. 13 (6), pp. 701– 713. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.701.503