Enhancing Smart Cities’ Resilience Through Competency Assessment and Open Data Utilization

Abstract

The increasing frequency of natural catastrophes and other disasters has underscored the importance of resilience as a core competence for smart cities so that they efficiently manage unforeseen crises. The increasing recognition of resilience in the context of smart cities leads to examining the role and context for the role of the “Smart City Resilience Officer” (SCRO). This article addresses this research gap by exploring the significance of resilience in smart cities and introduces a self-assessment model for evaluating the skills of professionals tasked with its management. Additionally, it emphasizes the role of open data in enhancing smart city resilience, whose utilization offers significant benefits, such as increased transparency, improved collaboration among stakeholders, and the ability to harness data-driven insights for more effective resilience strategies. This article identifies and defines the requisite competencies for SCROs to differentiate them from other city managers and develops a self-assessment tool featuring 20 key competencies. This tool was evaluated by smart city stakeholders in the consortium countries of the OpenDCO Erasmus+ project using a competencies assessment methodology. This study highlights the role of resilience policies in Europe and in launching large-scale training programs that develop competencies and facilitate the sharing of experiences and best practices. The findings underscore the potential of competency assessment and open data utilization in advancing the resilience of smart cities.

1. Introduction

The integration of sensors and IoT in urban environments has led to the development of smart cities, which aim to enhance the quality of urban services, improve environmental sustainability, and ensure effective governance [1,2]. A critical aspect of smart cities is their resilience, defined as the capacity to recover and thrive amid adversity [3,4]. As outlined in [5], resilience is a strategic objective involving every dimension of a city—government, environment, automation, and regulation—and must shape governance and citizen culture, not just infrastructure and services. Failures can cascade through interconnected subsystems, making it essential to adopt a holistic approach to transform a smart city into a resilient smart city. Political, security, economic, social, and environmental domains each require parallel resilience to keep the collective chain strong. This approach addresses health and well-being, economy and society, urban systems and services, and leadership and strategy [6].

City leaders must foster minimal human vulnerability, social cohesion, secure livelihoods, and robust safeguards for critical resources, services, and infrastructure. They should adopt policies encouraging early warning systems, preparedness, and post-disaster recovery aligned with long-term planning [7]. The United Nations [8] emphasizes the importance of strong leadership, stakeholder engagement, ongoing risk assessment, financial planning, risk-informed urban development, ecosystem protection, and community resilience to ensure reliable services and strengthen defenses against hazards and climate change. Smart cities use innovative technology to improve citizen security and well-being, yet merely planning for a smart city is insufficient. Resilience must be integrated into every strategy, linking technological solutions with resilient infrastructures.

Although no universal framework exists for developing a resilient smart city, officials can assess local needs and potential threats to guide their planning efforts. The concept of a resilient smart city is still evolving, making every contribution valuable. Through strategic management and planning, cities can excel in both smartness and resilience [8]. Policymaking must remain citizen-centered, with technology and enterprises serving as instruments to enhance the quality of life, while city leaders prioritize human assets and promote civic engagement [9]. It is crucial to ensure social inclusion, foster sustainability, and address vulnerabilities without stifling innovation. Overreliance on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can undermine crisis response efforts unless systems are designed for rapid recovery. The framework for a resilient smart city should incorporate adaptability, diversity, redundancy, modularity, connectivity, foresight, and continuous learning, along with comprehensive stakeholder engagement, including NGOs, academia, investors, and government agencies [6]. Effectively managing these multifaceted challenges requires city officials with expertise in both resilience strategies and smart city principles, ensuring a holistic approach across all critical dimensions.

Recent global developments, including climate change, cybersecurity threats, and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, have underscored the importance of resilience in smart cities [5,7,9]. The ability to safeguard essential services and build resilience has become a fundamental competence in managing disruptive situations [8]. Knowledge serves as a crucial resource for developing and sustaining resilient smart cities; however, there is a significant shortage of well-trained candidates for governance roles in this domain [10,11,12]. Additionally, existing literature frequently treats resilience as a secondary responsibility of smart city managers, leaving a gap in the recognition and development of professionals dedicated explicitly to resilience-focused roles. Several obstacles may hinder the effectiveness and broader adoption of resilience-building platforms. Challenges, such as the highly diverse and context-specific nature of resilience issues, the absence of strong incentives for continuous learning and a predominant focus on reactive crisis management can limit engagement with long-term resilience initiatives [13,14].

Despite the growing recognition of smart city and resilient city concepts, the specific context and urgency surrounding the role of the “Smart City Resilience Officer” (SCRO) require greater attention. The rapid expansion of interconnected infrastructures, the increasing frequency of disruptions—both natural and human-induced—and the necessity of coordinating multidisciplinary responses underscore the critical need for specialized personnel. SCROs are responsible not only for the technical aspects of resilience, such as data-driven risk detection and preparedness, but also for the social and governance dimensions, including stakeholder collaboration and community engagement. Their primary mandate is to embed resilience principles into all aspects of city operations, ensuring that crisis preparedness and long-term adaptability are integral to urban development from the outset. This need is further amplified by growing public expectations that city leaders take proactive measures to safeguard essential services and protect citizens in an era of mounting uncertainties. As a result, clearly defining the SCRO role and outlining its required competencies is essential to guiding policymakers and city managers in assembling capable teams equipped to address emerging urban challenges.

This paper explores the role of competency assessment and open data utilization as strategic mechanisms to enhance smart city resilience. Competency assessment identifies skills and knowledge gaps within city governance and infrastructure management, while open data utilization fosters transparency, collaboration, and data-driven decision-making. Drawing on relevant frameworks and recent studies, we explicitly focus on assessing competencies in the context of Smart City Resilience Officers (SCROs), a role first proposed by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2013 [15]. Competency assessment frameworks, such as DigComp2.2, provide a structured approach to evaluating proficiency levels, ranging from Foundation to Specialized [15]. These frameworks have been adapted to meet the needs of SCROs and smart cities, conceptualizing competencies as a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective decision-making and action.

By understanding and evaluating their competencies, individuals can assess their proficiency and autonomy in performing tasks, propose new ideas, and develop solutions. This paper aims to examine the self-assessment of competencies in SCROs, highlighting the importance of competency assessment in facilitating effective crisis response and decision-making. A structured literature review revealed a shortage of tools dedicated to measuring SCRO readiness, which this paper seeks to address.

Existing research underscores the urgent need to integrate resilience into the framework of smart cities. This necessity is exemplified by recent events in Valencia, where, despite significant technological infrastructure, major challenges have arisen due to limitations in available properly qualified human resources. However, a major research gap remains in the systematic evaluation of the competencies required for Smart City Resilience Officers (SCROs). Although SCROs play a crucial role in strengthening urban resilience, the literature lacks dedicated tools to assess their preparedness and effectiveness.

The initial identification of this gap can be attributed to the work of Tsoutsa et al. [16], who highlighted the critical absence of a structured competency assessment specifically designed for SCROs. Existing studies frequently treat resilience as a secondary function within smart city management rather than recognizing the need for specialized roles with distinct competencies in this field. This gap underscores the importance of developing a structured competency assessment framework like DigComp2.2 to systematically evaluate SCROs’ proficiency. Further exploration of such frameworks is essential to advancing smart city resilience by ensuring that SCROs possess the necessary skills, knowledge, and decision-making capabilities to lead proactive urban resilience initiatives and respond effectively to crises.

2. The Role of Resilience Officers in Smart Cities

A resilient smart city is characterized by its ability to maintain essential functions and services while minimizing disruptions during crises. This resilience encompasses not only physical infrastructure, such as transportation, energy, and communication systems, but also social and institutional infrastructures, including governance, public health, and community engagement. Smart cities utilize advanced technologies and data analytics, often applied to open data, to enhance quality of life, sustainability, and economic growth. However, they face significant challenges, including natural disasters, climate change, and cyberattacks. Managing a city’s resilience is inherently complex, requiring interventions across multiple dimensions tailored to specific risks. Cities, as dynamic systems, evolve over time and are exposed to various risks throughout their existence. Therefore, resilience management must be adaptable in its focus, tools, resources, and practices [17]. Active and informed citizen participation is crucial, as citizens play a central role in implementing necessary interventions to withstand and recover from crises [18,19].

Information technology and open data are vital in constructing and monitoring city resilience. They facilitate the efficient collection, analysis, and dissemination of data necessary for understanding city risks and vulnerabilities. IT-driven approaches can significantly reduce vulnerability and potential damage caused by disasters [20]. Predictive analytics enable risk anticipation and mitigation, while early warning systems alert citizens and authorities, facilitating timely evacuation or emergency response. Additionally, managing resilience involves implementing robust cybersecurity measures to protect critical infrastructure, data, and privacy. Both refs. [21,22] highlight the critical role of data utilization in improving situational awareness and decision-making, as well as the adoption of data-driven approaches to optimize operational efficiency. Specifically, ref. [21] illustrates the application of maritime data in achieving situational awareness within this domain. In parallel, ref. [22] showcases the deployment of spatial–temporal graph neural networks to enhance load forecasting and decision-making processes.

Effectively managing city resilience requires a dedicated individual or team responsible for overseeing and implementing strategies, policies, and initiatives aimed at enhancing the resilience of a smart city [23]. Given the complexity of this process, cities are likely to assign this role to a multidisciplinary team capable of addressing a wide range of factors, including infrastructure, economic stability, social dynamics, institutional frameworks, and environmental considerations [24]. Unlike general smart city managers, SCROs must integrate both the “smartness” and “resilience” dimensions, prioritizing crisis management, risk management, and the development of specialized resilience policies. For instance, Kelemen et al. proposed a competency assessment framework that incorporates multiple models of expert competence to evaluate professionals in smart city mobility and transportation, rank them, and identify the most suitable experts [25]. Such a model enables municipalities to strategically select specialists best equipped to manage tasks related to smart city transportation and mobility efficiently.

The Smart City Resilience Officer (SCRO) is a newly emerged role within a smart city, serving as the central point for planning and building the city’s resilience capacity. Unlike general smart city managers, SCROs must integrate both the “smartness” and “resilience” dimensions, focusing on crisis management, risk anticipation, and the development of specialized resilience policies. SCROs are responsible for overseeing and implementing strategies, policies, and initiatives related to the resilience of a smart city, considering various factors such as infrastructure, economy, social dynamics, institutions, and the environment. This multidisciplinary approach distinguishes SCROs from other city managers, who may primarily focus on technological advancements and urban development without a specific emphasis on resilience. Nevertheless, the literature on the responsibilities and competencies required for this position remains limited, hindering the adoption of comparable evaluation tools. In many cities, the demands of daily operations and resource constraints can often take precedence over the need for proactive training. However, as cities encounter increasing socioeconomic and environmental risks, it is essential to maintain a sustained focus on strengthening resilience capacity through targeted professional development initiatives. Several studies have identified and described emerging job roles and skills essential for smart cities [23,26,27,28]. Nevertheless, resilience has not yet been considered the primary responsibility of a smart city job role but has been addressed as a competence of other roles, such as smart city managers. Consequently, there is a gap in the literature regarding the necessary abilities of SCROs and the evaluation of current skills that could support this field. This article seeks to address this knowledge gap by introducing a self-assessment tool designed to evaluate the core competencies essential for the role of SCRO, whether as an individual or as part of a multidisciplinary team. The need for such an evaluation arises not only from the diverse and heterogeneous nature of smart cities, which require a complex and systems-oriented approach, but also from the specialized skills and tools required for effective smart city development.

While efforts have been made to develop frameworks, models, and tools for resilience management in smart cities, the specific role of the Smart City Resilience Officer (SCRO) remains underexplored. As explained in detail in the following section, Competence Systematization for Smart City Resilience, existing resilience management approaches primarily focus on broader municipal functions but do not fully delineate the leadership-level responsibilities necessary within city administrations. Similarly, existing competency models for smart city practitioners [23,26,27] do not systematically define or isolate resilience-specific roles, making it challenging to establish standardized benchmarks for assessing SCRO competencies.

Although various tools are available to evaluate overall city resilience maturity and/or to guide stakeholders in implementing technology-driven strategies, the absence of a dedicated SCRO competency framework represents a significant gap. The self-assessment tool introduced in this paper aims to address this deficiency by providing a structured approach for individuals and teams to identify and develop specialized skills and knowledge required for effective resilience management in smart cities.

3. Competence Systematization for Smart City Resilience

As urban environments transform, there is an increasing demand for professionals equipped to address complex challenges. This necessitates the development of new occupational profiles across three primary axes: smart cities, green cities, and resilient cities.

Smart Cities: Smart cities leverage advanced technologies and data analytics to enhance quality of life, sustainability, and economic growth. However, realizing the potential of these technologies requires new professional roles. Data scientists and analysts are essential for interpreting the vast data generated by the Internet of Things (IoT), facilitating evidence-based decision-making. IoT specialists and system integrators ensure seamless connectivity among devices and systems, while cybersecurity experts protect critical infrastructure and data privacy. The emergence of these professions has been highlighted by researchers such as Panagiotakopoulos, Iatrellis, and Kameas [10], who identify key roles like Smart City Planner (SCP), Smart City IT Manager (SCM), and Smart City IT Officer (SCO). These roles underscore the specialized skills needed to navigate smart city initiatives. Similarly, Chatzichristou, Napierala, Van Loo, and Goddard emphasize the diverse skills required for smart city development, including urban planning, data analysis, and energy management [29,30].

Green Cities: In pursuit of environmental sustainability, green cities focus on renewable energy, eco-friendly transportation, and sustainable infrastructure. This shift necessitates new professions, such as renewable energy engineers and consultants, who develop clean energy solutions. Urban designers with sustainability expertise incorporate green spaces and efficient transportation into city planning, while environmental impact analysts assess the ecological consequences of urban projects [31].

Resilient Cities: Cities face risks ranging from natural disasters to cyber threats, making resilience a critical aspect of urban management. This complexity demands professionals with specialized skills. Resilience officers and coordinators implement strategies to enhance a city’s ability to withstand and recover from crises. Risk assessors and hazard mapping specialists identify vulnerabilities and develop mitigation plans, while emergency response professionals ensure citizen safety during crises.

The competencies of resilience managers have been systematized in frameworks like the City Resilience Framework [32], which categorizes competencies into four dimensions: health and well-being, economy and society, infrastructure and environment, and leadership and strategy. These competencies include monitoring contagious diseases, developing sustainable economies, and establishing effective governance mechanisms. However, this framework does not directly address IT and data-driven resilience competencies for smart cities.

Platforms such as those discussed in this paper offer a valuable opportunity to enhance the learning and professional development of resilience practitioners by providing flexible, accessible training resources tailored to both their specific learning needs and the demands of their roles [10,33,34]. Designed to accommodate constraints on time and capacity, these platforms can incorporate specialized training for a diverse range of entities, including civil protection agencies [35], local governments, law enforcement, medical emergency teams [24], mobility sectors [13,35,36], and other key stakeholders in resilience management. By directing trainees to modules that address specific competency gaps identified through self-assessment, these platforms enable a more targeted and efficient learning experience, allowing resilience professionals to optimize their training outcomes within limited timeframes. This approach is particularly critical given the high-stakes, fast-paced nature of resilience work in urban environments [37].

To address this gap, resources like the Smart Cities Body of Knowledge provide insights into the competencies needed for smart city development [38], covering urban planning, IT, sustainability, and governance. These frameworks offer a comprehensive foundation for understanding the multidisciplinary nature of smart cities. Further research by Tsoutsa and Lampropoulos explores the technical, managerial, and strategic skills essential for smart city professionals [39].

Some researchers advocate for smart city managers to possess skills in both smartness and resilience to ensure sustainability. Khatibi et al. propose frameworks for establishing city smartness and resilience [40], while Zhu et al. emphasize infrastructure development and multi-stakeholder cooperation as key competencies for resilience officers [41]. However, there remains a scarcity of studies directly addressing the core competencies of these officers.

According to Morales-Burnett and Marx [42], a Chief Resilience Officer (CRO) plays a pivotal role in urban resilience, with responsibilities including:

• Integrating resilience thinking across city planning efforts;
• Enhancing communication and collaboration within city government;
• Engaging stakeholders and promoting community support;
• Leading resilience strategy development and implementation;
• Monitoring progress and securing resources.

The Smart City Resilience Officer (SCRO) must possess multidisciplinary expertise to address threats and opportunities effectively. This role requires integrative leadership, conceptualizing the city as a socio-technical system where people, technology, and infrastructure interact to produce resilience. SCROs must engage stakeholders, communicate effectively, and identify appropriate approaches and resources for resilience development. Training for SCROs should be context-specific, addressing identified needs and changing scenarios [43].

This article presents self-assessment tools for individuals pursuing careers as SCROs. Twenty (20) competencies have been systematized into four categories: smart city resilience management, smart city organization, business and financial management, and transversal competencies. These competencies are shown in

Table 1. Twenty competencies of Smart City Resilience Officers and brief descriptions.

ID	Competency	Brief Description
01	Assessing and managing SC assets and services	This competence involves coordinating Smart City assets and services, emphasizing communication during critical periods such as hazards and disasters.
02	Assessing and quantifying SC risks	This central competence involves assessing and quantifying Smart City risks for effective resilience planning and post-crisis recovery.
03	Improving SC resilience using tools	SC Resilience Officers innovate by integrating digital services and tools into city resilience planning to enhance Smart City resilience.
04	Learning SC-enabling technologies	This competence involves using Smart City-enabling technologies to address challenges and improve resilience, requiring the ability to build, define, and demonstrate their impact.
05	Planning for SC resilience	This involves developing comprehensive strategies for smart city resilience, which include security protocols, disaster recovery plans, and smart environmental planning to address natural disasters and disruptions.
06	Identifying risks in an SC	This competence focuses on identifying vulnerabilities and prioritizing risks in Smart City infrastructures and services, addressing social, economic, and environmental factors.
07	Decision-making and problem-solving	SC Resilience Officers use data-driven decision-making methods to address resilience problems, including prioritizing investments, allocating resources efficiently, and predicting outcomes.
08	Managing SC stakeholders and developing citizen networks	This competence involves identifying and engaging key stakeholders in smart city projects and applying strategies for the development, implementation, monitoring, and continuous revision of resilience policies.
09	Crisis management	This competence encompasses all phases of crisis management, including pre-event and post-event planning, preparedness, mitigation, and the implementation of adaptive resilience measures.
10	SC security and safety establishment	SC resilience officers address information security challenges within the smart city ecosystem, focusing on privacy protection, citizen safety, and mitigating security risks.
11	Monitoring and controlling SC	This competence involves the continuous assessment and monitoring of smart city resilience to ensure seamless connectivity, efficient decision-making, automated responses, and constant oversight.
12	Organizing the SC for resilience using agile principles	Agile cities demonstrate resilience by quickly deploying innovative initiatives, adopting adaptive planning processes, and fostering collaboration among stakeholders for flexible adjustments.
13	Data analytics for SC decision-making	SC resilience officers leverage data analytics to identify patterns, trends, and correlations, generating predictions and conclusions to improve the efficiency and quality of public services.
14	SC urban planning and critical city infrastructures	This competence involves designing and developing resilient smart infrastructures and services for cities, identifying and protecting critical infrastructures.
15	Developing blue-green infrastructures in SC	This involves applying knowledge of blue-green infrastructure strategies, which combine nature-based hydrological functions with vegetated landscaping for effective environmental management, disaster risk reduction, and climate change adaptation.
16	Geoservices and digital twins of SC	SC Resilience Officers employ geoservices and digital twins to identify resilience problems, design informed initiatives, and demonstrate the benefits of future Smart City development.
17	Transforming cities through digital innovation	This competence involves harnessing technology to enhance public services, reduce environmental impact, and create economic opportunities while understanding the challenges and risks associated with smart city innovation projects.
18	Using SC standards for resilience	SC Resilience Officers describe and apply standardization processes, methodologies, and guidelines for smart city development to systematically improve the quality of life.
19	Establishing financial programs for resilience development and disaster recovery	This competence includes securing and managing funds for disaster recovery, ensuring equitable allocation for rebuilding infrastructure, social networks, and the economy.
20	Managing the transformation to a resilient SC	SC Resilience Officers oversee the transformation process in smart cities, including digital transformation, to enhance urban intelligence by monitoring and anticipating disasters.

. Each competency is crucial for effective resilience management in smart cities, as identified by [16]. The competencies were selected based on an extensive literature review and the examination of various frameworks, as well as a survey among smart city officials and other relevant stakeholders. More details on the survey can be found at [16].

The aim was to bridge the competencies gap by focusing on the emerging need for city resilience. As cities become increasingly digitalized and interconnected, the demand for trained SCROs will grow. Urbanization, globalization, and climate change present significant threats that require effective resilience strategies. Building resilience among urban leaders and practitioners is essential, highlighting the need for comprehensive and adaptable training programs that extend beyond local contexts to facilitate knowledge exchange and best practices across Europe. The competencies list presented in Table 1 integrates insights from smart city and resilience definitions, as well as competencies for smart city managers and resilience managers. The selection process involved identifying key areas where SCROs need to excel to effectively manage city resilience, ensuring that the competencies cover a comprehensive range of skills and knowledge necessary for the role (Figure 1).

4. SCRO Competencies Assessment Methodology

Competence assessment is a structured process that involves assigning to individuals proficiency levels ranging from performing straightforward tasks under guidance to mastering complex tasks demanding creativity. Various frameworks for competency assessment typically consist of four to six levels of proficiency, each further divided into two sub-levels to ensure detailed granularity. A prominent reference in Europe for such an assessment is the DigComp2.2 framework [15]. In the context of SCROs, the DigComp2.2 framework, with its four primary proficiency levels, has been adopted as the basis for evaluating SCRO competencies. However, unlike generic frameworks, the methodology here specifically targets resilience-related challenges, integrating risk identification, crisis response, and long-term adaptation as critical dimensions. In this context, competencies are defined as a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective and efficient decision-making and actions.

Competence assessment through proficiency levels provides valuable insights into the skills required for smart city development, encompassing urban planning, information technology, sustainability, and governance. Using the conceptualization of competency presented in

Table 2. Systematization of knowledge, skills, and attitudes at each proficiency level.

Competence	Foundation	Intermediate	Advanced	Specialized
Knowledge sophistication	Awareness	Comprehension/Application	Analysis/Synthesis	Evaluation/Ideation
Complexity of tasks	Simple task	Tasks and well-defined and no routine problems	Most appropriate tasks	Resolve complex problems with many interacting factors
Attitude (autonomy)	With guidance	On one‘s own	Guiding others	Propose new ideas and processes to the field

, a standardized set of self-assessment questions has been developed, outlined in

Table 3. Structuring of questions in the self-assessment tool according to the proficiency level.

Foundation	With Appropriate Guidance Where Needed, I Can:
Intermediate	Independently, according to my own needs, I can:
Advanced	According to my own needs and those of others, and in complex contexts, I can:
Specialized	At a specialized level, proposing novel ideas when needed, I can:

below.

A self-assessment tool enables individuals to measure and understand their competencies in managing resources and initiatives designed to monitor and enhance city resilience. By separating each competency into four levels—foundation, intermediate, advanced, and specialized—our methodology aligns with existing frameworks yet customizes them for resilience tasks, reflecting the distinctive nature of SCRO roles. This process typically involves completing a questionnaire or other forms of evaluation that cover various aspects of resilience management, such as risk identification, planning, decision-making, communication, team dynamics, learning, and adaptation [44]. These tools are particularly beneficial for individuals who prefer hands-on learning [45], such as city officers, as they provide immediate, personalized feedback. This feedback can then be used to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement. Furthermore, the process of self-assessment can enhance self-awareness and foster a sense of ownership over one’s own learning and development [46]. Self-assessments also facilitate experiential learning [47,48], a crucial aspect of hands-on learning. Individuals can enhance their competencies by integrating personal experiences with the theoretical understanding of resilience management. They can apply what they have learned directly to their roles, which is beneficial for city officers who often need to make quick, impactful decisions during crises.

When utilized by a large number of city decision-makers across various regions in Europe, self-assessment tools can generate a wealth of data that can be invaluable for policymaking [49,50]. These data can provide insights into resilience management competencies across different regions, sectors, and professional groups. By analyzing these data, policymakers can identify patterns, trends, and gaps, thereby supporting the development of targeted, evidence-based policies and initiatives aimed at enhancing resilience improvement initiatives at local, regional, and continental levels. Moreover, the data can help identify best practices and successful strategies for resilience management, which can then be shared and implemented across different regions and contexts. In this way, self-assessment tools can support continuous learning and improvement at both individual and systemic levels. Furthermore, the use of such tools can promote a culture of resilience [51,52]. By encouraging SCROs to regularly assess and improve their resilience management competencies, these tools can help normalize resilience thinking and behavior, contributing to a more resilient Europe, better equipped to manage and recover from diverse challenges.

The absence of such a tool motivated the researchers’ development efforts. The following sections describe the development process of the self-assessment tool, along with the results obtained from its use across Europe.

5. Methodology

This study employed the design science research (DSR) methodology, as outlined by Peffers et al. [53], to design and develop a self-assessment tool aimed at evaluating the competencies of city resilience officers. This approach facilitated the iterative development and refinement of the tool, allowing for the establishment of operational design principles aligned with emerging design theory [54]. The tool’s development was grounded in problem identification, following the phases for problem-centered design proposed by Peffers et al. [53]. This iterative process was executed over two cycles, as illustrated in Figure 2.

6. The DSR Methodology—Key Steps

• Problem Identification and Motivation—The initial phase involves identifying the problem and justifying the need for a solution. In this study, the problem was the lack of a structured tool for assessing the competencies of Smart City Resilience Officers (SCROs) [16,55]. The problem was identified through a structured literature review, which revealed a shortage of tools dedicated to measuring SCRO readiness. The motivation for this study was to address this gap by developing a self-assessment tool.
• Define Objectives for a Solution—Based on the problem identified, the objectives for the solution were determined. The goal was to create a self-assessment tool that could evaluate the competencies of SCROs effectively. The objectives were to create a tool that could systematically assess the competencies of SCROs using a structured approach based on the DigComp2.2 framework. The literature review provided critical insights and design knowledge regarding competence management and gap analysis, which informed the objectives and alignment of the solution space with the problem space [56].
• Design and Development—The tool was designed and developed iteratively, incorporating feedback from stakeholders and aligning with the DigComp2.2 framework. Key insights derived from the literature review informed the design principles (DPs) and meta-requirements, aligning the challenges of self-assessment for city resilience with design knowledge [57]. The tool was designed and developed in two iterative cycles. Each cycle involved designing the tool, gathering feedback from stakeholders, and refining the tool based on the feedback.
• Demonstration—The tool was demonstrated to smart city stakeholders in the consortium countries of the OpenDCO project to evaluate its effectiveness. This phase involved practical application and gathering feedback. The first DSR cycle evaluated the tool’s functionality against the predefined DPs, while the second cycle used focus groups to assess usability and utility, involving stakeholders actively in the evaluation process.
• Evaluation—The tool was evaluated based on its ability to identify and assess the competencies of SCROs, with feedback used to refine the tool further. The evaluation involved both qualitative and quantitative methods, including surveys and interviews with stakeholders. Evaluations from stakeholders informed recommendations for improvement, leading to iterative refinements of both the tool and the underlying design knowledge.
• Communication—The final phase involved documenting and disseminating the findings and the developed tool to the academic and practitioner communities. Communication efforts highlighted the tool’s development process, evaluation outcomes, and contributions to addressing and identifying research gaps in smart city resilience competency assessment.

The iterative design and development process followed a structured approach, consisting of (a) an initial literature-based identification of the required competencies and corresponding proficiency levels; (b) the development of a prototype self-assessment survey, aligning each competency with four proficiency levels; (c) pilot testing with a small group of domain experts from municipalities and academic institutions to gather preliminary feedback; and (d) refinements to question phrasing, user interface, and feedback mechanisms prior to broader testing. Additionally, the research team conducted follow-up interviews to ensure clarity of statements and ease of use. Each iteration concluded with a synthesis of findings that informed subsequent adjustments, adhering to the methodological rigor expected in design science research.

7. The Smart City Resilience Officer (SCRO) MOOC

As part of the CRISIS project, the Smart City Resilience Officer (SCRO) MOOC was developed to enhance resilience and smart city-related competencies through an accessible, fully online learning platform. Designed and hosted using Moodle, the platform enabled flexible participation in four languages—English, Greek, German, and Portuguese. The program targeted a broad audience, including municipal employees, IT professionals, students, and other stakeholders involved in smart city initiatives. The course comprised 20 modules (based on the competencies shown in Table 1) categorized into core, advanced, and elective tracks to accommodate varying levels of expertise and specialization.

The pilot delivery extended over 16 weeks and was structured into four phases. Participants were initially required to complete a self-assessment tool (as described in the previous section) to evaluate their competencies prior to formulating their learning path and consequent training on the required modules. Participants completed weekly modules accompanied by practical assignments and interactive online sessions. Core modules covered foundational concepts in smart cities and resilience, while advanced modules emphasized resilience planning and management. Elective modules offered opportunities for specialization in topics such as geospatial technologies, decision-making, and financial resilience. Practical assignments reinforced theoretical knowledge by requiring participants to address real-world challenges, including stakeholder mapping, crisis management planning, and infrastructure vulnerability assessment.

The MOOC attracted substantial participation, with 672 valid registrations and 370 active learners competing in at least one assessment. The program demonstrated notable diversity in terms of gender and educational background, with significant female representation and participants ranging from high school graduates to doctorate holders. Engagement levels varied across cohorts, with German-language MOOCs achieving the highest levels of activity and completion.

8. Tool Description: Competency Assessment Topics, Meta-Requirements and Design Principles

Smart cities must rapidly adapt to anticipate, absorb, or avoid disruptive events and capitalize on new opportunities. In the face of significant economic, environmental, social, and infrastructure impacts, Smart City Resilience Officers (SCROs) are tasked with developing complex competencies, encompassing knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and continuously adjusting them to meet the evolving challenges cities face [58]. The primary objective of these professionals is to maintain dynamic resilience capabilities within cities [59], particularly focusing on resilience sensing, seizing, and configuring capabilities (T1). Consequently, the competencies to be assessed must be categorized according to these capability areas, ensuring that SCRO training aligns with the inherent dynamism of cities and the ongoing recreation of resilience conditions (MR1).

SCRO competencies should emphasize specific aspects of resilience and crisis management, city planning and management, financial resource management during crises, and agility in decision-making and problem-solving [60]. These competencies should be articulated by considering the foundational knowledge, associated skills, and attitudes (mindset) that professionals must cultivate (T2). For each competence, the self-assessment tool should provide clear and concise statements regarding the expected knowledge, skills, and attitudes (MR2).

9. Design Principles

DP1: 

To facilitate timely self-assessment of cities’ resilience management competencies, the tool will list 20 core competencies related to anticipation, absorption, recovery from crises, and adaptation to new conditions.

Competency assessment requires multiple proficiency levels [61], ranging from basic levels, where activities are performed under guidance, to expert levels, where the professionals innovate based on accumulated knowledge [62]. Each proficiency level is associated with specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which should be reflected in concrete statements (T3). The self-assessment tool should avoid general statements and instead provide clear statements for each proficiency level (MR3). To streamline the assessment process, the tool will present four proficiency levels for each of the 20 core competencies related to the SCRO function: foundation, intermediate, advanced, and specialized.

DP2: 

The tool will be designed as a questionnaire containing 80 statements in total, allowing users to identify their proficiency level in each of the 20 competencies.

DP3: 

To ensure consistency, the tool will provide standardized introductions for the four proficiency levels of each competency, highlighting specific attitudes for each level.

DP4: 

Each proficiency level introduction will be followed by a statement focused on the specific knowledge and skills associated with that level.

Assessing proficiency levels across competencies is crucial for selecting appropriate learning journeys to enhance performance (T4). Users should select only one statement for each of the 20 competencies listed by the self-assessment tool (MR4). Each choice will place the user at one of the four proficiency levels. Upon completing the questionnaire, the tool should provide an overall picture of the self-assessment results for the 20 competencies (MR5).

DP5: 

To ensure accurate performance evaluation, the tool will allow only one statement to be selected among the four available for each of the 20 competencies.

DP6: 

The tool will offer an intuitive visualization of the self-assessment results, enabling users to understand their training needs to achieve optimal performance as an SCRO.

Defining learning journeys should enable the learner to progress in proficiency across various competencies [63], gradually enhancing their knowledge, skills, and attitudes (T5). The foundation, intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels indicate potential for improvement (MR6). Due to project constraints, it is not feasible to develop modules for gradual training between proficiency levels. Therefore, a single module per competency will be developed to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and skills at the advanced proficiency level, considering project limitations (MR7) (Figure 3).

DP7: 

Recommended modules will guide users to advance their knowledge and skills to an advanced level of proficiency.

The self-assessment tool is designed as a questionnaire that guides the user through the questions [64]. Each page of the tool focuses on either providing information about self-assessment (introduction page, results page) or requiring users to answer a question. This design allows users to concentrate on the content presented and the competencies related to anticipation, absorption, recovery, and adaptation (DP1). The first page offers information about the tool’s use and purpose, and users can select their preferred language (English, Greek, German, or Portuguese) to personalize the experience (DF1). Language support helps users better identify their proficiency levels (DP2), with standardized introductions for each proficiency level in various languages (DP3) to avoid language barriers.

A crucial aspect of identifying proficiency levels is the response to self-assessment questions (DP2). The tool is a single-page application presenting one competency per page, allowing users to navigate between pages (DF2). This design supports user focus on the current competency (DP1). A navigation button advances to the next competency, and a back button, which leads back, allows users to adjust previous answers. The tool includes a progress bar to enhance progress transparency (DF4) [1,65] and ensures only one statement is selected (DP5) using radio buttons. Users are informed if no answer is chosen before proceeding (DF3). Moreover, a default option (“I am not sure about that”) is available for each question to prevent distortion from false statements (DF5).

An intuitive visualization of the self-assessment results allows users to understand their training needs to achieve SCRO proficiency (DP6) [64]. The results are presented in the form of a radar chart, which is drawn based on analyzed answers (DF6). Furthermore, the tool recommends modules for advancing proficiency levels through learning journeys (DF7) and allows users to document results by saving and printing them as PDFs (DF8) (

Table 4. Connecting the design principles with the design features of the self-assessment tool.

Design Principles	Design Features
DP1: The tool will list 20 core competencies related to anticipation, absorption, recovery from crises, and adaptation to new conditions.	DF1: Personalized language support DF2: Navigation support
DP2: To allow the user to identify their proficiency level in each of the 20 competencies, the tool will be designed as a questionnaire that will contain 80 statements in total.
DP3: To avoid inconsistencies between competencies, the tool will provide simple and standardized introductions for the four proficiency levels of each competency, which points to a certain attitude specific to that level.
DP4: To ensure the clarity of the included statements, the introduction to each proficiency level will be followed by a statement focused on the specific knowledge and skills associated with that level.	DF3: Fault awareness DF4: Progress transparency DF5: Default alternative
DP5: To ensure proper performance evaluation for each of the 20 competencies, the tool will allow only one statement to be selected among the five (foundation, intermediate, advanced, specialized, and not sure) available for each of the 20 competencies.
DP6: The tool will provide an intuitive visualization of the self-assessment results to allow the user to understand their training needs in order to achieve good performance as an SCRO.	DF6: Drawing of the competence maturity graph
DP7: The recommended modules will allow the user to evolve knowledge and skills to an advanced level of proficiency.	DF7: Learning journey recommendation based on the competence maturity graph DF8: Documentation

).

10. Evaluation

10.1. Evaluation Cycle 1: Suitability and Completeness

The evaluation of an artifact’s suitability and completeness is crucial to determine whether it effectively addresses the identified problem and meets the objectives for a solution. Suitability involves assessing the artifact’s functionality, usability, and performance, while completeness refers to its ability to fully address the problem and achieve the desired objectives. In this study, the completeness assessment was evidenced by defining design features based on meta-requirements extracted from the literature on the functions of SCROs, as described in Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4 of this article. These meta-requirements were translated into design principles that materialized into characteristics the tool should present. The primary objective of the tool is to support users in understanding the essential competencies of SCROs and to create awareness about their own abilities to perform the functions of these smart city professionals. To test the tool’s suitability, Peffers et al. suggest using demonstration in a real-world context to assess their practicality and effectiveness, which can be achieved through prototyping, simulations, or pilot implementations [53].

10.2. Evaluation Cycle 2: Usability and Usefulness

The second evaluation phase focused on assessing the prototype tool’s usability and practical utility. This phase involved real-world testing with a diverse group of professionals and researchers from the municipal sector, especially those involved in civil protection and firefighting, as well as specialists in smart city development and resilience. The broad composition of participants enabled a well-rounded evaluation of the tool’s functionality and relevance within the municipal and urban resilience sectors. A significant majority (84.2%) of the participants engaged in the assessment opted for online participation.

The participants were distributed across various professional categories as follows:

• Municipal Representatives (56%)—Over half of the participants were affiliated with municipal councils and were actively engaged in fields such as civil protection, emergency response, and firefighting. Their firsthand experience in municipal operations and resilience initiatives made them an ideal target group for testing the tool’s applicability in assessing and strengthening local resilience.
• State Council Representatives (8%)—A smaller portion of participants were representatives from state-level councils, highlighting the tool’s potential for international relevance and applicability beyond local settings.
• Academic and Research Participants (23%)—Academics and researchers affiliated with various institutions brought critical perspectives, especially from the fields of urban planning, smart cities, and resilience, offering insights into the tool’s academic value and its alignment with existing research frameworks.
• Other Stakeholders (13%)—The remaining participants represented a range of stakeholders from intermunicipal organizations, national agencies for education and training, and national innovation agencies. This group provided broader, multi-sector perspectives, reflecting the interests and requirements of a variety of entities invested in urban resilience.

The diverse mix of participants allowed for a robust assessment, and their feedback contributed significantly to refining the tool. Key observations and suggestions included:

• Clarity of Competency Descriptions—Many participants noted that certain competency descriptions were overly complex and lengthy. Simplifying these descriptions was recommended to enhance clarity and accessibility.
• Language and Translation Accuracy—Minor translation errors were identified, underscoring the need for linguistic refinement to ensure clarity and accuracy across language versions.
• Accessibility of Self-Assessment Results—While some participants could successfully download their self-assessment results, others encountered difficulties. Ensuring consistent access to results was highlighted as essential for user satisfaction and usability.
• Module Identification for Training Selection—Participants suggested that clearer labels or identifiers for different modules should be incorporated, helping users easily locate and select relevant training modules following their self-assessment.
• Addition of a “Not Applicable” Option—To accommodate competencies not relevant to every user’s role, a “Not Applicable” option was proposed. This would allow respondents to bypass competencies that do not align with their professional responsibilities.
• Competency Mapping Potential—The tool’s potential to map competencies across Europe has been highlighted, especially if it could aggregate self-assessment data with training attendance records. Such mapping could identify competency gaps and training needs across different regions, fostering a more cohesive approach to urban resilience development.

Evaluation data indicated high levels of participant satisfaction. Learners consistently rated the content as relevant, well-structured, and directly applicable to their professional roles. Many reported significant improvements in knowledge and skills, particularly appreciating the practical assignments and detailed feedback from instructors. The assessment design, which integrated multiple-choice tests and project-based tasks, effectively supported learning objectives and contributed to a certification completion rate of 73.24%, significantly exceeding average MOOC completion rates reported in the academic literature.

Among the 20 competencies assessed, participants demonstrated particularly strong proficiency in general crisis management (competency 09) and the establishment of smart city security and safety measures (competency 10). However, lower average ratings were observed in areas requiring advanced technological expertise, such as geoservices and digital twins (competency 16) and the development of financial programs for resilience building and disaster recovery (competency 19). These results indicate that while respondents are well-versed in established resilience protocols, there is a need for targeted training in advanced digital solutions and specialized financial management strategies.

Further qualitative feedback reinforced this gap, with many participants expressing uncertainty about navigating digital twin platforms or designing structured financial programs to support disaster recovery. These findings highlight the critical need for ongoing, specialized training initiatives that address both the operational and strategic dimensions of smart city resilience.

These insights have been instrumental in improving the tool’s functionality and usability, ensuring it can effectively support resilience assessment and competency development across the smart city and municipal sectors. By refining these areas, the tool can better meet the needs of professionals dedicated to enhancing urban resilience.

While the program achieved its goals, areas for improvement remain. Specifically, restructuring the course to distribute workloads more evenly and implementing strategies to maintain learner engagement in later phases could enhance outcomes. Nonetheless, the pilot demonstrated the efficacy of MOOCs in providing accessible, professional-level training and equipping participants with critical skills for advancing resilience in smart cities. These findings underscore the potential of online learning platforms to democratize education and foster skill development in emerging fields.

11. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work

In conclusion, this study presents a comprehensive self-assessment tool designed to evaluate the competencies of Smart City Resilience Officers (SCROs). The tool’s development was guided by the design science research (DSR) methodology, ensuring a systematic and iterative approach to addressing the identified problem. The competencies were selected based on a thorough literature review and the examination of various frameworks, aiming to bridge the gap in the current understanding of SCRO roles and responsibilities.

The practical implications of this study are significant for smart city management and resilience planning. The self-assessment tool provides a structured approach for SCROs to evaluate their competencies, identify areas for improvement, and enhance their readiness for crisis management and resilience building. City managers and policymakers can use the tool to develop targeted training programs and professional development initiatives, ensuring that SCROs are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to address the complex challenges of smart city resilience. Theoretically, this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on smart city resilience by providing a detailed and structured framework for evaluating SCRO competencies. The integration of the DigComp2.2 framework with resilience-specific competencies offers a novel approach to understanding the multidisciplinary approach to resilience management, emphasizing the need for SCROs to possess a diverse set of skills and knowledge.

Despite the contributions of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the tool’s validation was limited to a specific set of stakeholders within the consortium countries of the OpenDCO project. This may affect the generalizability of the findings to other contexts. Second, this study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to biases such as social desirability and self-perception inaccuracies. Third, the tool’s focus on the DigComp2.2 framework may limit its applicability to other competency frameworks that could be relevant in different regions or contexts.

Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations can be made for future research and practice. First, further validation of the self-assessment tool across diverse demographic and regional contexts is necessary to enhance its reliability, generalizability, and applicability. In addition, optimizing the tool’s interface for improved user experience and engagement should be explored to maximize its effectiveness.

Future studies should also examine the integration of other competency frameworks to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of SCRO competencies. Incorporating progressive training pathways—beyond a single module per competency—would enable SCROs to systematically advance from foundational to intermediate or advanced levels. The development of targeted training programs and professional development initiatives based on identified competencies can help bridge gaps between current and desired competency levels.

In relation to this, research should focus on effective methods for implementing large-scale learning initiatives within a collaborative ecosystem. Developing adaptable frameworks and tools could support a European training program that empowers resilience managers, strengthens crisis response, and addresses evolving urban challenges. Additionally, investigating the tool’s applicability in non-European settings by adapting its competencies and language to local governance structures and resilience needs could expand its impact globally.

Finally, continuous refinement and updating of the self-assessment tool are essential to maintain its relevance in the dynamic landscape of smart city resilience. Longitudinal research could measure how repeated self-assessments correlate with actual improvements in city resilience indicators, providing concrete evidence of how competency development translates into real-world impact.