# Enhancing Smart Cities' Resilience Through Competency Assessment and Open Data Utilization
## 6 The DSR Methodology--Key Steps  
1. 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.  
Figure 2: Design science research approach based on [PERSON] et al. [53].  
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].
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.