# Facilitating Successful Smart Campus Transitions: A Systems Thinking-SWOT Analysis Approach
## 2 Literature Review
### Characteristics of a Smart Campus
Based on the foregoing, the rationale behind the increasing financial commitment by universities [43] towards Smart Campus transitions can be discerned. Scholars opine that such investments are predicated on the potential of the Smart Campus to transform the higher education sector through the institution of effectiveness in service delivery to relevant stakeholders [21; 40; 43]. Moreover, the potential of universities with Smart Campuses to fare better in terms of cost and time savings, protection of the environment,effective monitoring of attendance of staff and students as well as effective space planning and utilization efforts has been reiterated by these studies. The implementation of Smart Campus projects in universities enables the collection of critical data about operational facets for optimal decision-making. The absence of a generic model for Smart Campus design and implementation has been highlighted [21]. This has made the appraisal of Smart Campus performance in a whole-of-campus manner by stakeholders challenging. In fact, scholars have attributed the lack of comprehensive Smart Campus projects to the absence of a generic design and implementation model [21; 40]. This has led to the determination of relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring Smart Campus performance [44]. Usually, the Smart Campus is implemented according to six different work streams, namely, smart micro grid, smart utility, resource management, improved services, people management, and educational services [21]. In addition, most attempts at developing KPIs for Smart Campus are dependent on the indicators for each of these work-streams [44; 45]. This is evident in the Smart Campus project reportage in extant literature. Examples of such projects include the development of an anytime-anywhere learning within a Smart Campus environment [46], Smart parking [11; 47; 48], frameworks for modeling movements on a Smart Campus [49], development of platforms for energy management and optimization on campuses [50; 51; 52], dynamic timetabling systems [53], the use of apps for location directions and information dissemination purposes [54], real-time space utilization measurement [55], development of a context-aware Smart classroom [56; 57; 58; 59], and the use of digital platforms for IoT-based disaster management [60]. Although various studies have sought to explore the utility of stakeholder perspectives during the design and implementation of Smart Cities [61; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68], limited studies have attempted to explore and incorporate these views in designing for successful Smart Campus transitions [29]. Obviously, eliciting such perspectives will enable better articulation of the potential challenges and enablers of such successful transitions. Obviously, such elicitation leads to the establishment of the SWOT factors and subsequent understanding of the relationship between these factors through a SWOT analysis. The accruing information from both processes will facilitate the development of a framework for managing Smart Campus transitions in a holistic and comprehensive manner. This is the contribution which this study seeks to make, leveraging multi-stakeholder perspectives within SAUoT and a panel of experts.