# Disruptive Technologies for Parliaments: A Literature Review
## 3 Analysis of the Literature
As a result, we have selected 48 research papers for our analysis (source: 69% journal, 12% conference, 8% book chapter, 11% working papers publications). The analysis of the paper content was based on the methodology presented in Table 1 and the respective paragraphs above. Table 3 presents the keyword distribution in the research papers, their diversification with light keywords and the keyword strength. It is evident that the term 'inclusive' does not have strong presence in the identified research papers, while the term 'performance' is under-presented as a strong keyword. Moreover, the term 'value' that corresponds to the broader term of public value has a significant presence, but it is not very strong in comparison with other strong terms. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Themes** & **Keywords** & **Advanced Search** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Dimension} & Parliaments, & Parliaments or Public Sector or Governmental or \\  & Government & Public Management \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Users} & Stakeholders & Stakeholders \\  & Agents & Agents or Individuals \\  & Teams & Teams \\  & Groups & Groups \\  & Decision/Policy & Decision/Policy Makers \\  & Makers & as Users \\ \hline Framework & Integration & Integrative or integrated or Collaborative or Coordination \\ \hline Model & Inclusive & Inclusiveness, participatory or including several parameters \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Technologies} & IoT, AI, RS & Disruptive technologies like IoT and AI and RS with \\  & Intelligence and other (e.g., big data, machine learning) \\ \hline Mean & Process & Focus on business process as a mean or tool \\ \hline Achievement & Value & Public Value \\ \hline Measurement & Performance & Efficiency and Effectiveness as Performance measurements \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Outcome} & Knowledge, & \multirow{2}{*}{Transformation through Business Knowledge acquisition} \\  & Transformation & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Analysis of keywords. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Keywords** & **Presence in Papers** & **Diversification** & **Strength** \\ \hline Parliaments, & 65\% & 19\% & 48\% \\ Government & & & \\ \hline Users & 96\% & 26\% & 22\% \\ \hline Integration & 79\% & 21\% & 5\% \\ \hline Inclusive & 58\% & 50\% & 18\% \\ \hline IoT & 67\% & 13\% & 69\% \\ \hline RS & 35\% & 12\% & 71\% \\ \hline AI & 63\% & 33\% & 17\% \\ \hline Process & 96\% & 9\% & 35\% \\ \hline Value & 81\% & 28\% & 8\% \\ \hline Performance & 98\% & 32\% & 9\% \\ \hline Knowledge & 81\% & 21\% & 17\% \\ \hline Transformation & 63\% & 43\% & 26\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Keywords classification. Among the digital disruptive technologies, IoT seems to be the most concrete, so IoT could be characterised as a 'dominant' or 'key' technology. RS and AI were found in several IoT papers, therefore, for the purpose of this research domain, they can be characterised as'secondary' or 'additional' disruptive technologies. Moreover, we have identified four keywords (Users, Process, Integration, Knowledge) that can be characterised as'major topics'. They provide the basis for a holistic approach in our research, since they are overrepresented in most of the research papers of our literature review, as they cover two constraints in their presence in the research papers: (>75% accuracy and <25% light keyword). Hence, they act as interconnectors and facilitators among digital disruptive technologies and management science. Based on that, 30 out of 48 research papers (62.5%) follow this holistic approach, where the technology-driven research papers are the majority of our sources (95%), but only 9 of them (20%) examined all the disruptive technologies (IoT, RS, AI) as a whole. So, we observe that neither this holistic approach is present in all research papers, nor all the disruptive technologies are examined in a holistic, integrated way.