Advertisement

Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 184–194 | Cite as

Sowing the seeds of IS cultivation in public service organisations

  • Marco De Marco
  • Maddalena Sorrentino
Research Article

Abstract

This paper aims to highlight the relevance of a cultivation approach with the goal of exploring the concrete implications it may have for public administrations (PA) involved in projects of organisational change. We suggest that adopting an approach to change that reflects the cultivation perspective is an unavoidable choice for PA, much more so than it is for the corporate world. The claim is that public-sector organisations design and implement organisational solutions that find it hard to move away from the ‘maintenance’ logic of legacy systems. Compared with the rational perspective, which is geared entirely to establishing optimal relations between means and ends, the cultivation approach enables us to make valuable advances at the interpretive level. We argue that the value of the processual and incremental perspective can be useful in creating a more realistic and less illusory reconstruction of the relationship between technological change and organisational change. In this paper, we discuss how combining policy studies with ICT social studies can help empower the cultivation logic, originating new tools for analysing and evaluating e-government results.

Keywords

cultivation e-government social studies of ICT implementation of change incrementalism public service organisations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper would not have taken its present shape without the constructive inputs of the three anonymous reviewers. We would like to thank both the editors and the reviewers for giving us the opportunity to contribute to this issue.

References

  1. Andersen, K.V. (2004). E-government and Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR): Dilettantes, Wheelbarrows and Diamonds, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Avgerou, C. (2001). The Significance of Context in Information Systems and Organizational Change, Information Systems Journal 11: 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. and Land, F. (eds.) (2004). The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J., Algermissen, L. and Niehaves, B. (2004). Organizational Engineering in Public Administrations – A Method for Process-oriented eGovernment Projects, Proceedings of Symposium on Applied Computing ’04, Nicosia.Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy, C. and Taylor, J. (1996). New Information and Communications Technologies and Institutional Change, International Journal of Public Sector Management 9 (4): 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentley, A.F. (1908). The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bergqvist, J. and Dahlberg, P. (1998). Scalability Through Cultivation: Designing IT Support for Co-ordination Work, in Proceedings of IRIS 21, Denmark: Sæby.Google Scholar
  8. Bourgault, J. and Savoie, D.J. (2000). Managing at the top, in B.G. Peters and D.J. Savoie (eds.) Governance in the Twenty-First Century, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C.E. (1963). A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ciborra, C. (1997). De Profundis? Deconstructing the Concept of Strategic Alignment, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 9 (1): 67–82.Google Scholar
  11. Ciborra, C. (1998). Crisis and Foundations: An inquiry into the nature and limits of models and methods in the information systems discipline, Strategic Information Systems 7: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciborra, C. (2002). The Labyrinths of Information, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ciborra, C. (2004). Digital Technologies and the Duality of Risk, Discussion Paper No: 27, London: LSE.Google Scholar
  14. Ciborra, C. and Hanseth, O. (1998). From tool to Gestell. Agendas for Managing the Information Infrastructure, Information Technology and People 11 (4): 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CNIPA (2005a). Relazione annuale 2004, Vol. II, Roma (in Italian).Google Scholar
  16. CNIPA (2005b). Monitoraggio dei progetti di e-government Fase I, Terzo rapporto di sintesi (in Italian).Google Scholar
  17. Cordella, A. (2006). Information Infrastructure in action, Working Paper LSE, No. 142, London.Google Scholar
  18. Cutler, T. (2004). Making a ‘Success’ Out of ‘Failure’, in M. Dent, J. Chandler and J. Barry (eds.) Questioning the New Public Management, Adelshot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. Dahlbom, B. and Janlert, J.E. (1996). Computer Future. Manuscript, Dept. of Informatics, Gothemburg University: Gothemburg.Google Scholar
  20. Dahlbom, B. and Mathiassen, L. (1993). Computers in Context: The Philosophy and Practice of Systems Design, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Davenport, E. and Horton, K. (2004). A Social Shaping Perspective on an e-Governmental System(ic) Failure, in R. Traunmueller (ed.) EGOV 2004, LNCS 3183 Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Dawes, S.S., Pardo, T.A., Simon, S., Cresswell, A.M., LaVigne, M.F., Andersen, D.F. and Bloniarz, P.A. (2004). Making Smart IT Choices, April, Albany: Center for Technology in Government.Google Scholar
  23. Gil-Garcia, J.R. and Martinez-Moyano, I.J. (2005). Exploring e-government Evolution: The influence of systems of rules in organizational action, NCDG Working Paper 05-001.Google Scholar
  24. Ginsberg, M.J. (1979). Improving MIS Project Selection, Omega 7 (6): 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanseth, O. (2004). Knowledge as infrastructure, in Avgerou, C., Ciborra, C. and Land, F. (eds.) The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hanseth, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2004). Theorizing About the Design of Information Infrastructures: Design Kernel theories and principles, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organizations, Vol. 4, Issue 4, Art. 12.Google Scholar
  27. Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E. and Hatling, M. (1996). Developing Information Infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility, Science, Technology and Human Values 21 (4): 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heeks, R. (2005). E-Government as a Carrier of Context, Journal of Public Policy 25 (1): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, S. and Irani, Z. (2003). IS Evaluation in the UK Public Sector: Emerging research themes and issues, Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems 1444–1452. AMEIS 2003, August 4–6, Tampa, Florida.Google Scholar
  30. Kling, R. and Lamb, R. (1999). IT and organizational change in digital economies: a socio-technical approach, Computer and Society 29 (3): September, 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraemer, K.L. and King, J.L. (2003). Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will the time after e-government be different?, August, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organisations (CRITO),www.crito.uci.edu.
  32. Kunstelj, M. and Vintar, M. (2004). Evaluating the Progress of e-government Development: A critical analysis, Information Polity 9: 131–148.Google Scholar
  33. Landsbergen, D. and Wolken, G. (2001). Realizing the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology, Public Administration Review, Mar/Apr, 61 (2): 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Layne, K. and Lee, J.W. (2001). Developing Fully Functional E-government: A four stage model, Government Information Quarterly 18: 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lenk, K. (2002). Electronic Service Delivery – A driver of public sector modernization, Information Polity 7: 87–96.Google Scholar
  36. Lindblom, C.E. (1958). Policy Analysis, The American Economic Review 48 (3): 298–312.Google Scholar
  37. Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The science of ‘Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review XIX: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindblom, C.E. (1990). Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Majone, G. and Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation as evolution, in J. L. Pressmann. and A. Wildavsky (eds.) Implementation, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  40. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1983). Organizing Political Life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government, The American Political Science Review 77 (2): June, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McIvor, R., McHugh, M. and Cadden, C. (2004). The Potential of Internet Technologies: Insights from the public sector, New Technology, Work and Employment 19 (1): 170–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McLoughlin, I. and Badham, R. (2005). Unlocking transformational change in the local state – Three dimensions of ‘e-government’, 21st EGOS Annual Colloquium, June 30 – July 2, Berlin.Google Scholar
  43. McNeal, R.S., Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K. and Dotterweich, L.J. (2003). Innovating in Digital Government in the American States, Social Science Quarterly 84 (1): March, 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McNulty, T. and Ferlie, E. (2004). Process Transformation: Limitations to Radical Organizational Change within Public Service Organizations, Organization Studies 25 (8): 1389–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Metcalfe, B. (2004). New Police Management, Performance and Accountability, in M. Dent, J. Chandler and J. Berry (eds.) Questioning the New Public Management, Hants: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. Navarra, D. and Cornford, T. (2005). ICT, Innovation and Public Management: Governance, Models & Alternatives for E-Government Infrastructures, Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg.Google Scholar
  47. OECD (2004). The e-Government Imperative, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  48. Orlikowski, W.J. and Hofman, D.J. (1997). An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The case of groupware technologies, Sloan Management Review Winter: 11–21.Google Scholar
  49. Regonini, G. (2001). Capire le politiche pubbliche, il Mulino, Bologna (in Italian).Google Scholar
  50. Robey, D. and Markus, M.L. (1984). Rituals in Information Systems Design, MIS Quarterly 8 (1): March, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sorrentino, M. (2004). The Implementation of ICT in Public Sector Organisations. Analysing Selection Criteria For eGovernment Projects, Proceedings of 17th Bled eCommerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia, June 21–23.Google Scholar
  52. Sorrentino, M. and Virili, F. (2003). Socio-technical Perspectives on e-Government Initiatives, in R. Traunmueller (ed.) Electronic Government, International Conference EGOV 2003, Berlin: Prague, Springer-Verlag, pp. 91–94.Google Scholar
  53. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to Case Study, The Qualitative Report 3 (2): July, 1–10.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. Traunmueller, R. and Wimmer, M. (2003). E-Government at a Decisive Moment: Sketching a roadmap to excellence, in R. Traunmüller (ed.) EGOV 2003, LNCS 2739, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. United Nations (2003). World Public Sector Report: e-government at the crossroads, New York: United Nations Publications, October 2003.Google Scholar
  57. Werthmuller, D., Cook, M. and Costello, M. (2005). Constructing the New York State-Local Internet Gateway Prototype: A Technical View, Albany: Center for Technology in Government.Google Scholar
  58. West, D.M. (2005). Digital Government, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Westerback, L. (2000). Toward Best Practices for Strategic Information Technology Management, Government Information Quarterly 17 (1): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Willcocks, L. (1994). Managing Information Systems in UK Public Administration: Issues and prospects, Public Administration 7 (2): Spring, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economic and Management SciencesCatholic University of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Social and Political StudiesState University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations