Advertisement

Three Positives Make One Negative: Public Sector IS Procurement

  • Aki Alanne
  • Pasi Hellsten
  • Samuli Pekkola
  • Iiris Saarenpää
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9248)

Abstract

The requirement specifications are centric in the IS acquisition process, also in public sector. In addition to the regulatory factors multiple stakeholders are often involved in the procurement process. Yet their expertise varies and is often limited to a narrow sector or a specific field. For this paper, we conducted a single case study on an IS acquisition in a middle-sized city. The function nominated a project manager for the project, with little if any prior experience of IS or of their acquisition. The counterpart in the CIO’s office had that knowledge but had little domain knowledge about the requirements. The third party involved was the Procurement and Tendering office. Having specialized in serving the variety of functions in that particular field, the specific areas become inevitably omitted. All three parties argued that their requirements specifications were good, if not great. We observed how such a trident, having reported successful completion of their duties, still missed the point. The tendering resulted in little short of a disaster; two projects were contested, and lost in the market court.

Keywords

Public sector procurement Information systems procurement Case study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to our interviewees at the municipality and friends and colleagues for their constructive comments. The study was partly funded by Tekes - Finnish Funding Agency for Innovations and participating organizations, partly by Academy of Finland, grant #259831.

References

  1. 1.
    Hommen, L., Rolfstam, M.: Public procurement and innovation: towards a taxonomy. J. Public Procure. 9(1), 17 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caudle, S.L., Gorr, W.L., Newcomer, K.E.: Key information systems management issues for the public sector. MIS Q. 171–188 (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moe, C.E., Päivärinta, T.: Challenges in information systems procurement in the public sector. Electron. J. E-Gov. 11(1) (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moe, C.E.: Research on public procurement of information systems: the need for a process approach. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34(1), 78 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johansson, B., Lahtinen, M.: Requirement specification in government IT procurement. Procedia Technol. 5, 369–377 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moe, C.E., Risvand, A.C., Sein, M.K.: Limits of public procurement: information systems acquisition. In: Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V. (eds.) EGOV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4084, pp. 281–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyne, G.: Public and private management: what’s the difference? J. Manag. Stud. 39, 97–122 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erridge, A.: Public procurement, public value and the Northern Ireland unemployment pilot project. Public Adm. 85(4), 1023–1043 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pan, G.S.: Information systems project abandonment: a stakeholder analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 25(2), 173–184 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Virtanen, P.P.: Team leaders’ perceptions in the renewing of software production process. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference on Computers and People Research, pp. 159–166 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rowley, J.: e-government stakeholders—who are they and what do they want? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 31(1), 53–62 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, H.K., Myers, M.D.: A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q. 67–93 (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, vol. 5. Sage Publications, Incorporated (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flak, L.S., Rose, J.: Stakeholder governance: adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16(1), 31 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saarinen, T., Vepsäläinen, A.P.: Procurement strategies for information systems. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 187–208 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doshi, B.: The new OGC guidance: the future roadmap for government IT procurement. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 21(4), 344–348 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flak, L.S., Nordheim, S., Munkvold, B.E.: Analyzing stakeholder diversity in G2G efforts: combining descriptive stakeholder theory and dialectic process theory. E-Serv. J. 6(2), 3–23 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thai, K.V.: Public procurement re-examined. J. Public Procure. 1(1), 9–50 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alanne, A., Pekkola, S., Kähkönen, T.: Centralized and distributed ERP development models: operations and challenges. http://www.pacis-net.org/file/2014/1861.pdf (2014)
  20. 20.
    Lemmetti, J., Pekkola, S.: Understanding enterprise architecture: perceptions by the finnish public sector. In: EGOV, pp. 162–173 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al-Turki, U.M.: An exploratory study of ERP implementation in Saudi Arabia. Prod. Plan. Control 22(4), 403–413 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hsu, L.-L., Chen, M.: Impacts of ERP systems on the integrated-interaction performance of manufacturing and marketing. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 104(1), 42–55 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olhager, J., Selldin, E.: Enterprise resource planning survey of Swedish manufacturing firms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146(2), 365–373 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spathis, C., Ananiadis, J.: Assessing the benefits of using an enterprise system in accounting information and management. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 18(2), 195–210 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heeks, R.: Information systems and developing countries: failure, success, and local improvisations. Inf. Soc. 18(2), 101–112 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gargeya, V.B., Brady, C.: Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system implementation. Bus. Process Manag. J. 11(5), 501–516 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Atkinson, R., Flint, J.: Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Soc. Res. Update 33(1), 1–4 (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walsham, G.: Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(3), 320–330 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suarez, F.F.: Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework. Res. Policy 33(2), 271–286 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Utterback, J.M., Abernathy, W.J.: A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6), 639–656 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poon, P.-L., Yu, Y.T.: Investigating ERP systems procurement practice: Hong Kong and Australian experiences. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(10), 1011–1022 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aki Alanne
    • 1
  • Pasi Hellsten
    • 1
  • Samuli Pekkola
    • 1
  • Iiris Saarenpää
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Management and LogisticsTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations