Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intelligent Public Organisations

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article explores the nature of the intelligence and organisational learning of public sector organisations with regard to both individual organisations and multiple organisational ecosystems. The main ideas behind modern systems theory (MST) and the logic developed by the MST theorists in the domain of organisational intelligence are pinpointed in the paper. The article presupposes that the basic structure of the organisational features of intelligence consists of leadership, strategy and foresight, people, partnerships and resources, and organisational processes, and the intelligence builds on these features. The article concludes with an explicit definition of the organisational activities that generate organisational intelligence, putting forward best practice examples with regard to these activities while also presenting scientific evidence to back up these claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. An essay on the division of expert labour. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational intelligence: a structuration view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 272–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2010). Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, D. (2010a). From welfare bureaucracies to welfare hybrids. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector (pp. 46–71). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, D. (2010b). Towards a theory of hybrid organizations. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector (pp. 46–71). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, J. (1998). Myter om project. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, J. (2003). Projektorganisationen. Kritiska analyser av projektprat och praktik. Malmö: Liberekonomi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance. International comparisons. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovard, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation – user and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., Waterhouse, J., & Flynn, C. (2003). Change management practices: is a hybrid model a better alternative for public sector agencies? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(3), 230–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: the example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2013). The organization of innovation in ecosystems: problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling. Advances in Strategic Management, 30(2013), 167–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catino, M. (2013). Organizational myopia. Problems of rationality and foresight in organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1980). The systems movement and the”failure” of management science. Cybernetics and Systems, 11(4), 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning. A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 757–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2008). Open innovation. Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, T., & Meyers Chandler, S. (2015). Exploration, exploitation, and public sector innovation: an organizational learning perspective for the public sector. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. P. (2013). The emergence and coordination of synchrony in organizational ecosystems. Advances in Strategic Management Vol., 30(2013), 197–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Rond, M., & Morley, I. (Eds.) (2010). Serendipity. Fortune and the prepared mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, H., & Glasby, J. (2010). Why partnership working doesn’t work? Public Management Review, 12(6), 811–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In C. Calhoun et al. (Eds.), Contemporary sociological theory (pp. 175–192). London: Wiley & Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2007). Under what conditions do public managers favor and pursue organizational change? The American Review of Public Administration, 2007, 324–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 2006, 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Jackson, E. M. (2005). Immunity from impulsion: building smart leadership. Ivey Business Journal, 2005, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L. (2010). The relationship between ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(4), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L., & Ulrich, W. (1990). Testament to conversations on critical systems thinking between two systems practioners. Systems Practice, 3(1), 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2009). Clever. Leading your smartest, most creative people. Boston: Havard Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership. Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, C. (2015). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (2011). Collaborative intelligence: using teams to solve hard problems. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M. I., & Shirom, A. (1999). Organizational diagnosis and assessment. Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival: software of the mind. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, Y. H., Lin, Y. T., & Yuan, S. T. (2013). Expectation-based co-operation? Approach to service experience design. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 34, 64–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H., & Knöbl, W. (2011). Social theory. Twenty introductory lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasek, R. (1979). Job demand, job decision latitude and mental strain. Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: applications for organizations and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.-H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe. An assessment of ten years of research on theme. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, C., & Rainey, H. (1992). Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and hybrid organizations: more evidence on frequent assertions about differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. E. (Ed.) (1997). Public sector reform: rationale, trends and problems. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Launonen, M., & Viitanen, J. (2011). Hubconcepts. The global best practice for managing innovation ecosystems and hubs. Oulu: Hubconcepts Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1965). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1984). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntosh, R., Maclean, D., Stacey, R. D., & Griffin, D. (Eds.) (2013). Complexity and organization. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. W. (2000). Integrating complexity theory, knowledge management and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K.J., O’Toole Jr., L.J. (2013), Comparing public and private management: theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, doi:10.1093/jopart/mur027 First Published Online: June 1, 2011.

  • Michel, L. (2013). The performance triangle. Diagnostic mentoring to manage organizations and people for superior performance in turbulent times. London: BPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, I. (2005). Innovation in services. In J. Fagerberg et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 433–458). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahoney, J., & Vincent, S. (2014). Critical realism as empirical project. In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds.), Studying organizations using critical realism. A Practical Guide (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2005). How job characteristics theory happened? In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management. The process of theory development (pp. 151–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. P., & Brown, K. (2005). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., Radnon, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Towards a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Øvretveit, J. (2005). Public service quality improvement. In E. Ferlie et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 51–71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services. Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., & Brandsen, T. (2010). Public governance and the third sector: Opportunities for co-production and innovation. In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 223–236). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1945). Open society and its enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L. J., & Tanner, S. J. (2004). Assessing business excellence. A guide to business excellence and self-assessment. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2004). The modern firm. Organizational design for performance and growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, M. (2001). Intelligent organizations: an integrative framework. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(2001), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1997). The fith discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(3), 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning: acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shostak, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (1992). Managing the unknowable. Strategic boundaries between order and chaos in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. The challenge of complexity. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. D. (2012). Tools and techniques of leadership and management. Meeting the challenge of complexity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenvall, J., Virtanen, P. (2012). Sosiaali- ja terveyspalvelujen uudistaminen. Reforming Social Welfare and Health Care Services, Helsinki: Tietosanoma.

  • Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Rao, H. (2014). Scaling up the excellence. Getting to more without settling for less. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.-E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K.-E. (2001). A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4), 344–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydänmaalakka, P. (2002). An intelligent organization. London: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledege. Studies in organizational epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Living systems theory as a paradigm for organizational behavior: understanding humans, organizations, and social processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 41(3), 165–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Akaka, M. A. (2009). Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Service Science, 1(1), 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., Maglio, P., & Akaka, M. (2008). On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virtanen, P., Stenvall, J. (2014). Älykäs julkinen organisaatio. An Intelligent Public Organisation, Helsinki: Tietosanoma.

  • Virtanen, P., Vakkuri, J. (2015). Searching for organizational intelligence in the evolution of public sector performance management, article manuscript. Journal of Public Administration and Policy (forthcoming).

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. E., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

    Jari Stenvall

  2. School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

    Petri Virtanen

Authors
  1. Jari Stenvall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petri Virtanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jari Stenvall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stenvall, J., Virtanen, P. Intelligent Public Organisations. Public Organiz Rev 17, 195–209 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0331-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0331-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation