Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Abstract
Innovations in interorganizational e-government projects in the public
sector (G2Gs) tend to be shaped by the discretionary decisions of infor-
mation and communication technology (ICT) professionals. Public
sector managers who are insufficiently knowledgeable about the impli-
cations of such discretions can therefore not fully control the innova-
tion. As a result, they risk being confronted with unintended results. To
fully understand this quandary, there is a need to investigate the type of,
variation in, and reasons for such professional discretions. This chapter
conceptualizes discretions as adverse reactions to coordination require-
ments. The context in which the staff works further determines when,
why, and how discretions emerge. Combining coordination require-
ments and context leads to a taxonomy of six discretions types. These
are empirically evaluated in four G2G case studies in the Netherlands
that rely on a specific ICT, namely, geoICT. Such “geoG2G” projects
are considered particularly prone to discretions because the professional
field of geoICT is so specific that the potential for uncontrollable pro-
fessional discretions is even larger than average. Empirically, these dis-
cretions are visible through a set of indicators for each discretion type.
The observed variation in the cases suggests that discretions in this field
emerge as a result of a perceived complex environment, which exhibits
both the need for staff members to simplify one's own tasks and the
need to closely adhere to the needs of external clients. These findings
justify the need for a better understanding of discretions to decrease the
dependency on these in ICT projects in the future, so that managing
these projects effectively improves.
Keywords:
discretions, discretionary space, discretionary behavior, geoICT,
geoICT coordination
9.1 introduction
Innovations in interorganizational e-government projects in the public sector (usu-
ally referred to as “G2G” projects, or simply G2Gs) exhibit practices where infor-
mation and communication technology (ICT)-related agreements, coordination,
and monitoring activities are handled largely by ICT professionals only (Bekkers,
2009). However, a fair amount of cases have demonstrated that it is difficult for
public sector managers to control the development and decisions in these proj-
ects (Heeks, 2002; Kaniadakis, 2012; Tapia, Maldonado, Tchouakeu, & Maitland,
2012). In particular, the dependence on ICT decisions by a relatively small and
technically oriented group of professionals raises the question of whether public
Search WWH ::
Custom Search