The Transformation of Public Sector into the Digitalization Era
Keywords:
Digital technologies, Bureaucratic transformation, Innovation, E- government, IndonesiaAbstract
Rapid technological advancements, such as the spread of digital government and the capacity to gather and analyze large amounts of data, promise to make the public sector leaner, more efficient, and more responsive to people's demands. It tries to address the following question: how can the problems of information system (IS) innovation in public organizations be explained and solved in the light of the interactions between IT and public bureaucracy? The article is empirical research that employs an interpretative philosophy to guide the collection of qualitative evidence. Advanced computer technologies are increasing, not eradicating, bureaucratic tendencies in the public sector. The public bureaucracy's variable aspects should be de-institutionalized, including uniform and centralized personnel functions and information. Adjusting information technology requires constraining commitments and expectations inside public organizations. While technological advancements have the potential to revolutionize the way public sector organizations work, they may also serve to bolster bureaucracy's primary mission.
Downloads
References
Faúndez-Ugalde, A., R. Mellado-Silva, and E. Aldunate-Lizana, Use of artificial intelligence by tax administrations: An analysis regarding taxpayers’ rights in Latin American countries. Computer Law & Security Review, 2020. 38: p. 105441.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105441.
Rizer, A. and C. Watney, Artificial intelligence can make our jail system more efficient, equitable, and just. Tex. Rev. L. & Pol., 2018. 23: p. 181.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3129576.
Goggin, G., <? covid19?> COVID-19 apps in Singapore and Australia: reimagining healthy nations with digital technology. Media International Australia, 2020. 177(1): p. 61-75.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20949770.
Croteau, A.-M. and F. Bergeron, An information technology trilogy: business strategy, technological deployment and organizational performance. The journal of strategic information systems, 2001. 10(2): p. 77-99.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(01)00044-0.
Bugge, M.M. and C.W. Bloch, Between bricolage and breakthroughs—framing the many faces of public sector innovation. Public Money & Management, 2016. 36(4): p. 281-288.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1162599.
Kirsch, L.J., Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information systems research, 2004. 15(4): p. 374-395.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0036.
Agranoff, R., Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public administration review, 2006. 66: p. 56-65.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x.
Macias, A., A case study using principal-agent theory to explore how a public, four year university interacts with a system office, 190. 2012.
Profita, H.P., et al. Don't mind me touching my wrist: a case study of interacting with on-body technology in public.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2493988.2494331.
Spicer, C., Organizational public relations: A political perspective, 1st Edition, 344. 2013: Routledge.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811788.
Ahmad, N., et al., Corporate social responsibility at the micro-level as a “new organizational value” for sustainability: Are females more aligned towards it? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021. 18(4): p. 2165.DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042165.
Foss, N.J., K. Husted, and S. Michailova, Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management studies, 2010. 47(3): p. 455-482.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00870.x.
Minichilli, A., et al., Board task performance: An exploration of micro‐and macro‐level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. 33(2): p. 193- 215.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.743.
Liu, J.-s. and B.-h. Xia, Explanation of Technological Optimism. Journal of Nanchang University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2, 2013.
Zimmer, M., “But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research in Facebook, in The Ethics of Information Technologies. 2020, Routledge. p. 229-241.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003075011-17.
Dunleavy, P., et al., New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 2006. 16(3): p. 467-494.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.
Andersen, K.V., E-government and public sector process rebuilding: dilettantes, wheel barrows, and diamonds, 1-65. 2004: Springer Science & Business Media.
Henriksen, H.Z. and J. Damsgaard, Dawn of e-government–an institutional analysis of seven initiatives and their impact. Journal of Information Technology, 2007. 22(1): p. 13-23.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000090.
(OECD), O. for E. C and D Education at a glance 2010: OECD indicators. OECD Paris, p, 469.2010.
Hansen, W.L., Nonmarket failure in government training programs, in Market Failure in Training?1991, Springer. p. 215-233.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76986-3_9.
Stiglitz, J.E., Government failure vs. market failure: Principles of regulation. 2008.
Oxborne, D. and T. Gaebler, Reinventing government. Journal of Leisure Research, 1995. 27(3): p. 302.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1995.11949751.
Mazzucato, M., From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 2016. 23(2): p. 140-156.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124.
Burch, R.F.V. and L. Strawderman, Leveraging generational differences to reduce knowledge transfer and retention issues in public administration. Public Administration Research, 2014. 3(2): p. 61.DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/par.v3n2p61.
Farazmand, A., Building administrative capacity for the age of rapid globalization: A modest prescription for the twenty‐first century. Public Administration Review, 2009. 69(6): p. 1007- 1020.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02054.x.
Manoharan, A., A study of the determinants of county e-government in the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 2013. 43(2): p. 159-178.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012437876.
Heeks, R., Development 2.0: The IT-enabled transformation of international development. Communications of the ACM, 2010. 53(4): p. 22-24.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1721654.1721665.
Collins, J., Uncommon cultures: Popular culture and post-modernism, vol 3. 2013: Routledge.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203060803.
Jansson, N., Organizational change as practice: A critical analysis. Journal of organizational change management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1003-1019., 2013.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0152.
Jonassen, D.H., Transforming learning with technology: Beyond modernism and post-modernism, or whoever controls the technology creates the reality, in The nature of technology. 2013, Brill Sense. p. 101-110.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-269-3_7.
Choi, M., Employees' attitudes toward organizational change: A literature review. Human resource management, 2011. 50(4): p. 479-500.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20434.
Al-Haddad, S. and T. Kotnour, Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of organizational change management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 234-262., 2015.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215.
Lyytinen, K. and G.M. Rose, Disruptive information system innovation: the case of internet computing. Information Systems Journal, 2003. 13(4): p. 301-330.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00155.x.
Muthu, N., ‘Mobile Learning’ New Age Education Mantra: A Critical Review. International Journal of Logistics & Supply Chain Management Perspectives, 6(3), pp. 3055-3064. 2017.
Walsham, G., Doing interpretive research. European journal of information systems, 2006. 15(3): p. 320-330.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589.
Mingers, J., Real-izing information systems: critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and organization, 2004. 14(2): p. 87-103.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2003.06.001.
Bhatt, G.D., Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle. Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15-26., 2000.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270010315371.
Pettigrew, A.M., Contextualist research and the study of organizational change processes. Research methods in information systems, 1985. 1: p. 53-78.
Creswell, J.W. and C.N. Poth, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 16(4), 473-475. 2016: Sage publications.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580941.
Yin, R.K., Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 2003. 5(14): p. 359-386.
Orlikowski, W.J. and S.R. Barley, Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS quarterly, 2001: p. 145- 165.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3250927.
Kallinikos, J., The social foundations of the bureaucratic order. Organization, 2004. 11(1): p. 13-36.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404039657.
Smits, M.T., K.G. Van der Poel, and P.M.A. Ribbers, Assessment of information strategies in insurance companies in the Netherlands. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1997. 6(2): p. 129-148.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(97)00004-8.
Korte, R.F., Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. 2009, Taylor & Francis.
Cordelia, A., E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form? Journal of information technology, 2007. 22(3): p. 265-274.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000105.
Wang, S., S.E. Beatty, and J. Liu, Employees’ decision making in the face of customers’ fuzzy return requests. Journal of Marketing, 2012. 76(6): p. 69-86.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0529.
Tang, S.Y. and D.A. Mazmanian, Understanding Collaborative Governance from the Structural Choice-Politics, IAD, and Transaction Cost Perspectives. IAD, and Transaction Cost Perspectives (March 1, 2010), vol, 66p, 44-55., 2010.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1516851.
Gruening, G., Origin and theoretical basis of New Public Management. International public management journal, 2001. 4(1): p. 1-25.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7494(01)00041-1.
Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert, Public management reform: A comparative analysis-into the age of austerity. Vol. 3. 2017: Oxford university press.
Brynjolfsson, E., The productivity paradox of information technology. Communications of the ACM, 1993. 36(12): p. 66-77.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/163298.163309.
Avgerou, C., Information systems and global diversity5th edition . 2002: OUP Oxford.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263424.001.0001.
Alavi, M., T.R. Kayworth, and D.E. Leidner, An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of management information systems, 2005. 22(3): p. 191-224.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222220307.
Özcan, S. and T. Reichstein, Transition to entrepreneurship from the public sector: Predispositional and contextual effects. Management Science, 2009. 55(4): p. 604-618.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0954.
Ciborra, C., The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, 524-525. 2005.
Orlikowski, W.J., Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization science, 2000. 11(4): p. 404-428.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600.
Schultze, U. and W.J. Orlikowski, A practice perspective on technology-mediated network relations: The use of Internet-based self-serve technologies. Information systems research, 2004. 15(1): p. 87- 106.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1030.0016.
Heeks, R. and A. Davies, Different approaches to information age reform, in Reinventing government in the information age. 2002, Routledge. p. 44-70.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203204962-8.
Kim, S., H.J. Kim, and H. Lee, An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti- corruption: The case of OPEN. Government information quarterly, 2009. 26(1): p. 42-50.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.09.002.
Agarwal, K.N. The impact of information systems on organizations and markets. American Society for Competitiveness.
Fountain, J.E., Information, institutions and governance: advancing a basic social science research program for digital government. Institutions and Governance: Advancing a Basic Social Science Research Program for Digital Government (January 2003), 2003.DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.430521.
Fountain, J.E., Bureaucratic reform and e-government in the United States: An institutional perspective, in Routledge handbook of Internet politics. 2008, Routledge. p. 115-129.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203962541-15.
Krücken, G., Paul J. DiMaggio und Walter W. Powell: The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In Schlüsselwerke der Wirtschaftssoziologie (pp. 195–200). Springer. 2017.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658- 08184-3_17.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
