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.
AndersenK.V. (2004). E-government and Public Sector Process Rebuilding (PPR): Dilettantes, Wheelbarrows and Diamonds, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2.
AvgerouC. (2001). The Significance of Context in Information Systems and Organizational Change, Information Systems Journal11: 43–63.
3.
AvgerouC., CiborraC., and LandF. (eds.) (2004). The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BeckerJ., AlgermissenL., and NiehavesB. (2004). Organizational Engineering in Public Administrations – A Method for Process-oriented eGovernment Projects, Proceedings of Symposium on Applied Computing ‘04, Nicosia.
5.
BellamyC., and TaylorJ. (1996). New Information and Communications Technologies and Institutional Change, International Journal of Public Sector Management9(4): 51–69.
6.
BentleyA.F. (1908). The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BergqvistJ., and DahlbergP. (1998). Scalability Through Cultivation: Designing IT Support for Co-ordination Work, in Proceedings of IRIS 21, Denmark: Sæby.
8.
BourgaultJ., and SavoieD.J. (2000). Managing at the top, in PetersB.G., and SavoieD.J. (eds.) Governance in the Twenty-First Century, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
9.
BraybrookeD., and LindblomC.E. (1963). A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, New York: Free Press.
10.
CiborraC. (1997). De Profundis? Deconstructing the Concept of Strategic Alignment, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems9(1): 67–82.
11.
CiborraC. (1998). Crisis and Foundations: An inquiry into the nature and limits of models and methods in the information systems discipline, Strategic Information Systems7: 5–16.
12.
CiborraC. (2002). The Labyrinths of Information, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
CiborraC. (2004). Digital Technologies and the Duality of Risk, Discussion Paper No: 27, London: LSE.
14.
CiborraC., and HansethO. (1998). From tool to Gestell. Agendas for Managing the Information Infrastructure, Information Technology and People11(4): 305–327.
15.
CNIPA (2005a). Relazione annuale 2004, Vol. II, Roma (in Italian).
16.
CNIPA (2005b). Monitoraggio dei progetti di e-government Fase I, Terzo rapporto di sintesi (in Italian).
17.
CordeliaA. (2006). Information Infrastructure in action, Working Paper LSE, No. 142, London.
18.
CutlerT. (2004). Making a ‘Success’ Out of ‘Failure’, in DentM., ChandlerJ., and BarryJ. (eds.) Questioning the New Public Management, Adelshot: Ashgate.
19.
DahlbomB., and JanlertJ.E. (1996). Computer Future.Manuscript, Dept. of Informatics, Gothemburg University: Gothemburg.
20.
DahlbomB., and MathiassenL. (1993). Computers in Context: The Philosophy and Practice of Systems Design, Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
DavenportE., and HortonK. (2004). A Social Shaping Perspective on an e-Governmental System(ic) Failure, in TraunmuellerR. (ed.) EGOV 2004, LNCS 3183 Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
22.
DawesS.S., PardoT.A., SimonS., CresswellA.M., LaVigneM.F., AndersenD.F., and BloniarzP.A. (2004). Making Smart IT Choices, April, Albany: Center for Technology in Government.
23.
Gil-GarciaJ.R., and Martinez-MoyanoI.J. (2005). Exploring e-government Evolution: The influence of systems of rules in organizational action, NCDG Working Paper 05-001.
24.
GinsbergM.J. (1979). Improving MIS Project Selection, Omega7(6): 527–537.
25.
HansethO. (2004). Knowledge as infrastructure, in AvgerouC., CiborraC., and LandF. (eds.) The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
HansethO., and LyytinenK. (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.
27.
HansethO., MonteiroE., and HatlingM. (1996). Developing Information Infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility, Science, Technology and Human Values21(4): 407–426.
28.
HeeksR. (2005). E-Government as a Carrier of Context, Journal of Public Policy25(1): 51–74.
29.
JonesS., and IraniZ. (2003). IS Evaluation in the UK Public Sector: Emerging research themes and issues, Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems1444–1452. AMEIS 2003, August 4–6, Tampa, Florida.
30.
KlingR., and LambR. (1999). IT and organizational change in digital economies: a socio-technical approach, Computer and Society29(3): September, 17–25.
31.
KraemerK.L., and KingJ.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.
KunsteljM., and VintarM. (2004). Evaluating the Progress of e-government Development: A critical analysis, Information Polity9: 131–148.
33.
LandsbergenD., and WolkenG. (2001). Realizing the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology, Public Administration Review, Mar/Apr, 61(2): 206–220.
34.
LayneK., and LeeJ.W. (2001). Developing Fully Functional E-government: A four stage model, Government Information Quarterly18: 122–136.
35.
LenkK. (2002). Electronic Service Delivery – A driver of public sector modernization, Information Polity7: 87–96.
36.
LindblomC.E. (1958). Policy Analysis, The American Economic Review48(3): 298–312.
37.
LindblomC.E. (1959). The science of ‘Muddling Through’, Public Administration ReviewXIX: 79–88.
38.
LindblomC.E. (1990). Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society, New Haven: Yale University Press.
39.
MajoneG., and WildavskyA. (1979). Implementation as evolution, in PressmannJ. L., and WildavskyA. (eds.) Implementation, Berkeley: University of California.
40.
MarchJ.G., and OlsenJ.P. (1983). Organizing Political Life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government, The American Political Science Review77(2): June, 281–296.
41.
McIvorR., McHughM., and CaddenC. (2004). The Potential of Internet Technologies: Insights from the public sector, New Technology, Work and Employment19(1): 170–187.
42.
McLoughlinI., and BadhamR. (2005). Unlocking transformational change in the local state – Three dimensions of ‘e-government’, 21st EGOS Annual Colloquium, June 30 – July 2, Berlin.
43.
McNealR.S., TolbertC.J., MossbergerK., and DotterweichL.J. (2003). Innovating in Digital Government in the American States, Social Science Quarterly84(1): March, 52–70.
44.
McNultyT., and FerlieE. (2004). Process Transformation: Limitations to Radical Organizational Change within Public Service Organizations, Organization Studies25(8): 1389–1412.
45.
MetcalfeB. (2004). New Police Management, Performance and Accountability, in DentM., ChandlerJ., and BerryJ. (eds.) Questioning the New Public Management, Hants: Ashgate.
46.
NavarraD., and CornfordT. (2005). ICT, Innovation and Public Management: Governance, Models & Alternatives for E-Government Infrastructures, Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg.
47.
OECD (2004). The e-Government Imperative, Paris: OECD.
48.
OrlikowskiW.J., and HofmanD.J. (1997). An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The case of groupware technologies, Sloan Management Review Winter: 11–21.
49.
RegoniniG. (2001). Capire le politiche pubbliche, il Mulino, Bologna (in Italian).
50.
RobeyD., and MarkusM.L. (1984). Rituals in Information Systems Design, MIS Quarterly8(1): March, 5–15.
51.
SorrentinoM. (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.
52.
SorrentinoM., and ViriliF. (2003). Socio-technical Perspectives on e-Government Initiatives, in TraunmuellerR. (ed.) Electronic Government, International Conference EGOV 2003, Berlin: Prague, Springer-Verlag, pp. 91–94.
53.
TellisW. (1997). Introduction to Case Study, The Qualitative Report3(2): July, 1–10.
54.
ThompsonJ. (1967). Organizations in action, New York: McGraw-Hill.
55.
TraunmuellerR., and WimmerM. (2003). E-Government at a Decisive Moment: Sketching a roadmap to excellence, in TraunmüllerR. (ed.) EGOV 2003, LNCS 2739, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
56.
United Nations (2003). World Public Sector Report: e-government at the crossroads, New York: United Nations Publications, October 2003.
57.
WerthmullerD., CookM., and CostelloM. (2005). Constructing the New York State-Local Internet Gateway Prototype: A Technical View, Albany: Center for Technology in Government.
58.
WestD.M. (2005). Digital Government, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
59.
WesterbackL. (2000). Toward Best Practices for Strategic Information Technology Management, Government Information Quarterly17(1): 27–41.
60.
WillcocksL. (1994). Managing Information Systems in UK Public Administration: Issues and prospects, Public Administration7(2): Spring, 13–32.
61.
YinR. (1994). Case study research, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
