Digital service teams in government

Abstract National governments are setting up digital service teams (DST) – IT units outside the centralized CIO's office – to respond to complex governmental and societal challenges in a responsive and agile manner. DSTs emerge as a third space between centralized and decentralized IT departments that are triggered by large-scale IT failures and the need to abandon black swan IT projects - tasks that traditional CIO offices were not able to handle so far. DSTs design principles have been replicated from the initial idea of the UK's Government Digital Service team and implemented in other countries, such as the U.S., Canada, Italy, or Finland. For this article, a qualitative interpretative approach was chosen to understand external and internal context factors that contribute to the emergence of these digital service teams. The article brings initial clarity of the composition and tasks of DSTs and extends the existing theory of context by providing insights about this third space between centralized and decentralized IT departments to organize IT Governance in public sector organizations.

[1]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[2]  Stephen P. Osborne,et al.  The New Public Governance? 1 , 2006 .

[3]  Tim O'Reilly.  Government as a Platform , 2011, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[4]  Gerald G. Grant,et al.  Framing the Frameworks: A Review of IT Governance Research , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[5]  A. Romme,et al.  Applying Design Science in Public Policy and Administration Research , 2019, Policy & Politics.

[6]  Marc Esteve,et al.  Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research , 2018 .

[7]  Chaim Noy,et al.  Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research , 2008 .

[8]  G. Johns.  The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior , 2006 .

[9]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[10]  O. Robinson.  Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide , 2014 .

[11]  J. Rowley.  Conducting research interviews , 2012 .

[12]  K. Meier,et al.  Comparative Public Management: A Framework for Analysis , 2017 .

[13]  Jacob Torfing,et al.  New Public Governance , 2020, Public Governance Paradigms.

[14]  P. Scott.  Assessing Determinants of Bureaucratic Discretion: An Experiment in Street-Level Decision Making , 1997 .

[15]  Jerry Fishenden,et al.  Digital Government, Open Architecture, and Innovation: Why Public Sector IT Will Never Be the Same Again , 2013 .

[16]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[17]  S. Osborne.  Public management research over the decades: what are we writing about? , 2017 .

[18]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance , 2005 .

[19]  Gerry C. Jacobs,et al.  Whose responsibility is IT management , 1995 .

[20]  Eric Abrahamson,et al.  Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective Learning Processes , 1999 .

[21]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Managing Black Swan Information Technology Projects , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[22]  Ines Mergel,et al.  Agile innovation management in government: A research agenda , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[24]  R. Zmud,et al.  Whose responsibility is IT (information technology) management? , 1992, Sloan management review.

[25]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[26]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[27]  Tiina Randma.  A small civil service in transition: the case of Estonia , 2001 .

[28]  P. Biernacki,et al.  Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling , 1981 .

[29]  P. Light.  The Empty Government Talent Pool: The New Public Service Arrives , 2000 .

[30]  Charles C. Ragin.  Reflections on Casing and Case-Oriented Research , 2009 .

[31]  P. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt.  The Estonian Information Society Developments Since the1990s , 2008 .

[32]  Arthur L. Dakyns,et al.  Democracy and the Public Service , 1935 .

[33]  Kevin G. Corley,et al.  Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research , 2013 .

[34]  Jane E. Fountain,et al.  The Administrative Conference of the United States: Recommendations to Advance Cross‐Agency Collaboration under the GPRA Modernization Act , 2014 .

[35]  W. Powell,et al.  Institutional analysis in a digital era: mechanisms and methods to understand emerging fields , 2017 .

[36]  Tomasz Janowski,et al.  Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[37]  J. Faguet.  Decentralization and Governance , 2011 .

[38]  C. Geertz,et al.  The Interpretation of Cultures , 1973 .

[39]  Ines Mergel.  Digital Service Teams : Challenges and Recommendations for Government , 2017 .

[40]  A. Clarke,et al.  The twin faces of public sector design , 2019 .

[41]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[42]  Bruce Rocheleau,et al.  Public management information systems , 2005 .

[43]  A. Huberman,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook , 1994 .

[44]  Peter Frumkin,et al.  Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organizations , 2004 .

[45]  Robert K. Yin,et al.  Qualitative Research from Start to Finish , 2010 .

[46]  Janine O’Flynn,et al.  From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications , 2007 .

[47]  T. Diefenbach.  NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS: THE DARK SIDES OF MANAGERIALISTIC ‘ENLIGHTENMENT’ , 2009 .

[48]  Malcolm James Beynon,et al.  Organizational Capability in the Public Sector: A Configurational Approach , 2016 .

[49]  Jason L. Dedrick,et al.  Computing and Public Organizations , 1986 .

[50]  D. Yanow,et al.  A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe: Surviving Conversations on Methodologies and Methods , 2012 .

[51]  J. Barney.  Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view , 2001 .

[52]  Ines Mergel,et al.  Estonia's Digital Transformation : Mission Mystique and the Hiding Hand , 2019 .

[53]  R. Kattel,et al.  Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do? , 2017 .

[54]  H. Rainey.  Understanding and Managing Public Organizations , 1991 .

[55]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[56]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public management information systems: theory and prescription , 1986 .

[57]  Eleanor McLellan,et al.  Beyond the Qualitative Interview: Data Preparation and Transcription , 2003 .

[58]  K. Meier,et al.  Public Management, Context, and Performance: In Quest of a More General Theory , 2015 .

[59]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .