Interorganizational attention network in the diffusion of innovative e-Government practices

The diffusion of innovative e-Government practices in times of economic crisis and shrinking budgets is especially challenging on the local government level. Agencies are forced to accomplish more tasks with fewer resources and are therefore hesitant to innovate without knowing the consequences. Our assumption is that diffusion of innovative e-Government practices takes place incrementally through a complex network of formal and informal relationships across agencies. Public managers use a variety of information sources for decision-making (Kraemer and Danziger, 1993). This is especially true for the local level where many different actors have an impact on the decision to implement e-Government innovations (Gil-Garcia and Martinez-Moyano, 2007). As a result, studies have shown that the diffusion of e-Government practices in the public sector spreads incrementally on the local level (West, 2005). Individual municipal governments often lack the infrastructure and resources needed in order to realize e-Government innovations and our hypothesis is that they turn to their peers for informal advice. So far, there is little evidence on how ICT is diffusing from innovators to late adopters within the complex system of federal, state and local government. To understand how these diffusion processes occur, we are using a social network approach to understand the informal information-sharing network among municipal CIOs in Switzerland that might help public managers to learn about best practices of their neighboring municipalities. In our initial data collection, we included 85 municipalities of one Swiss canton. We administered an online questionnaire, asking the municipal CIOs to indicate their informal information sharing approaches when it comes to ICT and best practices of e-Government solutions. In addition, we also collected information about the inter-agency interactions between the municipalities and the cantonal (state) agencies, to understand how formal, top-down information is spread through the system and might effect the municipal decision making when it comes to e-Government practices. The first results show a tight-knit - although sporadically used - network of information sharing between municipal CIOs to exchange best practices information, as well as a hubspoke network highlighting a hierarchy of attention towards those agencies considered as high performers.

[1]  M. L. Levin,et al.  Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovation , 1963 .

[2]  H. Greve Performance, Aspirations, and Risky Organizational Change , 1998 .

[3]  D. Strang,et al.  DIFFUSION IN ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills , 1998 .

[4]  J. Gow Diffusion of Administrative Innovations in Canadian Public Administrations , 1992 .

[5]  M. Brown,et al.  Understanding E-Government Benefits , 2007 .

[6]  Jerry Courvisanos,et al.  The processes of ICT diffusion in technology projects , 2009 .

[7]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. cities , 2004, Gov. Inf. Q..

[8]  Stuart Bretschneider,et al.  Internal and external interorganizational relationships and their impact on the adoption of new technology: An exploratory study , 1994 .

[9]  M. Rivera,et al.  RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: A LAND MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY , 2001 .

[10]  Thomas W. Valente Network models of the diffusion of innovations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[11]  H. Jennings,et al.  Who Shall Survive , 2007 .

[12]  Mark Chaves,et al.  Ordaining Women: The Diffusion of an Organizational Innovation , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  The Usefulness of Computer-Based Information to Public Managers , 1993, MIS Q..

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

[15]  M. Mizruchi Cohesion, equivalence, and similarity of behavior: a theoretical and empirical assessment , 1993 .

[16]  Angela Dovifat,et al.  The "model of micropolitical arenas" - A framework to understand the innovation process of e-government-projects , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[17]  E. Rogers New Product Adoption and Diffusion , 1976 .

[18]  Stephen King,et al.  Public Sector Partnerships to Deliver Local E-Government: A Social Network Study , 2007, EGOV.

[19]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research , 1980 .

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

[21]  Maddalena Sorrentino,et al.  Can intermunicipal collaboration help the diffusion of E-Government in peripheral areas? Evidence from Italy , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[22]  D. Krackhardt Organizational viscosity and the diffusion of controversial innovations , 1997 .

[23]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  The adoption of centralized customer service systems: A survey of local governments , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[24]  B. Ryan The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities , 1943 .

[25]  Torsten Hägerstrand,et al.  Innovation Diffusion As a Spatial Process , 1967 .

[26]  F. C. Fliegel,et al.  Attributes of Innovations as Factors in Diffusion , 1966, American Journal of Sociology.

[27]  J. Coleman,et al.  Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. , 1967 .

[28]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[29]  E. Laumann,et al.  Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence Systems , 1976 .

[30]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  Organizational Fields and the Diffusion of Information Technologies Within and Across the Nonprofit and Public Sectors , 2006 .

[31]  Barbara Wejnert Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a Conceptual Framework. , 2002 .

[32]  Herbert Menzel,et al.  INNOVATION, INTEGRATION, AND MARGINALITY: A SURVEY OF PHYSICIANS * , 1960 .

[33]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Mimetic Processes within an Interorganizational Field: An Empirical Test , 1989 .

[34]  L. Freeman Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[35]  J. Brudney,et al.  The Adoption of Innovation by Smaller Local Governments: The Case of Computer Technology , 1995 .

[36]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[37]  David Krackardt,et al.  QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness , 1987 .

[38]  D. West Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance , 2007 .

[39]  J. Coleman,et al.  The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians , 1957 .

[40]  Louis W. Stern,et al.  The Effect of Sociometric Location on the Adoption of an Innovation within a University Faculty. , 1976 .

[41]  M. J. Moon The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[42]  Bernhard Schmidt,et al.  Managing the Electronic Government: From Vision to Practice , 2004 .

[43]  R. Burt Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[44]  David Krackhardt,et al.  PREDICTING WITH NETWORKS: NONPARAMETRIC MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DYADIC DATA * , 1988 .

[45]  J. Moreno,et al.  Sociogram and Sociomatrix: A Note to the Paper by Forsyth and Katz , 1946 .

[46]  Bruce Rocheleau,et al.  Whither E-Government? , 2007 .