Digital ambidexterity in the public sector: empirical evidence of a bias in balancing practices

The purpose of this study is to explore and theorize on balancing practices (BP) for digital ambidexterity in the public sector.,The research is designed as an interpretative case study of a large Swedish authority, involving data collection in the form of interviews and internal documents. The method of analysis involves both theorizing on the findings from a previous framework for digital innovation and deriving design implications for ambidextrous governance.,The findings show that all identified BP except one (shadow innovation) is directed toward an increased emphasis on efficiency (exploitation) rather than innovation (exploration). With the increased demand for innovation capabilities in the public sector, this is identified as a problem.,The limitations identified are related to the choice in the method of an interpretative case study, with issues of transferability and empirical generalizability as the main concerns. The implications for research are related to a need for additional studies into the enactment of digital ambidexterity, where the findings offer insight and inspiration for continued research.,The study shows that managers and executives involved in the design and imposition of governance within the public sector need to take the design recommendations for digital ambidexterity into consideration.,The study offers two main implications for practice. First, policymakers need to take the conceptual distinction of efficiency and innovation into account when designing policies for the digital government. Second, existing funding practices need to be re-designed to better facilitate innovation.,This is the first study directed toward enhancing the insight into BP for digital ambidexterity in the public sector. The study has so far resulted in both a localized shift in policy and new directions for research. With the public sector facing needs for increased innovation capabilities, the study offers a first step toward understanding how this is currently counteracted through governance design.

[1]  R. Chenail.  Recursive frame analysis , 1991 .

[2]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[3]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[4]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[5]  Jodi Aronson.  A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis , 1995 .

[6]  Daniel A. Levinthal.  Adaptation on rugged landscapes , 1997 .

[7]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Coevolutionary Lock-in , 2002 .

[8]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[9]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[10]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS, CONSEQUENCES AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[11]  Irvine Lapsley,et al.  The diffusion of management accounting innovations in the public sector: a research agenda , 2004 .

[12]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization , 2004 .

[13]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[14]  Frank Bannister,et al.  The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons , 2007 .

[15]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[16]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization , 2008 .

[17]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[18]  Steven De Haes,et al.  An Exploratory Study into IT Governance Implementations and its Impact on Business/IT Alignment , 2009, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[19]  Soon Ae Chun,et al.  Building the next generation of digital government infrastructures , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[20]  Steven De Haes,et al.  An Exploratory Study into IT Governance Implementations and its Impact on Business/IT Alignment , 2009 .

[21]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Moshe Farjoun.  Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality , 2010 .

[23]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies , 2011, MIS Q..

[24]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  The Dual Regimes of Digital Innovation Management , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  Vallabh Sambamurthy,et al.  Efficiency or Innovation: How do Industry Environments Moderate the , 2022 .

[26]  Bendik Bygstad,et al.  Why I act differently: studying patterns of legitimation among CIOs through motive talk , 2013, Inf. Technol. People.

[27]  Nannette P. Napier,et al.  Digital Options Theory for IT Capability Investment , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Tony Cornford,et al.  Evaluation as a Multi-Ontological Endeavour: A Case from the English National Program for IT in Healthcare , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Elin Smith,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity at the Local Government Level: The effects of managerial focus , 2015 .

[30]  Johan Magnusson,et al.  Ambidexterity and Paradexterity: A typology of IT Governance contradictions , 2015, AMCIS.

[31]  Albert Jacob Meijer,et al.  E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[32]  Andre Hanelt,et al.  Transforming Industrial Business: The Impact of Digital Transformation on Automotive Organizations , 2015, ICIS.

[33]  Lisen Selander,et al.  Digital Action Repertoires and Transforming a Social Movement Organization , 2016, MIS Q..

[34]  Markus C. Becker,et al.  Adaptation and inertia in dynamic environments , 2016 .

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

[36]  Antonello Zanfei,et al.  Governance and innovation in public sector services: The case of the digital library , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[37]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  How Do Firms Adapt to Discontinuous Change? Bridging the Dynamic Capabilities and Ambidexterity Perspectives , 2016 .

[38]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Both/and leadership , 2016 .

[39]  Hamid R. Ekbia,et al.  Heteromation, and Other Stories of Computing and Capitalism , 2017 .

[40]  Johan Magnusson,et al.  Ambidextrous IT Governance in the Public Sector: A Revelatory Case Study of the Swedish Tax Authorities , 2017 .

[41]  J. Lilja,et al.  Key enabling factors for organizational ambidexterity in the public sector , 2017 .

[42]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns , 2017, MIS Q..

[43]  José-Rodrigo Córdoba-Pachón,et al.  Discursive Institutionalism for reconciling change and stability in digital innovation public sector projects for development , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[44]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World , 2017, MIS Q..

[45]  Anneke Zuiderwijk,et al.  Open innovation in the public sector: A research agenda , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[46]  Sebastian Raisch,et al.  Managing Persistent Tensions on the Frontline: A Configurational Perspective on Ambidexterity , 2018 .

[47]  Sebastian Raisch,et al.  Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity , 2018, Organ. Sci..

[48]  Wolfgang Drechsler,et al.  Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[49]  Knut H. Rolland,et al.  Managing Digital Platforms in User Organizations: The Interactions Between Digital Options and Digital Debt , 2018, Inf. Syst. Res..

[50]  Lei Zheng,et al.  Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[51]  Robert Wayne Gregory,et al.  IT Consumerization and the Transformation of IT Governance , 2018, MIS Q..

[52]  Yiwei Gong,et al.  Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research , 2018, Gov. Inf. Q..

[53]  Ingmar van Meerkerk,et al.  The Impact of Innovation and Optimization on Public Sector Performance: Testing the Contribution of Connective, Ambidextrous, and Learning Capabilities , 2018, Public Performance & Management Review.

[54]  Emmanuel Bertin,et al.  From sovereign IT governance to liberal IT governmentality? A Foucauldian analogy , 2018, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[55]  Sanghyun Lee,et al.  Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others , 2018, Gov. Inf. Q..

[56]  Royston Greenwood,et al.  Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective , 2018, Inf. Organ..

[57]  J. Segers,et al.  Ambidexterity and Public Organizations: A Configurational Perspective , 2020, Public Performance & Management Review.

[58]  Mike Wright,et al.  The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes , 2019, Research Policy.

[59]  Hongxia Peng.  Organizational ambidexterity in public non-profit organizations: interest and limits , 2019, Management Decision.

[60]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[61]  Ramiro Montealegre,et al.  Understanding Ambidexterity: Managing Contradictory Tensions Between Exploration and Exploitation in the Evolution of Digital Infrastructure , 2019, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[62]  A. Ingrams.  Organizational Design in Open Government: Two Cases from the United Kingdom and the United States , 2020, Public Performance & Management Review.