- Defining responsibility for tasks
- Resource Allocation
- Developing Agreement
- Direct information sharing
- Scaffolding
- Acknowledging and aligning work
- Creating a common perspective
- Monitoring and updating
- Substitution
- Creating a common perspective
- Task completion/stability
- Hand-off work
- Brining group together
- Creating a common perspective
- Visibility
- Monitoring
- Updating
- Familiarity
———————————————————————————————————————
BOUNDARY SPANNING
Ø “Art of boundary spanning” (114): building sustainable relationships; managing through influencing and negotiation; managing complexity and interdependencies; and managing roles, accountabilities, and motivations (Williams 2002, cité par Michael McGuire, 2006)
BOUNDARY SPANNERS
Ø Boundary spanners are “individuals who engage in networking tasks and employ methods of coordination and task integration across organizational boundaries” (Alter & Hage, 1993, p.46; see also Aldrich, 1979; cités par Ricardo S. Morse, 2010).
Ø “Boundary spanners” term used to describe key agents who manage within an inter organizational context (Williams 2002, cité par Michael McGuire, 2006)
BOUNDARY EXPERIENCES
Ø Boundary experiences are “shared or joint activities that create a sense of community and an ability to transcend boundaries among participants” (Feldman et al., 2006, p. 94; cités par Ricardo S. Morse, 2010).
BOUNDARY ORGANIZATIONS
Ø Forums “where multiple perspectives participate and multiple knowledge systems converge” (Carr and Wilinson, 2005, cités par Ricardo S. Morse, 2010).
COLLABORATION
Ø A co-operative relationship among organizations that relies on neither market nor hierarchical mechanisms of control (Nelson Phillips Thomas B. Lawrence and Cynthia Hardy, 2000).
Ø Collaborative forms of inter organizational interaction occur when neither formal authority nor a market is used to govern inter-organizational relationships (Nelson Phillips Thomas B. Lawrence and Cynthia Hardy, 2000).
Ø Thomson and Perry (2006) adapt Wood and Gray’s (1991) meaning to define collaboration as a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process of involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions. (p. 23) (Yu-Che Chen and Kurt Thurmaier, 2008)
Ø Process ‘‘through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible’’ (Gray 1989, citée par Ann Marie Thomson, James L. Perry et Theodore K. Miller, 2007 + dans 2 autres textes).
Ø Process of joint decision making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain (Gray 1989, citée par Sharfman, Gray & Yan, cités par Wood & Gray, 1991). P143
Ø Group of key stakeholders who work together to make joint decisions about the future of their problem domain (Nathan & Mitroff, cités par Wood & Gray, 1991). P143
Ø Interactive process having a shared transmutational purpose and characterized by explicit voluntary membership, joint decision making, agreed-upon rules, and a temporary structure (Roberts & Bradley, cités par Wood & Gray, 1991). P.143
Ø Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain (Wood & Gray, 1991). P.146
SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION
Ø Supply Chain (SC) Collaboration is defined here as the ability to work across organizational boundaries to build and manage unique value-added processes to better meet customer needs. SC Collaboration involves the sharing of resources – information, people, and technology among SC members to create synergies for competitive advantage (Stanley E. Fawcett Gregory M. Magnan and Matthew W. McCarter, 2008).
PRAGMATIC COLLABORATION
Ø Where groups work together because they see no other way to accomplish particular tasks (Trish Reay and C. R. (Bob) Hinings, 2009)
COLLABORATIVE STRATEGY
Ø A collaborative strategy is the result of organizations’ trying to acquire the necessary resources to continue their existence, and in the case of for-profit firms, develop a sustainable competitive advantage (Mary K. Foster and Agnes G. Meinhard, 2002).
COLLABORATIVE INERTIA
Ø “Unless the individuals representing their various parent organizations are ‘‘fully empowered by their organizations to make judgments about what they may commit to [in the collaboration],’’ Huxham (1996) writes, they will constantly have to check in with their ‘‘parents before action can happen’’ (5).This often exacerbates tension within the collaboration as collaborating partners wait to hear back from the parent organizations and the momentum that collaboration partners may have at first experienced slowly diffuses into what Huxham calls ‘‘collaborative inertia.’’” (Ann Marie Thomson, James L. Perry et Theodore K. Miller, 2007).
COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
Ø Agranoff and McGuire define such collaborative management processes as “the process of facilitating and operating in multi organizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved, or solved easily, by single organizations” (2003, 4) (Robert Agranoff, 2006)
CROSS SECTOR COLLABORATION
Ø By cross sector collaboration, we mean partnerships involving government, business, non profits and philanthropies, communities, and/or the public as a whole (John M . Bryson Barbara C. Crosby Melissa Middleton Stone, 2006)
Ø We thus define cross-sector collaboration as the linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations in two or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome that could not be achieved by organizations in one sector separately (John M . Bryson Barbara C. Crosby Melissa Middleton Stone, 2006)
COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
Ø Collaborative public management is a concept that describes the process of facilitating and operating in multi organizational arrangements in order to remedy problems that cannot be solved – or solved easily – by single organizations (Michael McGuire, 2006)
COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
Ø “A CoP is a group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al. 2002, cités par Scarso et Bolisani, 2007)
Ø “A CoP thus focuses on a specific domain, and its members develop their practice by interacting around problems and possible solutions, thus building a common pool of knowledge. CoPs can span across organisational units and even organisation boundaries (Zboralski and Gemünden, 2006, cités par Scarso et Bolisani, 2007)”.
CONVENER
Ø Role: “to identify and bring all the legitimate stakeholders to the table”. P150
Ø To achieve this objective, the convener – which may or may not be a stakeholder of a problem domain – must have the following:
Ø “convening power, that is, the ability to induce stakeholders to participate” (Gray 1989)
Ø legitimacy among the stakeholders, who must perceive that the convener has the “authority to organize the domain” (Gray 1989)
Ø an unbiased, even-handed approach to the problem domain, to prevent the convener from losing credibility in the eyes of the stakeholders (Gray 1989)
Ø appreciative, envisioning, and processual skills, meaning that the convener must “appreciate the potential value of collaborating”, and must be able to “envision a purpose to organizing the domain” and establish a collaborative process and context (Gray 1989)
Ø the ability to identify all relevant stakeholders, who must have legitimacy and thus “be perceived by others to have the right and the capacity to participate” in the collaboration (Gray 1989).
Ø The convener [...] need not possess formal authority [...]. instead, the convener may possess informal authority such as that based on position and influence in an informal network, expertise and knowledge with respect to the problem domain, or credibility among the stakeholders of the domain. P.151 (Wood & Gray, 1991)
COOPERATION
Ø Cooperation refers to the act of working jointly with others, usually to resolve a problem or find a corner of activity (Robert Agranoff, 2006).
Ø Jarillo (1993) explains that the difference between cooperation and competition could be compared to the difference between a zero-sum game and a non-zero-sum game (Arja Lemmetyinen, 2009)
COOPERATION VS. COLLABORATION
Ø In this article, we use the terms ‘collaboration’ and ‘cooperation’ interchangeably to signify an action aimed at achieving a common goal (Enrico Ferro Maddalena Sorrentino, 2009)
Ø The words cooperation and coordination refer to relationships that involve much less time and fewer resources (Bailey and Koney, 2000; Light, 1998; cités par Mary M. Shaw, 2003).
COORDINATION
|
Auteurs (cités par Okhuysen, G. A., et B. A. Bechky, 2009) |
Ø Définitions |
|
Simon (1945) |
Ø “The adoption of all members of a group of the same decision” (p. 8) |
|
Van de ven, Delbecq, & Koenig (1976) |
Ø “The integration or linking together of different parts of an organization to accomplish a collective set of tasks” (p. 322) |
|
Argote (1982) |
Ø “Coordination involves fitting together the activities of organization members, and the need for it arises from the interdependent nature of the activities that organization members perform” (p. 423) |
|
Malone & Crowston (1990) |
Ø “The act of working together harmoniously” (p. 358) Ø “The act of managing interdependencies between activities performed to achieve a goal” (p. 361) |
|
Bailetti, Callahan, & DiPietro (1994) |
Ø “We define coordination structure as the entire set of interrelated interdependencies between all of the individuals and groups in some problem domain” (p. 395) |
|
Kraut & Streeter (1995) |
Ø “Coordination has been defined as the direction of ‘individuals’ efforts toward achieving common and explicitly recognized goals” (p. 69) Ø “In software development, it means that different people working on a common project agree to a common definition of what they are building, share information, and mesh their activities” (p. 69) |
|
McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl (1999) |
Ø “Coordination of interests refers to the functional interconnections between member interests and goals and group interests and goals” (p.1) Ø “Coordination of understandings refers to the development of shared perceptions and meanings among members, including an appreciation of the ways in which members reliably see and interpret events differently” (p.1) Ø “Coordination of action is a synchronization and sequencing of member actions in time and place” (p.2) |
|
Heath & Staudenmeyer (2000) |
Ø “Organizing individuals so that their actions are aligned” (p. 154) |
|
Ballard & Seibold (2003) |
Ø “Coordination can be defined as the collective accomplishment of individual goals through a cooperative process” (p. 401) |
|
Quinn & Dutton (2005) |
Ø “Coordination is the process through which people arrange actions in ways that they believe will enable them to accomplish their goals” (p. 36) |
|
Faraj & Xiao (2006) |
Ø “At its core, coordination is about the integration of organizational work under conditions of task interdependence and uncertainty” (p. 1156) Ø “A temporally unfolding and contextualized process of input regulation and interaction articulation to realize a collective performance” (p. 1157) |
|
Fussell et al. (1998) |
Ø “The extra work organizations and individuals must complete when individuals are working in concert to accomplish some goal, over and above what they would need to do to accomplish the goal individually” (p. 3) |
Ø (1) People work collectively, (2) The work is interdependent, (3) A goal, task, or piece of work is achieved (Okhuysen, G. A., et B. A. Bechky, 2009).
Ø Coordination is distinct from cooperation (Camerer & Knez, 1996, 1997; Gulati et al., 2005; Heath & Staudenmayer, 2000). In essence, the problem of cooperation (aligning interests) is a problem of motivation, and can be alleviated if not resolved through incentives. In contrast, coordination problems (aligning actions) are fundamentally cognitive in origin, and require shared understanding and common ground to be solved (Tobias Kretschmer Phanish Puranam)
Ø “Coordination refers to effective time and sequence in performing activities, while cooperation indicates the willingness of persons to move together toward the objective” (Davis, 1972, cité par Arja Lemmetyinen, 2009)
Ø “Patterns of connection, of bringing things together that have become stable and comprehensible” (Redding, 2005, cité par Arja Lemmetyinen, 2009)
Ø “Process of arranging activities that people use to create, adapt, and re-create organizations” (Quinn and Dutton, 2005, cités par Arja Lemmetyinen, 2009)
COORDINATION MECHANISMS
Ø Coordination mechanisms are the organizational arrangements that allow individuals to realize a collective performance. Mintzberg (1989, p.101) suggests that coordination mechanisms are “the most basic elements of structure” in organizations and include both formal and emergent elements (Okhuysen, G. A., et B. A. Bechky, 2009).
CROWDSOURCING
Ø ‘Crowdsourcing’ — a new kind of government outsourcing in network or digital governance.
Ø This kind of ‘collective individualism’ recognises that individuals’ interests are seldom unique and ‘The Web teaches us that we can be part of the largest public ever assembled and still maintain our individual faces’ (Weinberger 2002:119, 177; cité par Glenn Hui and Mark Richard Hayllar, 2010)
EFFECTIVENESS
Ø Effectiveness is defined as the achievement of desired outcomes from the client’s perspective (John M . Bryson Barbara C . Crosby Melissa Middleton Stone, 2006)
E-GOVERNMENT
Ø E-Government is defined by the European Commission (2003) as the use in public administration of information and communication technologies (ICT) teamed with organizational change and the introduction of new skills, aimed at improving both public services and democratic processes and strengthening public policy support (Enrico Ferro Maddalena Sorrentino, 2009)
FEDERATION
Ø A form of interorganizational relationship with a unique administrative body or coordinating agency called a federation management organization (Fleisher, cité par Wood & Gray, 1991). P.144
INCENTIVE STRUCTURE
Ø An incentive structure can be defined as a mix of constraints and rewards offered to the relevant stakeholders of the organization (Carlo Borzaga and Ermanno Tortia, 2006).
INSTITUTION
Ø The term is best understood as referring to taken-for-granted patterns of organizing that shape and constrain the behaviour of societal members (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Zucker, 1983; cités par Nelson Phillips Thomas B. Lawrence and Cynthia Hardy, 2000).
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Ø Institutional logics are the organizing principles that shape the behaviour of field participants. […] An organizational field is a community of actors held together by their joint values and beliefs. […] Most institutional researchers explain institutional change as movement from one dominant logic to another (Trish Reay and C. R. (Bob) Hinings, 2009).
INTEGRATE
Ø To integrate means to bring together and combine or incorporate different components into a whole (Ricardo S. Morse, 2010)
INTEGRATIVE PUBLIC LEADERSHIP
Ø Integrative public leadership is a process of developing partnerships across organizational, sectoral and/or jurisdictional boundaries that create public value (Ricardo S. Morse, 2010)
INTERNATIONAL REGIMES
Ø The formal or informal institutions, rules, and decision-making procedures shaped by prevailing principles and norms held by relevant actors about acceptable behaviour in a given issue area (Golich, cité par Wood & Gray, 1991). P.144
KNOWLEDGE STRATEGY
Ø Plan for making the best use of the knowledge-based resources in the view of the organisation’s competitive advantage (Scarso et Bolisani, 2007)
NETWORK(ING)
Ø Network (broadcast, supply service, professional, friendship) is required that fits the activity of cooperation or mutual action without being so broad that it encompasses every human connection (Robert Agranoff, 2006)
Ø Networking is a buzzword around public organizations these days that signifies social networking, within-organization lateral relationships, and a host of other collaborative endeavors (Robert Agranoff, 2006)
Ø The industrial-network approach defines the network as “a structure where a number of nodes are related to each other by specific threads” (Ford, Gadde, Håkansson, & Snehota, 2003, p. 18, cités par Arja Lemmetyinen, 2009).
Ø Strategic networks = “stable inter-organizational ties, which are strategically important to participating organizations” (Möller,Rajala, & Svahn, 2005, p. 1275 referring to Amit & Zott, 2001 and Gulati, Nohria & Zaheer, 2000, cités par Arja Lemmetyinen, 2009).
PARTNERSHIP
Ø Partnership refers to working together on a specific project, in which each entity retains its independence and the relationship is temporary (Sabatier, 1998, cité par Mary M. Shaw, 2003).
Ø The term ‘partnership’ defines a general inter-organizational strategy that regardless of the legal form taken on implementation – e.g., consortium, alliance, and associated management – leads to the collaboration of two or more public bodies (Enrico Ferro Maddalena Sorrentino, 2009)
UNILATERALISM
Ø “Unilateralism occurs when governments act on their own. Conflicts in intergovernmental relations can result if one order of government perceives that the action of the other is within its area of competence or forces it to do something it would not otherwise choose. Federal unilateral action is often in response to a desire to act when federal-provincial agreement is difficult or impossible to achieve” (Donna Wood and Thomas R. Klassen, 2009)
MULTILATERALISM
Ø “Multilateralism involves governments acting or trying to act collaboratively: either Ottawa and all of the provinces together, or just the provinces without the federal government. In practice, many multilateral arrangements are between Ottawa and all provinces except for Quebec, which often views multilateral agreement as interference in its jurisdiction. Multilateral cooperation between provinces is usually difficult, since each has its unique objectives and interests” (Donna Wood and Thomas R. Klassen, 2009)
BILATERALISM
Ø “Bilateralism is by far the preferred approach to managing intergovernmental relations in Canada, with Johanne Poirier (2004) estimating that eighty-five per cent of the 1,500 to 2,000 existing intergovernmental agreements are bilateral. Such arrangements range from a unique agreement between the federal government and an individual province, to similar agreements between Ottawa and each province, to agreements between two provinces. Bilateralism can be more conducive to serious discussion, avoiding the multiplicity of issues and interests raised when more than two parties are at the negotiating table. It can also provide the flexibility required to accommodate different provincial interests and circumstances. On the other hand, Ottawa may derive a tactical advantage from a bilateral format, because it is more able to ‘‘divide and conquer’’ (McRoberts 1985: 79)” (Donna Wood and Thomas R. Klassen, 2009)
ASYMMETRICAL FEDERALISM
Ø “Closely related to bilateralism in intergovernmental relations is the concept of asymmetrical federalism. A significant driver of asymmetry in Canada has traditionally been Quebec nationalism. However, asymmetrical federalism in Canada is also driven by provincial differences arising from increased north-south trade and investment patterns, varying policy capacity, and increased tolerance for flexible devolution as a practical means of problem-solving (Brock 2005; Brown 2005; Graefe 2005). In many countries, managed asymmetry is seen as the best way to preserve the unity of the country (Agranoff 2004). Canadian provincial governments seem prepared to accept it as long as asymmetry applies to all and that the principle of provincial equality is not violated (Gibbons 2005). The public seems to be willing to support asymmetrical federal-provincial approaches provided these are transparent, coherent and pragmatic (Brown 2005: 9)” (Donna Wood and Thomas R. Klassen, 2009).
PUBLIC VALUE
Ø ‘Public value’ in relation to public services (Kelly, Mulgan and Muers 2002; Moore 1995; Smith 2004),
Ø IPSV comments that ‘the value of those services lies not just in their quality or efficiency, but also in the actual social and economic improvements they produce for the public’ (Accenture 2008, cité par Glenn Hui and Mark Richard Hayllar, 2010)
SYNERGIES
Ø Synergies refer to potential gains (either through revenue enhancement or cost reduction) from acknowledging and managing certain kinds of interdependencies, such as the sharing of best practices, knowledge and technology or through the consolidation, customisation or combination of activities (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1986; Markides & Williamson, 1996; cités par Tobias Kretschmer Phanish Puranam)
TRUST
Ø The trust is described as a covenant, in contrast to a contract; a contract focuses on meeting the interests of each party, whereas a covenant includes the higher purpose of achieving a goal (Bergquist, Betwee, and Meuel, 1995; Wernet and Jones, 1992; cités par Mary M. Shaw, 2003).
Ø Trust can be seen as the expectation that the trustee will not behave opportunistically, even if there are incentives to do so (Black et al., 2002).
ACCEPTABILITE
Ø Nielsen (1994) distingue l’« acceptabilité pratique » et l’« acceptabilité sociale ». L’acceptabilité pratique met l’accent sur la relation entre les fonctionnalités proposées et la facilité d’usage. Elle englobe donc l’utilité et l’utilisabilité. L’acceptabilité sociale (et c’est principalement dans ce cadre que se situe cet article) inclut les impressions des utilisateurs, les attitudes et les contraintes sociales et normatives conduisant à choisir ou supporter l’utilisation d’une technologie donnée (Bobillier-Chaumon et Dubois, 2009).
MODELE D’ACCEPTABILITE DE LA TECHNOLOGIE
Ø Davis (1989) va développer un modèle d’acceptabilité de la technologie (TAM) qui se fonde principalement sur les variables du TAR mais qui intègre aussi d’autres variables. Le TAM insiste ainsi sur l’attitude dans la formation d’intention qui repose sur deux éléments centraux :
— l’utilité perçue qui est « le degré avec lequel une personne pense que l’utilisation d’un système améliore sa performance au travail » (p. 320) ;
— et la facilité d’utilisation perçue qui se rapporte « au degré auquel une personne pense que l’utilisation d’un système ne nécessite pas d’efforts » (ibid., p. 320). La facilité d’utilisation perçue n’est pas sans lien avec le concept d’efficacité personnelle de Bandura (1982) ou avec celui de « coûts-bénéfices » issu de la théorie du comportement décisionnel (Johnson & Payne, 1985) qui explique que le choix d’un individu résulte d’un choix cognitif entre l’effort requis (i.e. facilité d’utilisation perçue) et la qualité de l’action – décision (i.e. utilité perçue) qui en résulte (Bobillier-Chaumon et Dubois, 2009).
ACCEPTATION TECHNOLOGIQUE
Ø D’une manière générale, nous définirons l’acceptation technologique comme le déploiement d’un ensemble des conduites réelles d’adoption mises en œuvre par l’individu et/ou un collectif, dans le cadre des activités effectives au sein de l’organisation. L’acceptation se présente donc comme la façon dont un individu, mais aussi un collectif, une organisation perçoivent au gré des situations quotidiennes les enjeux liés à ces technologies (atouts, bénéfices, risques, opportunité) et y réagissent (favorablement ou non) (Bobillier-Chaumon et Dubois, 2009).
CUSTOMER ORIENTATION
Ø The specific characteristic of customer orientation in public organizations as compared to the private sector is expressed in Schedler’s definition (Schedler, 1995, p. 37): “The increased focus on the concrete and existing needs of customers (e.g. residents) brings about profound shifts in public administration. Naturally, laws still do have to be followed, procedures have to be carried out properly, and uncomfortable decisions and demands have to be made, if necessary in an authoritarian manner. Customer orientation in this context does not mean making the customer the measure of all things. Rather, it means providing a necessary service in such a way that it meets the customer’s needs in the optimum manner” (Korunka et al., 2006).
DEFENDERS
Ø Defenders are organizations which have narrow product-market domains. Defenders offer a relatively stable set of services and tends to focus on a particular segment of the population. They offer a limited range of services and they believe that doing the best job possible in their existing range of services and refining existing services are of utmost importance (Miles and Snow, 1978; cité par Naranjo-Gil, 2009).
HETEROPHILY
Ø Rogers (1983: 18) defined heterophily as “the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are different in certain attributes” (cité par Abrahamson, 1991).
INNOVATION
Ø At the organizational level, researchers have generally defined ‘‘innovation’’ as the development (generation) and/or use (adoption) of new ideas or behaviors (Amabile 1988; Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006; Walker 2008; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 1973). The idea or behavior may pertain to a product, service, technology, system, or practice. Organizations generate innovation for their own use or for use in other organizations. The generation of innovation is a process that results in an outcome that is new to an organizational population (Daft 1978; Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006). (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009).
Ø Innovation is a concept central to economic growth and can be a source of sustained competitive advantage to firms (Schumpeter, 1934; Tushman et al., 1997; cité par Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006).
Ø Roberts (1988) and Afuah (2003) define innovation as the development of an idea or invention and its conversion to a useful application. Innovation is ‘‘invention plus exploitation’’: the invention process creates a new idea and gets it to work; the exploitation process develops and disseminates the innovation commercially (Roberts, 1988: 13; cité par Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006).
Ø Innovation is defined as any practice, process, product or service which is new to the environment of the organization (Wolfe 1994; Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; cité par Naranjo-Gil, 2009).
Ø Organizational leaders, be they public managers or business executives, view innovation as a source of organizational change, growth, and effectiveness (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009).
Ø Cet économiste [Schumpeter] a d’abord identifié trois stades dans le processus de changement technologique : l’invention ou la production de connaissances et d’idées nouvelles; l’innovation qui consiste en un nouveau produit ou procédé vendu ou mis en œuvre et, la diffusion qui consiste en l’adoption d’une innovation à grande échelle (on passe ici du niveau microéconomique au niveau macroéconomique) (Guellec, 1999 : 3). Ces trois stades ne sont pas impliqués dans un développement linéaire mais entretiennent des relations fort complexes qui diffèrent d’un processus de changement technique à un autre. En plus des changements associés à un produit ou à un procédé, Schumpeter a ajouté trois autres types d’innovation. Il s’agit des innovations organisationnelles (méthodes d’organisation de la production), des nouvelles sources de matières premières et des nouveaux marchés (ouverture d’un nouveau débouché). On peut comprendre que les activités d’innovation vont bien au-delà des seules activités de recherche et développement (Lavoie, 2009).
Ø Innovation process has usually been defined with a wide-scope view: it encompasses the entire process from the decision to begin research on a recognized or potential problem, to development, commercialization, diffusion, decision to adopt, implementation, and consequences (Rogers, 1995; cité par Damanpour & Wischnevsky, 2006).
Ø Kimberly (1981) defined pro-innovation biases as presumptions that innovations will benefit organizations (cité par Abrahamson, 1991).
ADMINISTRATIVE VS. TECHNICAL INNOVATIONS
Ø Administrative innovations pertain to organizational structure, administrative processes, and human resources (Daft 1978; Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour 1994; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981; Walker 2006). Daft (1978, 2001) argues that technical innovations are initiated primarily in the operational core and follow a bottom-up adoption process, whereas administrative innovations are mainly initiated in the administrative core and follow a top-down adoption process. From a socio-technical systems perspective, Damanpour and Evan (1984) argue that technical innovation are directly related to the primary work activity of the organization (e.g., innovations in products, services, and production processes), but administrative innovations are indirectly related to the primary work activity and are more directly related to management (e.g., innovations in structure, management processes, reward systems). As such, administrative innovations might be less costly and less complex to adopt in public organizations than technical innovations.
WORKPLACE INNOVATION
Ø Following Ichniowski et al. (1996: 300), we use the terms ‘workplace innovation’ and ‘new work practices’ as synonyms to refer generally to all kinds of non-traditional or non-Tayloristic work practices that are supposed to bring better performance to organization through added employee participation (Koski et Järvensivu, 2010).
INNOVATION ADOPTION
Ø The adoption of innovation is a process that results in the assimilation of a product, process, or practice that is new to the adopting organization (Damanpour and Wischnevsky 2006; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981; Walker 2008) […]. The innovation adoption process has two major phases: initiation and implementation (Nystrom, Ramamurthy, and Wilson 2002; Rogers 1995; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 1973). We assume that organizations innovate with the intention to improve (or to at least maintain) their level of performance or effectiveness. From this perspective, an innovation is not truly adopted when it has been initiated but instead when it has been actually put in use in the adopting organization. Without implementation, the intended objectives of innovating and improving services cannot be met (Damanpour & Schneider, 2009).
INNOVATION COMPLEXITY
Ø Innovation complexity is defined as the degree to which the innovation is difficult to understand and use (Rogers 1995; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek 1973, cités par Damanpour & Schneider, 2009).
INNOVATION DIFFUSION
Ø According to Rogers (2003), diffusion is a process by which “an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.” We can, therefore, identify four main elements: (1) innovation, (2) communication channels, (3) time, and (4) social system. The first element of the diffusion process is innovation, which Rogers defines as, “The innovation-development process consists of all of the decisions, activities, and their impacts that occur from recognition of a need or problem, through research, development, and commercialization of an innovation, through diffusion and adoption of the innovation by users, to its consequence.” As stated here, we can recognize six primary steps that build up the innovation-development process: (1) recognizing a problem or need, (2) basic and applied research, (3) development, (4) commercialization, (5) diffusion and adoption, (6) consequences (Raus, Flügge et Boutellier, 2009).
Ø Diffusion of innovations refers to the spread of abstract ideas and concepts, technical information, and actual practices within a social system, where the spread denotes flow or movement from a source to an adopter, typically via communication and influence (Rogers 1995; cite Wejnert, 2002).
INNOVER
Ø Innover ne se limite pas à la génération de nouvelles idées mais comporte une foule d’activités telles la diffusion des connaissances, la commercialisation des produits, la protection de la propriété intellectuelle, la gestion des ressources humaines, etc. (Lavoie, 2009).
METACOGNITION
Ø Metacognition is an awkward concept – the act of thinking about how one is thinking – but it is how experts avoid dead ends. Depending on the problem, metacognition can require several types of knowledge : a sense of when to give up on a strategy, a knowledge of alternative strategies, the good judgment about the strategy to try next (Levy et Murnane, 2004 : 66, cités par Lavoie, 2009).
NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
Ø The application of TQM [Total Quality Management] principles to the public sector is also known as new public management (NPM; Budäus and Grüning, 1998; Rago, 1994; Swiss, 2001). An essential component of redesigning public administration on the basis of NPM principles is the idea that citizens are customers of the administration (Korunka et al., 2006).
PERFORMANCE GAP
Ø Performance gaps are discrepancies between an organization’s goals and the goals that this organization can attain (cité par Abrahamson, 1991).
PROSPECTORS
Ø Prospectors are organizations which almost continually search for market opportunities, and they make relatively frequent change in, and additions to, their set of services. Prospectors also respond rapidly to early signals of market needs or opportunities and they consistently attempt to be at the forefront of new service developments (Miles and Snow, 1978; cité par Naranjo-Gil, 2009).
STRATEGIE DE VIEILLISSEMENT ACTIF
Ø « Stratégie de vieillissement actif », visant à encourager les travailleurs à demeurer sur le marché du travail le plus longtemps possible et les entreprises à les retenir (Lavoie, 2009).
STANDARD
Ø Standards are boundary objects (Star and Griesemer 1989) that help create meaningful conversations between otherwise unconnected actors. By discussing the details and challenges of the standard across industry boundaries, a sense making (Weick 1995) process took place (cité par Fomin & Keil. 2000).
Ø Company standards have, in general, the form of: 1) a reference to one or more external standards (e.g. an international standard like ISO 17799 or a defacto standard like Microsoft Word) officially adopted by the company; 2) a company modification of an external standard; 3) a subset of an external standard; 4) a standard reproduced from (part of) other external documents; or 5) a self-written standard (De Vries, 1999, p. 231, cites par Van Wessel, Ribbers et de Vries, 2007).
Ø We define a company IT standard as: “The specification of an IT product or process to be repeatedly and consistently used in the company.” (Van Wessel, Ribbers et de Vries, 2007).
Ø Technical standards specify the characteristics (e.g., dimensions, safety aspects, performance, and operating requirements) of a product, process, or service according to the technical or technological state of the art (Schmidt & Werle, 1998). Compatibility standards are the set of technical rules and specifications that explicitly set the conditions that allow components and sub-systems to be connected together within a larger system (David & Greenstein, 1990) to make a product (Singh et Dahlin, 2007).
STANDARDIZATION
Ø Mintzberg (1984) considers standardization as a coordination mechanism for organizations and Cargill (1989, p.63) argues that company standardization should be directed by an understanding of where an organization is going (Van Wessel, Ribbers et de Vries, 2007).
Ø In this article we examine standardization as a process of standard making, whereby “a ‘standard’ is to be understood, for the present purposes, as a set of technical specifications adhered to by a producer, either tacitly or as a result of a formal agreement” (David and Greenstein 1990, p. 4, cité par Fomin & Keil. 2000).
Ø Game theoretic models of standardization differ in their definition of the underlying structure of the game. What they share is the assumption of purely rational actors. By “rational game” we understand any form of business transactions—e.g., cooperation, non-cooperation, any other strategic behavior—between two or more parties based on some sort of economic calculus (cité par Fomin & Keil. 2000).
STRATEGY
Ø Strategy can be defined as a pattern of decisions about the organization’s future, which take on meaning when it is implemented through the organization’s structure and processes (Mintzberg, 1978; Miles and Snow, 1978; cité par Naranjo-Gil, 2009).
UNCERTAINTY
Ø We identify three sources of uncertainty that a firm faces when making a standards adoption decision: technical, market and behavioral uncertainty (Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Nelson & Winter, 1982; Reitzig, 2002; Williamson, 1985). How a firm evaluates and responds to these three types of uncertainty is reflected in its decision to adopt or not adopt the new standard (Singh et Dahlin, 2007).
Ø Technical and market uncertainty refer to uncertainty regarding the technical maturity and market acceptance of the standard respectively. The more technically mature a standard is and favourably accepted by the market it has to date been, the more likely it is that the focal firm will adopt the standard. Behavioral uncertainty refers to factors associated with standards owners – the firms developing the standard. Firms cooperate with one another while developing a standard as they simultaneously compete for market share. Potential adopters (here customers of the standards owners) are unsure whether owners are interested in further enhancing and developing the technology or if they only seek to maximize their short-term gains from their knowledge in a standard, a serious problem since a positive adoption decision will lead to long-term investment (Singh et Dahlin, 2007).
Ø Environmental uncertainty is defined as the organization’s perceived inability to predict accurately the actions of customers and situations that comprise the external environment, due to a lack of information or an inability to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1984; Karagozoglu, 1993; cité par Naranjo-Gil, 2009)
————————————————————————————-
absorptive capacity :
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) define the absorptive capacity as the firm’s ability to appreciate an innovation, to assimilate and to apply it to new ends. A firm’s absorptive capacity includes two main components: its prior relevant knowledge, and its investments in acquiring new knowledge (Ravichandran, 2005).
acceleration trap :
Realizing something is amiss, leaders frequently try to fight the symptoms instead of the cause. Interpreting employees’ lack of motivation as laziness or unjustified protest, for example, they increase the pressure, only making matters worse. Exhaustion and resignation begin to blanket the company, and the best employees defect. We call this phenomenon the acceleration trap.
adoption of an innovation :
Second, the adoption of an innovation can be defined as “the [voluntary and/or coercive] process through which [an organization] passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude towards the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision” [16, p. 20]. Organizations can adopt an innovation in varying degrees, ranging from copying an innovation without making any changes, to using an innovation as an inspiration [5, p. 52–53].
ancillary innovation :
Ancillary innovations are identified by Damanpour (1987) and are differentiated from process and product innovation because of their reliance on relationships with other organizations and actors.
asset specificity :
The degree to which an asset can be redeployed without sacrificing its productive value if the contract is to be interrupted or prematurely terminated. Because the “next best use” value of a specific asset is much lower, the investor would lose part of its investment if the transaction was not completed. This creates a lock-in situation where the other party (not investing) could extract an advantage from the investor by threatening to withdraw from the transaction (5).
assimilate :
The Webster’s New collegiate Dictionary defines to assimilate as “to absorb into the system” and “to take into the mind and to thoroughly comprehend”.
attitude :
Attitude is defined as an individual’s positive or negative feeling about performing the target behavior (Davis et al. 1989; Taylor and Todd 1995).
autonomy :
Autonomy refers to “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (Hackman and Oldham 1975, p. 162). Two important facets of autonomy are work method and work scheduling (Breaugh 1985). Work method autonomy is the degree of discretion or choice individuals have over procedures (methods) they use to complete tasks. Work scheduling autonomy is the degree to which the worker schedules the pace of task initiation and completion.
boundary spanning :
Boundary spanning refers to the formal and informal communications an individual has with external entities it relies upon for information.
business unit :
First, a BU was defined as a distinct and separable organizational entity with authority over key BU-level strategic decisions, including resource allocations. Second, it sold distinct products that customers could purchase independently of those offered by other BUs in the same firm. Third, it was managed by a GM with an executive team. Fourth, its firm evaluated it using profit measures such as return on investment (ROI) and return on sales (ROS).
central and peripheral route :
The central and peripheral routes are distinct in at least three ways. First, the two routes process different types of information. The central route processes message-related arguments, while the peripheral route processes cues. Second, the cognitive effort involved in information processing is much higher in the central route than in the peripheral route. The central route requires thoughtful comprehension of the arguments presented, evaluation of the quality of those arguments, and combination of multiple and sometimes conflicting arguments into an overall evaluative judgment, while the peripheral route is less demanding in that it merely requires subjects’ association with salient positive or negative cues related to the attitude object (Petty et al. 1981). Third, perception changes induced via the central route are generally more stable, more enduring, and more predictive of long-term behaviors since they are based on deliberate and thoughtful consideration of relevant arguments (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). In contrast, changes induced via peripheral cues tend to be less persistent, susceptible to counterinfluence, and less predictive of longterm behaviors.
centralization :
The extent to which decision rights are concentrated at the top. Based on interviews and hospital organizational charts, the degree of centralization of each hospital was determined (Appendix B).
commitment :
The extent to which decision rights are concentrated at the top. Based on interviews and hospital organizational charts, the degree of centralization of each hospital was determined (Appendix B).
compatibility with preffered work style:
refers to a fit with an individual’s preferred work style while perceived usefulness refers to the extent to which the system improves one’s job performance
complementarities :
refers to the ability of firms to leverage their partners’ complementary resources – resources that collectively generate greater rents than the sum of those obtained from their individual use
complex adaptive system :
By definition, a complex adaptive system is composed of unique, relatively autonomous, partially connected actors (Anderson, 1999; Davis, Eisenhardt, & Bingham, 2009). Examples include jazz bands, basketball teams, Broadway creative teams, ecosystems of firms, and firms using multibusiness organization.
complex technology :
“A complex technology is defined as a technology when first introduced, imposes a substantial burden on would-be adopters in terms of the knowledge needed to use them effectively” (Fichman and Kemerer, 1997).
computer self-efficacity :
Computer self-efficacy refers to individuals’ judgment of their capabilities to use computers in diverse situations (Compeau and Higgins 1995; Marakas et al. 1998).
conceptual notion of compatibility :
We define the conceptual notion of compatibility as the perceived cognitive distance between an innovation and precursor methods for accomplishing tasks.
constructivist approach :
according to the constructivist (or cultural) approach, adoption decisions are not so
much based on ‘economical fitness’, but on ‘social fitness’ or considerations of legitimacy, symbolism and fashion. An organization’s adoption decision is primarily based on a “logic of appropriateness”: organizations have identities and/or fulfil roles by recognizing situations and following rules which match appropriate behaviour to the situations they encounter [10, p. viii].
contract state :
In the public sector, the contract state can refer to contracting between public service organizations and their users/members of the public; contracting with external providers; or contracting between different parts of the public service.
cooperative episode :
A cooperative episode here refers to any kind of cooperation between one or more people from two departments.
coordination :
By coordination we mean “the mode of linking together different parts of an organization to accomplish a set of collective tasks” (Andres and Zmud 2001, p. 45). Coordination mechanisms are particularly suited for work environments characterized by goal confiict, task interdependence, and task uncertainty (Andres and Zmud 2002; Choudhury and Sabherwal 2003; Kirsch 1997)
co-ordination :
For Warren et al. (1974) it is: ‘a structure or process of concerted decision-making wherein the decisions or action of two or more organisations are made simultaneously in part or in whole with some deliberate degree of adjustment to each other’ (p. 16).
cross-business-unit collaboration :
We define cross-business-unit collaboration as collective activity by two or more business units
within a multibusiness organization to create economic value.
deep structure :
The deep structure consists of “the set of fundamental ‘choices’ a system has made of the basic parts into which the units will be organized and the basic activity patterns that will maintain its existence” (Gersick 1991, p. 14).
deep structure :
Tushman and Romanelli (1985, p. 176) consider the deep structure of an organization as composed of five attributes: (1) core beliefs and values regarding the organization, its employees and its environment, (2) services, technology and political time,3 (3) the distribution of power, (4) the horizontal and vertical integration arrangements (organizational arrangements),4 and (5) the nature, type and pervasiveness of control systems.
deliberate learning activities :
We define deliberate learning activities as explicit attempts to gain new information from experience that clarifies the value of a collaboration and fills out its details—that is, whether and how to implement the cross-BU collaboration.
dictator-by-default syndrome :
Then comes that uncomfortable moment when all eyes turn to the CEO. The team waits for the boss to make the final call, yet when it’s made, few people like the decision. Blame, though unspoken, is plentiful. The CEO blames the executives for indecisiveness; they resent the CEO for acting like a dictator. If this sounds familiar, you’ve experienced what I call the dictator-by-default syndrome.
diffusion of an innovation :
First, the diffusion of an innovation can be defined as “a process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” [16, p. 5]. It is important to make a distinction between the diffusion and the dissemination of an innovation. Whereas diffusion refers to the informal and “uncontrolled” spread of an innovation, dissemination refers to formally and centrally driven spread [8, p. 191–192].
DIG :
A distributed innovation group (DIG), which doesn’t “do” innovation but rather fosters and channels it. Innovation is an inherently distributed activity, encompassing innovators across and outside the corporation. The DIG serves as the center of expertise for innovation techniques, scouts for new developments outside the company, and provides experts for internal innovation initiatives. And it deploys technologies and methods that facilitate collaboration and innovation.
disconfirmation :
Disconfirmation is the discrepancy between expectations and actual experiences. Better-than-
expected outcomes lead to positive disconfirmation and worse-than-expected outcomes lead to negative disconfirmation (Churchill and Surprenant 1982; Kopalle and Lehmann 2001; Oliver 1980; Oliver et al. 1994).
discovery :
Second, because independent suppliers and complementors will generally be engaged in product development paths different from those of the original system developer, they are likely to innovate in ways that the system developer would not have chosen. Opening the system may allow the original designer to discover new combinations of product features that would otherwise be hard to foresee. By opening the system up it may be possible to use knowledge of suppliers and/or complementors to end up with a better product. We refer to this effect as discovery.
divergence :
First, the system developer loses some freedom to establish the technological trajectory of the system. Restraining this freedom is costly since it amounts to operating under constraints that could have been avoided with a closed approach. Indeed, suppliers and complementors are likely to maximize their own payoffs, not those of the original designer. And while there may be some positive correlation between the interests of different industry players, goals generally will not be perfectly aligned. We refer to this effect as divergence.
diversification level :
Diversification level refers to the extent to which a firm operates in distinct business segments (industries) simultaneously (Palepu 1985).
dynamic capability :
Dynamic capability refers to an ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external knowledge to respond to environmental change (Teece et al. 1997; Zollo and Winter 2002).
effective governance :
concerns the enforcement mechanisms of the relationship because these mechanisms influence transaction costs and the motivation to engage in rent-generating initiatives
effort expectency :
Effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease associated with the use ofthe system.
EIG :
An enterprise integration group (EIG), dedicated to the horizontal integration of the corporation. It picks from among competing integration projects and provides resources that enable them to succeed. It develops the architecture and management practices that make business integration easier over time. It may also manage a portfolio of integration activities and initiatives; serve as the corporation’s center of expertise in process improvement, large-project management, and program and portfolio management; and provide staff and possibly leaders for major business integration initiatives.
end user is satisfaction :
EUS in this research is defined as the IS end-user’s overall affective and cognitive evaluation of the pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment experienced with IS.
equity theory :
Equity theory in its most pristine form suggests that an individual will feel dissatisfied if his/her own inputs are greater than the benefits achieved, regardless of the benefit-input ratios of other people (Pritchard 1969; Oliver 1980).
excution risk :
Execution risk refers to the probability that project outcomes will be unsatisfactory (Wallace and Keil 2004).
expectation :
Expectation is defined as a set of pre-exposure beliefs about the product (Olson and Dover
1979; Susarla et al. 2003).
external influence :
The overall influence imposed by the external environment on the firm. An aggregate measure is used to capture the influence of competitive pressures, institutional pressures, or available resources.
facilitating conditions :
Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system.
firm dominance :
Firm dominance in this context refers to the extent to which a firm is dominant over its trading partner in an IOR (see §3.2 for more details). Barringer and Harrison (2000, p. 395)
functional meaning :
The functional meaning of an e-government innovation is (primarily) based on the logic of consequence and refers to the importance of the (perceived) characteristics of an innovation [3,7,16]. A distinction can be made between six – empirically interrelated but conceptually distinct – characteristics [16, pp. 16–17]: relative advantage (degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes – in economic terms, but also in terms of social prestige), compatibility (degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, norms, needs and past experiences), complexity (degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use), trialability (degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis), observability (degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others) and reinvention (degree to which an innovation can be changed or modified by a user in the process of adoption and implementation).
functionalist approach :
According to the functionalist approach – which is dominant in the models discussed above – adoption decisions are (primarily) driven by functional imperatives of efficiency. An organization’s adoption decision is primarily based on a “logic of consequence”: the assumption that organizations make choices among alternatives by evaluating their consequences in terms of prior preferences [10, p. vii].
general accountability :
refers to accountability for general policy or overall performance.
goodness of fit :
This process of sense making is focused on the creation of a match between an innovation and a potential adopter, a so-called “goodness of fit” [4,11]. As indicated above, this fit can be understood both in terms of the “logic of consequence” and the “logic of appropriateness”.
governance of it outsourcing :
According to these researchers, the governance of IT outsourcing relationships is about realizing the mutually defined set of outsourcing goals which requires an actively managed partnership.
group conflict asymmetry :
is a group-level construct that refers to the degree to which a group’s members differ in their
perception of how much conflict there is in the group.
hoarding :
Hoarding knowledge is often related to the fact that there is no a priori reason for a subsidiary top manager to devote resources to provide resources and knowledge to other corporate units without a clear benefit.
hold-up :
This phenomenon – which involves appropriation of economic rent from the government – is referred to in the literature as ‘hold-up’.
IBPS :
We define IBPS as technical specifications for interrelated, sequential tasks and business documents that are agreed upon and shared by trading entities to achieve a defined and common business objective.
individual conflict asymmetry :
is an individual-level aspect of conflict asymmetry and refers to the direction of the effect: that is, whether a member perceives more (or less) conflict than other group members.
information system implentation :
Cooper and Zmud (1990, p. 124) define information systems implementation “as an organizational effort toward diffusing appropriate information technology within a user community.”
innovation :
“any idea, practice or object tha tis perceived to be new by an individual or other unit of adoption”(1995: 11)
innovation :
The concept of innovation is complex – a process through which new ideas, objects and practices are created, developed or reinvented and which are new and novel to the unit of adoption (Aiken and Hage 1971; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981; Rogers 1995; Walker et al. 2002).
innovation diffusion :
Innovation diffusion is concerned with the diffusion of innovation through a population of potential adopter organizations over time and/or space (Wolfe 1994).
institutional meaning :
The institutional meaning of an e-government innovation is (primarily) based on the logic of appropriateness and refers to the notion of “isomorphism”. Isomorphism is “a constraining process, that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions” [4, p. 66].
integration :
We use the term integration to refer to “the quality of the state of collaboration that exists among departments that are required to achieve unity of effort by the demands of the environment” (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967, p. 11).
intergration :
Integration is making the multiple units, functions, and sites of large organizations work together to increase capacity, improve performance, lower cost structure, and discover opportunities for improvement that don’t appear until you look across functions.
integrative capability :
Integrative capability refers to an ability to integrate knowledge within and across organizational boundaries (Henderson 1994).
intent to explore IT :
A user’s willingness and purpose to explore a new technology and find potential uses.
intent to use IT :
The strength of a person’s intention to use IT.
IS flexibility :
IS flexibility refers to the ability to quickly and economically adapt the IS applications to changing business requirements (Kumar 2004, Schlueter Lang-don 2006).
IS integration :
Our definition of IS integration refers to the aggregate result of a combination of any of these technological approaches, including not just technical compatibility of software applications at the code level but also IT skills that render a higher degree of IS integration at the functional levels.
IS performance :
Is defined as the perceived outcome from IS use.
IT function power :
The extent to which the IT department can influence other organizational units. IT function power was measured by (1) the IT manager’s hierarchical distance from top management; (2) the IT manager’s and staff’s self-perception of power; (3) the role of IT in the hospital strategy; and (4) the administrative personnel’s and medical professionals’ perceptions of the IT department’s influence (Appendix C).
IT governance :
A path consisting of three organizational actors who played the leading role in the three stages of an IT investment decision. The lead actors can be of four types: top management (TM), IT professionals (ITP), administrative group (AG), and healthcare professionals (HCP).
IT investment :
In this study, an IT investment is defined as a hospital’s allocation of financial and/or human capital on a specific information system.
IT investment characteristics :
An investment’s organizational level (departmental, interdepartmental, enterprise, or interorganizational), functional scope, and business impact.
IT outsourcing :
refers to an organization’s decision to turn over the management of part or all of its IT resources and activities to one or more external IT providers (e.g., Altinkemer et al., 1994; Cheon et al., 1995; Hall and Liedtka, 2005; Hu et al., 1997; Willcocks and Kern, 1998).
IT outsourcing :
IT outsourcing typically includes the management and operation of computer facilities, the maintenance of information networks, the development of computer infrastructure and applications, and the training and support of employees.
knowledge sharing :
Knowledge sharing is defined as ‘‘the process through which one unit is affected by the experience of another’’ (Argote et al. 2000, 3).
knowledge-sharing routines :
defined as interfirm processes that facilitate the exchange of knowledge between the partners
leadership :
To further develop the concept of how leadership is shared among team members, we utilize Yukl’s definition of leadership as “influence processes involving determination of the group’s or organization’s objectives, motivating task behavior in pursuit of these objectives, and influencing group maintenance and culture” (1989: 5).
muddle through model :
The Muddle Through model joins a bureaucrat who does not master technology with a vendor who knows virtually nothing about his client organization.
multibusiness team :
We define a multibusiness team as a set of general managers acting collectively (Martin, forth coming)
multibusiness team decision :
A multibusiness team decision as a decentralized, consensual choice to implement a
collaboration that is made by the relevant GMs.
multiunit enterprise :
A multiunit enterprise – a geographically dispersed organization built from standard units such as branches, ser- vice centers, hotels, restaurants, and stores, which are aggre- gated into larger geographic groupings such as districts, regions, and divisions. Every tier has its own set of managers.
needs theory :
A basic assumption of all of the theories of needs is that when deficiencies of a need exist, individuals are motivated to take action to remove them in order to satisfy the need (Steers and
Porter 1991).
network :
The term network is conceptually broad, but we draw on a finer conceptualization of the relationship network (Lorenzoni and Lipparini 1996) that proposes that organizations deliberately shape and design a narrower set of tightly related partners.
not-invented-here syndrome :
The not-invented-here syndrome refers to the fact that agents may not want to accept new and potentially useful knowledge from each other because it was developed by another unit.
oppotunism :
Opportunism is often defined as “self-interest seeking with guile” leading to shirking, lying and other unethical behavior on the part ofthe agent or the principal (5, 8. 34).
origin of collaboration :
We defined the origin of a collaboration as the person(s) within a firm who first identified the
opportunity for the BUs involved to work together.
outsourcing :
I therefore define outsourcing as the evolution of complex technological and political relationships between bureaucrat and vendor after the two are formally joined together to produce a new IT product. In my definition, vendors can assume an important leadership role by co-opting bureaucratic bystanders to support their project, securing financing for it, and building technology in order to accomplish a particular organizational outcome. Bureaucrats can play a critical technological role by influencing the project’s technical decisions.
outsourcing :
Outsourcing is a management strategy that farms out non-core organizational activities to vendors who specialize in these activities in order to execute them more efficiently, reliably and economically.
outsourcing :
The transfer of service provision from the public to an external organization (which is typically in the private sector but may also be an in-house team) is defined here as public sector outsourcing.
outsourcing effectiveness :
I define outsourcing effectiveness as the degree to which the predefined strategic objectives of outsourcing are realized.
overlapping responsibilities :
Multiunit enterprises try to execute well by having managers at different tiers of the field organization focus on the same issues. This creates a multilayered net that prevents problems from slipping through.
overload :
Overload refers to an individual’s perception that they cannot perform a task because they lack critical resources. Overload has two dimensions: quantitative and qualitative (Sales 1970). Quantitative overload refers to people’s perception that they cannot do something because of limitations imposed by their environment such as time or accessibility to a resource. Even though adequate resources may exist, qualitative overload occurs when employees perceive assigned work as exceeding their capability or skill level. These dimensions reflect employees’ beliefs about resources in their immediate task environment.
particular accountability :
is restricted to accountability for particular decisions.
peformance risk :
Performance risk refers to the likelihood that performance outcomes are estimated inaccurately (Nidumolu 1995).
perceived ease-of-use :
EOU refers to the degree to which a person believes thatusing a particular system would be effortless (Davis 1989).
perceived usefulness :
is defined as the degree to which a person believes that use of a system would improve his or her performance (Davis 1989), and thus taps into the instrumental outcomes a user associates with technology use.
performance expectency :
Performance expectancy is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performan
performance metrics :
Define expectations in the contract. Metrics establish what is expected and what happens if expectations are not met. Use metrics that support business goals. If cost-effectiveness is a major decision driver, include contract provisions to encourage the vendor to reduce costs for the agency. Contracts can also use incentives to encourage vendors to surpass performance
requirements. Cost increases due to the addition of other services from the vendor are avoided if expectations are defined so the scope of work is clear (47, p. 22).
personal innovativeness :
They define PI as a trait that reflects the “willingness of an individual to try out any new information technology” (Agarwal and Prasad 1998, p. 206).
political contest model :
In the Political Contest model, the vendor assumes leadership by manipulating his technical expertise and knowledge of the organization’s politics.
political meaning :
The political meaning of an e-government innovation is (primarily) based on the logic of appropriateness and refers to the opportunity structure an innovation can provide.
power game model :
Finally, in the Power Game model, I join a technically proficient bureaucrat with an insider vendor. If the two cooperate well, they can overcome great bureaucratic opposition and deploy innovative IT products that re-engineer the organization’s daily work routines.
power games :
Power games refer here to the unjustified use of power for personal aims, for instance, to enrich oneself or one’s department or to increase one’s control in the organization.
presumption of altruism :
The presumption of altruistn is the belief that organizations will collaborate purely for the good of the community they serve. There is therefore an assumption that consensus about ends and purposes is readily attainahle between separate organizations.
presumption of rationality :
The presumption of rationaUtj is the belief that organizations will collaborate where it can be shown that they can achieve the same ends more efficiently by working together rather than separately. ChaUis et al. (1988) suggest that the rhetoric of rationality is enduring because it reflects and embodies the ideology of public bureaucracies concerned to bring about predictability and regularity in a turbulent world.
privatization :
The decision to transfer asset ownership from public to private hands is defined here as privatization.
process coupling :
Process coupling refers to the intermeshing of activities of a focal firm with its business partners such that processes spanning firm boundaries are operationally integrated. It is an outcome of coordinated inter-firm activities such that each firm works to accomplish its set of collective tasks (Van de Ven etal. 1976).
process performance:
In contrast, process performance refers to the quality of the development process – most notably effective planning and efficient implementation.
product performance :
Product performance refers to the quality of the project outcome or effectiveness of the installed system.
project completion :
We define project completion as the point at which implementation has concluded.
relatedness :
The described risk factor is termed relatedness, sometimes called interdependence and refers to the interconnections between tasks, business units or functions.
relational assets :
I define relational assets as firm assets that are acquired to serve a particular interorganizational relationship.
relational capabilities :
I define relational capabilities as repeatable patterns of actions in the use of relational assets
relational value :
We use the term relational value to refer to the economic rents generated within a relationship by unique combinations of complementary relation-specific resources that partnering firms bring to bear (Dyer and Singh 1998).
relation-specific assets :
defined as investments in assets that are specialized to the interorganizational relationship.
ressource complementarity :
Resource complementarity is also a major source of cross-unit synergy (Tanriverdi and Venkatraman 2005). According to the economic theory of complementarities (Milgrom and Roberts 1990, 1995), a set of resources is complementary when the returns to a resource vary in
the levels of returns to the other resources.
ressource relatedness :
This study defines IT relatedness as the extent to which a multibusiness firm uses common IT resources and common IT management processes across its business units. IT relatedness can have as many dimensions as the number of distinct IT resources and management processes. Resource relatedness refers to the use of common resources (i.e., common factors of production) across business units. According to the RBV of diversification, the use of common factors of production across multiple business units creates sub-additive production cost synergies (Farjoun 1998; Robins and Wiersema 1995).
retained organization :
The main responsibility of the retained organization is to continually align the business units, which are in fact the customers of the retained organization, and service provider expectations and furthermore to manage the service provider relationship on a daily basis in order to ensure that the outsourcing engagement delivers the expected value to the business.
shared leadership :
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), we define share leadership as an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members.
shared leadership :
We define shared leadership as an emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members.
social influence :
Social influence is defined as the degree to which an Individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system.
software reuse :
Software reuse is a process innovation that strives to maximize the use of reusable components in building a stream of software applications within a specific domain (Prieto-Diaz 1993; Tracz 1987). In essence, reuse shifts the focus of a software development group from developing relatively independent software applications to populating a repository with architecturally related software components to be applied in fabricating a stream of software applications (Basset 1997; Fichman and Kemerer 2001; STARS 1996).
standard :
A standard is a set of “technical specifications adhered to by a producer, either tacitly or as a result of a formal agreement” (David and Greenstein 1990, p. 4).
synergy :
The strategy and economics literatures define the concept of synergy in terms of super-additive value or sub-additive cost (Tanriverdi and Venkatraman 2005). Two business units (a) and (b) enjoy super-additive value synergies if their joint value is greater than the sum of their individual values: Value (a, b) > Value (a) + Value (b). They enjoy sub-additive cost synergies (or economies of scope) if the use of common factors of production reduces joint production costs of the business units: Cost (a, b) < Cost (a) + Cost (b).
technological competition model :
In the Technological Competition model, the bureaucrat assumes leadership through his knowledge of the organization and technical expertise.
top management championship :
It refers to the extent that top management supports, directly and indirectly, and commits to the continuous use of the ERP.
trying to innovate with IT:
A user’s goal of finding new uses of existing workplace information technologies.
user expectations of IS :
Are defined as “a set of beliefs held by the targeted users of IS associated with the eventual performance of IS and with their performance using the system” (Szajna and Scamell 1993, p. 494).
user involvement :
Although recently defined as a psychological state where a user ascribes importance to a system, traditionally user involvement has referred to user participation in the systems development process (Hartwick and Barki 1994).
user involvement :
User involvement refers to the psychological engagement of users with the resultant IS product of that development process (Barki and Hartwick, 1989).
voting paradoxe :
Reaching collective decisions based on individual preferences is an imperfect science. Majority wishes can clash when a group of three or more people at- tempts to set priorities among three or more items. This “voting paradox,” first noted in the eighteenth century by the Marquis de Condorcet, a French mathematician and social theorist, arises because different subsets of the group can generate conflicting majorities for all possible alternatives.
