Engagement in public service IT projects
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•258 vues
A pecha kucha presentation to the UK Academy for Information Systems at Oxford in March 2012 _v1a
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Engagement in public service IT projects
Similaire à Engagement in public service IT projects (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Engagement in public service IT projects
- 1. Engagement in public service IT projects (a pecha kucha) UK AIS 2012 Liz Hartnett e.hartnett@open.ac.uk 1
- 2. Public scrutiny & accountability 2
- 3. A cause of project failure Lack of effective engagement with stakeholders NAO (2006) 3
- 4. Previous research on engagement 4
- 5. The puzzle 5
- 6. Something different Communication: a process of “human sense reading and sense giving” Walsham, (2002) 6
- 7. Initial conceptual model for engagement CONDITIONS BEHAVIOURS afford Environment Sharing Participants Sense-making Expertise influence 7
- 8. Research questions • What behaviours are required for engagement? • Which conditions are important for engagement? • How do these conditions and behaviours interact? 8
- 9. Cases in government Case A B C D E Sector Island Island Local Central Non- departmental public body Requirements IT strategy Systems Appraisal of Systems Systems developmen IT options developmen analysis t t People Users Users Clients Clients Clients involved Contractors Consultant Suppliers Consultant ~60 public Consultants Consultant’s Contractors Consultant’s servants in informants Users informants ISD (users) (users) Contractors Consultants External Consultants, Consultants, One Suppliers, One professionals contractors contractors consultant contractors consultant 9
- 10. Environment & participants • Photo from a case study 15/09/12 10
- 11. Interactions EMERGENT CONDITIONS BEHAVIOURS communicate Sharing Environment participate Participants Sense-making contribute Expertise 11
- 12. Sharing 15/09/12 12
- 13. Sense making 15/09/12 13
- 15. Interactions EMERGENT BEHAVIOURS Sharing expertise and what’s in the Sharing environment facilitates sense making Behaviour starts trust , which influences sharing Sense-making understand commit Adapting 15
- 16. Adapting 15/09/12 16
- 17. Interactions Adapting behaviour EMERGENT allows persuasion CONDITIONS BEHAVIOURS and influence Sharing Environment Behaviour starts trust , which influences sharing Participants influence Sense-making understand commit persuade Expertise co-produce Adapting Adapting 17
- 18. Developed model 18
- 19. Fitting together 19
- 20. Further? • Is it worth it? • Proof? – Context limited to public sector projects – Context limited to IT projects – Context limited to successful projects 20
Notes de l'éditeur
- This paper investigates engagement in public sector information IT projects. IT projects are important to the public sector because they are a key means of implementing government policy especially when a department changes how it functions and provides services. For example, we need IT services for our taxes, our passports, our benefits. Local government uses IT when providing social services, parks, libraries, education. 15/09/12
- There’s public scrutiny on public services and failure is published. When a central government project goes wrong, its management is hauled up in front of a Parliamentary select committee to the embarrassment of public servants and their suppliers. e.g. chairman (Sir Nicholas Montague) of the Inland Revenue From http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/take-part-in-committee-inquiries/ 15/09/12
- But before we look for effective engagement, what is engagement ? How do you know it when you see it? How does it manifest itself? Cartoon from http://gapingvoid.com/2007/04/06/tech-problems-dont-exist/ - my licensing terms, “ Hey, if you want to put the work up on your website, blog, or stick it on paper, t-shirts, business cards, stickers, homemade greeting cards, Powerpoint slides, or whatever, as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's just for your own personal use, as long as you're not trying to make money off it directly, and you're giving me due attribution, I'm totally cool with the idea.” 15/09/12
- Photo of journals representing literature Previous research has been surveys and focused on job engagement or learning engagement or customer engagement viewing engagement as a one-way relationship, rather than a transfer and sharing of knowledge though communicating with other people. Concepts that might be similar to engagement are Participation or involvement, commitment, or collaboration. 15/09/12
- Slide of jigsaw pieces to represent the puzzle of fitting together commitment, collaboration & participation Handley sees participation as involving “hearts and minds” Weick sees commitment as behaviour that cannot be undone. Huxham sees collaboration as cooperation relationships that organisations do together with complementary, not shared goals. And none of these is quite the same as engagement where people on IT projects communicate and work on shared goals. So we need something different. Image from http://www.clker.com/clipart-16482.html 15/09/12
- Communicating is a process. Communicating requires people - the same requirement as for engagement – participants in the process. Communicating requires information, or knowledge, or expertise . People share expertise. People make sense of shared knowledge. So you have conditions of people, and expertise in an environment and you have behaviours of sharing and making sense. 15/09/12
- You have an environment in which those conditions exist for the participants and for expertise. That environment encourages, allows or affords sharing and sense making behaviours. That’s the theory that the research started from. 15/09/12
- What’s the special nature of public sector IT projects? there’s not much internal IT skills, so they outsource IT work. So you’ve always got this relationship with external professional suppliers. The research needed perspectives from various participants on any one project to find how they thought they engaged. It’s difficult to get access to the public sector so there’s not much research in that context, yet I gained access by approaching public sector clients who were using external suppliers and consultants and through the clients also accessed their suppliers. 15/09/12
- You’ve got this unusual culture in the public sector - You find they have phrases like ‘let and forget’ so they procure their suppliers and won’t talk to them anymore. Ask who manages them and they answer ‘accounts?’ People don’t engage with their suppliers – I do have data – see cases where sometimes clients don’t interact with consultants, something is lacking in the interaction – not easily identified that something is missing. It’s difficult to analyse what didn’t happen. 15/09/12
- Communication needs environment and participants . In this photo of an open-plan environment, participants are trying to solve a technical problem by sharing their different skills – some are contractors with technical expertise; others are business specialists. See the log that they’re looking at - it helps them make sense of their actions. (Materiality is useful – a finding) 15/09/12
- So in that environment the participants are sharing the log and contributing their expertise together 15/09/12
- This first behaviour, sharing, leads to others, assuming trust develops. Documents such as plans were shared. One project had three separate plans. Participants had to trust before sharing. Leading to other behaviour – a finding Trust develops from sharing – a finding Created using www.wordle.net Feedback The clouds worked well as a way of showing what emerged from the data. Define sharing. I.e. give boundaries, what’s inside, outside and its limitations. Do the same for sense making and adapting. 15/09/12
- People learnt by making sense of shared knowledge. Making sense of each other’s plans meant recognising requirements, and mile stones. Client learning is added value – a finding helping to manage knowledge across organisational boundaries The value of engagement is that it allows you to manage knowledge at the boundaries between participants. Created using www.wordle.net 15/09/12
- Sharing draws out trust, trust draws out sharing. Once you’ve got sharing and trust you have new relationships, even in a time bounded one-off project. Learn by heart {Orlikowski, 2002 #1350;Wenger, 2000 #1148} 15/09/12
- Making sense of each other’s plans meant that they adapted. There’s interaction between the behaviours. 15/09/12
- Adapting involved time and effort, face to face contact and flexibility so it’s not easy, not comfortable but it’s essential. One plan between three parties is easier to adapt to than three plans. Adapting is a result of sharing and sense making. By adapting, participants could influence each other’s behaviour, and change the environment as well as the expertise of participants. – is this a finding? Check literature review for arguments about adaptation and adapting Created using www.wordle.net 15/09/12
- Adapting allows participants to change the conditions by influencing them, co-creating new knowledge, persuading or changing participants. This shows the boundary objects when shared, help make sense each other's behaviour. The value of this engaged behaviour is that it allows you to manage knowledge at the boundaries between participants. 15/09/12
- This template answers the research questions: What behaviours are required for engagement? Which conditions are important for engagement? How do these conditions and behaviours interact? This is general. Where’s the contribution specifically to IT projects? Why is it in these cases? Why did the engagement happen well here, but not there? What led to better engagement or less good? It’s to do with willingness, it’s which participants, because changing participants changes willingness or knowledgeability. Changing top client management got interaction between clients, then change in supplier led to change all the way down the chain. Isf file stored on laptop under research 15/09/12
- This model embellishes what is already known about engagement BUT wasn’t obvious because: pieces didn’t fit together, and because it it draws on research to join together disparate literatures so provides a theoretical advance in studying project participants’ relationships. Secondly, the research provides a means to make a difference to practice by providing a model to analyse what is happening between people in a project so this research contributes to practice and is relevant to IT project stakeholders. Image from http://images.brighthub.com/fb/7/fb7a1482e4c1eeea118be2e5d30023cbf5c45ec2_large.jpg 15/09/12
- Is it worth it – yes because the value of engagement is in it allowing us to manage projects. We – the participants – can manage our environment, other participants and the knowledge, skills, expertise so we can change your environment – like create a blog for sharing anonymous criticisms, or bring in new participants with different expertise Da-da! The model might work in other contexts? 15/09/12