in general relate to outreach organizations or—programs; companies refer in
most cases to banks and publishing houses, but also to consultancy fi
firms.
Alliances refer to pre-existing forms of cooperation between municipalities.
5.4 Activation: Moderation between
Pressure and Organizational Search
Although respondents indicated that organizational search activities follow
up on institutional pressure, from the case study so-called activation triggers
(Zahra & George, 2002) can be identifi e
fi d that result in episodic changes
(Tyre & Orlikowksi, 1994). Activation triggers in municipal e-government
development include disasters aff e
ff cting municipal organizations (in the Dutch
situation, the explosion of a fi
fireworks factory in the city of Enschede trig-
gered a political crisis and in the subsequent reorganization, personalized
e-government services were seen as a opportunity to help shape the new orga-
nization) but also the merger of municipalities and the appointment of new
senior managers or politicians. These occasions do not by themselves induce
organizational change but rather amplify the pre-existing impact of pressure
on organizational search activities.
5.5 Framing
In line with the Swedish Institutionalism mentioned in the section on Theo-
retical Antecedents of Diff
ffusion, knowledge and ideas cannot simply be
transfused from one organization to the other; rather, ideas, concepts, and
knowledge is repacked and re-embedded (Isabella, 1990). In the fi el
fi d study,
we observed that various adopters framed ideas and chunks of knowledge
completely diff eren
ff
tly. Personalization was sometimes framed as a precur-
sor of an organization being a service champion (actually enabling citizen-
centric service delivery), a means for achieving effi
ci
ffi ency ( “If the processes
are well-organized, I am convinced that in the long run we can do without
large number of members of staff,”
ff Alderman), reputation (“We think that
we, being part of a high technology region, are obliged to modernize our
service delivery”, Head of Customer Relations Department), and control
Diff
ffusion of Personalized Services 193
Table 14.9 Frames of Personalization
‘Framing’ of Innovations
Frequency
Service champion
102
Effi ciency
ffi
48
Reputation
54
Control
27
(“Now the focus is on the front offi
ffice . . . but in the near future we intend
to reengineer processes in the back offi
ffice as well, as to simplify and speed
up processes,” Project Manager Service Delivery).
5.6 Social
Integration
From the observations in the fi el
fi d work, and informed by our theoretical dis-
cussion of the Swedish Institutionalism, we could observe that translation,
transfusion and repackaging of knowledge and ideas are social integration
processes in which specifi
fic actors play a role (Czarniawska & Sevon, 2005).
The actual transformation and transfusion of knowledge and ideas regard-
ing personalization takes place through exchange of staff am
ff
ong municipali-
ties, but also by the activities of (internal) innovation champions that actively
‘pitch’ innovations, as well as by activities of external knowledge brokers.
John Doe, of Consulting Inc 7 , that is a remarkable character. He has access to senior management levels, where normally no one understands the potential of modern ICTs. But he is able to come up with
brilliant applications, stories and examples. (Program manager)
5.7 Synthesis: Persuasion and Communication
Underlying Adoption Decisions
The theory building reported above can be summarized in fi ve
fi conjectures:
• Conjecture 0: municipalities experience both internal as well as exter-
nal infl uenc
fl
e to adopt personalized e-government services;
• Conjecture 1: institutional infl
fluence on municipalities to adopt per-
sonalized e-government services results in increased organizational
search activities;
• Conjecture 2: activation triggers moderate the impact of institutional
infl u
fl ence on organizational search activities;
• Conjecture 3: in order to inform adoption decisions, knowledge and
ideas resulting from search activities are framed in such a way as to
appeal to local priorities and ambitions;
194 Vincent
Homburg and Andres Dijkshoorn
• Conjecture 4: only knowledge and ideas that are framed as to appeal
to local priorities and ambitions inform decisions to adopt personal-
ized e-government services.
With these conjectures, a model of how municipalities (being public sec-
tor organizations) actually adopt e-government innovations, how these
municipalities actually learn to innovate, and how institutional infl uenc
fl
e
shapes e-government adoption, can be presented (see Figure 14.1 for a graphic representation). With this model, the channels of persuasion underlying the adoption of, in our case, personalized e-government services have
been decomposed, thereby revealing both the structure as well as agency of
adoption decisions in the public sector.
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter has explored the process by which public organizations—
more specifi call
fi
y, Dutch municipalities—adopt personalized e-government
services. In doing so, it builds upon an institutional tradition of technol-
ogy diffusion, in which technology diff
ffusion and adoption is associated not
primarily with individually rational cost/benefi
fit considerations, but rather
Figure 14.1
Model of institutional influence on adoption of personalized
e- government.
Diff
ffusion of Personalized Services 195
with organizations’ attempts to cope with a variety of prevailing norms,
values, belief systems and rules that are imposed upon them. Furthermore,
it has been our objective to highlight the role of human agency in the pro-
cess of innovation, rather than focus on explaining the outcome as such.
Our analysis has concentrated on environmental pressure and ways in
which knowledge and ideas regarding innovations are dealt with in munici-
pal organizations.
One important fi
finding of our research is that municipalities are con-
fronted with horizontal and vertical channels of persuasion, by which
pressure is put on municipalities to adopt innovations. Here, we add the
element of “persuasion” to the existing notion of communication channels
in the innovation literature, as communication to (potential) adopters was
perceived as being compelling “evidence” to behave in a partic
ular way.
A second fi
finding was that environmental pressure imposed on munic-
ipalities was followed up by organizational search activities resulting in
knowledge that was actively framed in terms of either (1) essential for ser-
vice delivery, (2) effi
fficiency, (3) reputation and/or (4) organizational control.
Here we can infer how human agency plays a role in the eventual decision
whether or not to adopt personalized e-government services.
These fi
findings raise a number of questions for further research. First,
direction and source of institutional pressure (horizontal, vertical, or mixed)
may depend on differences in centralized, decentralized, or decentralized
unity state regimes. Comparative research is needed to reveal differences
and similarities in this respect. Second, we have analyzed the antecedents
of personalization; it may be of interest to examine the eff
ffects of personal-
ization, including possible unintended consequences of inequality in service
provision and weakening of popular sovereignty (Fountain, 2001). Third
and fi
finally, we realize that the model depicted in Figure 14.1 is overly styl-ized and simplifi
fied, and additional research activities may be needed to
include feedback loops and interactions between identified constructs.
NOTES
1.
Note
that population size has dropped from 458 (2006) to 418 (2010)
throughout the time frame covered due to ongoing reorganizations and
mergers, particularly of smaller municipalities.
2.
Local elections were held in 2006 and 2010, implying that no major political
changes have occurred in the time frame covered.
3. SPSS 16.0 and Marketing Engineering extensions of Microsoft Excel.
4. Note that interviews were held in Dutch; the authors present the quotations in the Analysis section in English.
5.
Using the MaxQDA qualitative analysis tool.
6. We used SPSS 16.0 in combination with the Marketing Engineering utility for Excel.
7. Name of respondent and the consultancy fi
firm were changed to maintain
anonymity.
196 Vincent Homburg and Andres Dijkshoorn
REFERENCES
Andersen, K. V. , & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models:
Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly,
23(2), 236–248.
Bass, M. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables. Manage-
ment Science, 15, 215–227.
Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, B. (2005). Global ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School
Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fi
fields. American Socio-
logical Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press & Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fountain, J. (2001). Paradoxes of public sector customer service. Governance.
14(1), 55–73.
Homburg, V. M. F. (2008). Understanding e-government: Information systems in
public administration. London: Routledge.
Homburg, V. M. F., & Dijkshoorn, A.D. (2011). Diff us
ff ion of personalized e-gov-
ernment services among Dutch municipalities (an empirical investigation and
explanation). International Journal of E-Government Research, 7(3), 21–37.
Isabella, L. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds—How managers con-
strue key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41.
King, J., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K., McFarlan, F., Raman, K., & Yap, C. (1994).
Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Sys-
tems Research, 5(2), 139–169.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G., A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2 (1981) 307–333.
Loh, L., & Venkatraman, N. (1992). Diff
ffusion of information technology out-
sourcing influence sources and the Kodak eff ec
ff t. Information Systems Research,
3(4), 334–358.
Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion. Beverley-Hills CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis ( 2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots:
Tortoise or hare? Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A prac-
tice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can
research on information technology and research on organizations learn from
each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145–165.
Os, G. S. van (2011). The challenge of coordination: Coordinating integrated elec-
tronic service delivery in Denmark and the Netherlands. Information Polity,
16(1), 51–61.
Pieterson, W., Ebbers, W., & van Dijk, J. (2007). Personalization in the public sector: An inventory of organizational and user obstacles towards personalization
of electronic services in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly,
24(1), 148–164.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative
analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diff
ffusion of Personalized Services 197
Reddick, C. G. (2009). Factors that explain the perceived eff
ffectiveness of e-govern-
ment: A survey of United States city government information technology direc-
tors. International Journal of E-Government Research, 5(2), 1–15.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diff
ffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional
theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-
tion studies (pp. 175–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity—Temporal pat-
terns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(1), 98–118.
Wang, H., & Doong, H. (2010). Does government effort or citizen word-of-mouth
determine e-government service diffusion? Behaviour & Information Technol-
ogy, 29(4), 1–15.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptual-
ization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review. 27(2), 185–203.
15 E-Government Adoption
of XBRL
A U.K./U.S. Comparison
Rania Mousa and Yu-Che Chen
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter examines the adoption of an e-government innovation utilizing
the Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL). XBRL brings stan-
dardization to business and fi
financial information for meaningful compari-
son. XBRL is viewed as the barcode of business and fi n
fi ancial information.
Moreover, XBRL enables effi
fficient gathering, validation, and dissemination
of business and fi
financial data for regulators and investors alike. For e-gov-
ernment, XBRL plays a critical role in transforming the electronic regula-
tory reporting process.
This chapter investigates two prominent cases of e-government XBRL
adoption: the Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S.) and Companies
House (U.K.). Both are the main regulators of business and fi
financial infor-
mation for their respective countries. The emphasis is on identifying and
analyzing the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) that contribute to the adop-
tion of XBRL at both agencies.
The main fi
findings of this research suggest that similarities in e-govern-
ment adoption in United States and United Kingdom span a number of
CSFs. These factors include the emphasis on making XBRL business case
for government agencies, availability of in-house technical expertise, secure
access to technical and non-technical stakeholders’ support, and the agen-
cies’ capabilities in overcoming the technical difficulties encountered in
adopting XBRL. These fi
findings are relevant to the theory and practice of
adopting innovative e-government in general and transforming regulatory
reporting in particular.
1 INTRODUCTION
Throughout the world, there has been a signifi
ficant paradigm shift where
government agencies have recognized the importance of adopting techno-
logical initiatives that would serve as a transformative tool for innovative
governments. Many government agencies have relied—and few still do—on
E-Government Adoption of XBRL 199
conventional paper-based reporting methods, which have undermined the
agencies’ ability to provide effi
fficient reporting services and streamline gov-
ernment operations. However, the landscape of government has changed,
and new reporting technologies have become key components in govern-
ments’ legacy reporting systems (Reddick, 2009; Pavlichev & Garson,
2004; Norris, 1999). One of these remarkable reporting technologies is
the Extensible Business Reporting Language. Ushering in standardization,
XBRL has revolutionized the electronic reporting systems by bringing
additional cost savings, providing timely fi
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 34
