1

EGPA Conference 2010

“Temporalities, Public Administrations and Public Policies”

Toulouse, France

8-10 September, 2010

PSGI: E-Government

REFORM AND CHANGE OF WORK PRACTICES IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS.

THE ROLE OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS VIS À VIS

OTHER COORDINATION TOOLS IN AN ITALIAN PUBLIC AGENCY

Marta Trotta (*)

University of Rome “Tor Vergata” (Italy), Faculty of Economics Via Columbia, 2 - 00133 Roma

e-mail: trotta.marta@gmail.com

Danila Scarozza

University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Faculty of Economics Via Columbia, 2 - 00133 Roma

e-mail: danila.scarozza@uniroma2.it

Luca Gnan

University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Faculty of Economics Via Columbia, 2 - 00133 Roma e-mail: luca.gnan@uniroma2.it

Alessandro Hinna University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Faculty of Economics

Via Columbia, 2 - 00133 Roma e-mail: alessandro.hinna@uniroma2.it

(*) corresponding author

2

The reform of work practices in public organizations.

The role of information systems vis à vis

other coordination tools in an Italian public agency

1. INTRODUCTION

Following the reform process that involved European countries since 1990s, public organizations

tried to modify “what people do every day to get their work done” (Miettinen et. al, 2009: 1312).

In 1980s and 1990s New Public Management (NPM) (Hood, Jackson, 1991; Barberis, 1998; Hood,

1998; Ferlie et al., 2005; Vigoda-Gadot, Meiri, 2008) suggests to public organizations a gradual abandon of

their bureaucratic archetype adapting logics, principles and management techniques of private companies

without betraying their mission and their public nature.

In the attempt to move beyond the redesign of the internal mechanisms of each organization

suggested by NPM, public sector scholars asked for a conceptual shift from “government” to “governance”,

evidencing that innovation might be considered as a question of coordination and integration between

public organizations and their broader environment (Kettl, 2002). Following Public Governance (PG)

arguments, social and economical phenomena can be more efficiently governed with close interactions

between public organizations and social actors, creating a favourable and encouraging environment (Kettl,

2002).

Therefore: on one side, within the new managerial tools suggested by NPM, the performance

measurement is receiving a particular attention (Ittner, Larcker, 1998) in order to implement new

transparent mechanisms to support the definition of organizational objectives and procedures and to

ensure internal accountability. The conceptual and practical development of some techniques, such as

Management by Objectives (MBO), owes a great deal to experience transparency. On the other side,

following PG, several tools are related with organizational practices as mechanisms to allow both the

exercise of right of access and the exercise external accountability. In other words, NPM and PG ask for

tools improving simplification, transparency and participation of different actors to the life of public bodies

(Rhodes,1996; Leftwich 1993). In comparison with the traditional models, which characterized the values

and the basic assumptions of the public bureaucracies (Schein, 1988), new and different cultural models are

requested.

To start a reform process by passing a bill does not necessarily mean to make change happen

(Caiden, 1991). The pressure to obtain better value (Moore, 1995) from public administration is growing,

while politicians and practitioners request to “change in practice”. Abandoning the rational approach and

considering the administration as an operational system (Cotterrell, 2004; Friedberg, 2007) allows a merge

between the prescriptions of the reforms and the effective practices of organizations. Following scholars

who have seen the organization as a “process” and not only as a “thing” (Tsoukas, 2005; Weick et al., 2005;

Whetten, 2006), the theme of change in public administration is connected not only with laws and

regulations but also with procedural, cognitive, creative and cultural dimensions of the organizations

(Moynihan, Landuyt, 2009; Van de Ven, Poole, 2005; Yanow, 2000). Even if public bureaucracies are

3

conservative by nature (Bannister, 2001), the introduction of new and different instruments causes or is

related to certain changes in the organization or its members (Covalesky, 1981).

For instance, a typical component of reform is represented by making public sector more

accountable for their decisions and actions. The necessity to be accountable is connected both to the

sphere of ménage the action of public administration and performance that characterized the NPM debate

(Mulgan, 2003; Calciolari, 2009), and to active public decision making and transparent public action that

characterized the PG framework (Peters, Pierre, 2000: 67; Erkkilä, 2007). In that general frame, a new

relevance of Information Systems (IT) arises. The creation of new Information Systems is an essential

component in the creation of internal and external accountability but, at the same time, it represents a

critical issues for all public reform initiatives, because of their pervasive nature. According to Kling (1980), IS

enlarge the information processing capacity of people and they have critical influences on their interactions

and work practices. But, despite this relevance on change, IS clash with the bureaucratic culture (Berman,

Tettey. 2001). In order to manage the required organizational change, the introduction of IS should be

related with the implementation of different technically, structurally and socially tools, defining a common

thread for public administration Bozeman (1987).

Regarding Information Systems as enablers for introducing other tools suggested by NPM and PG,

some important questions arise:

- How the introduction of Information System influence the actors’ practices?

- How Information System relate with the adoption of the other different tools?

To answer this questions, the paper presents the case of an Italian Non-economic Public Agency

called INAIL - The Workers Compensation Authority. Since the beginning of the 1990s, Italian public

administrations reform aims to support the implementation of planning and control systems, to improve

administrative transparency and to increase the participation of the external actors in the life of public

bodies, through the introduction of new specific laws (i. e. Law 241/1990 and Legislative Degree 29/1993).

This Italian Public agency seem to be the context in which innovations go beyond a mere technical

approach and impact on the system of relationship between public organizations and the external social

actors.

The life stories of 44 bureaucrats are collected through semi-structured interviews aimed to gather

data on the professional life of public officials in order to understand “if” and “how” the reforms

suggestions can change bureaucrats’ actions and work practices (Wegner, 1998). The analysis of the

collected life stories shows that organization actors practices are producers of services and, at the same

time, creator of relations.

The rest of paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the main features of

change in public sector. In the second section we present the conceptual framework. In the third section

we propose three propositions which relate the Information System and NPM’s and PG’s tools to work

practices. In the fourth section research method is described. Finally, results and conclusions are presented

and discussed.

4

2. REFORMING PUBLIC ORGANIZATION

“Since the 1980s a global reform movement in public management has been vigorously underway”

(Kettl, 2000: 1). The changes in public organizations have moved from an initial inspiration by the New

Public Management (NPM) movement proceeding towards Public Governance (PG) approach.

NPM (Hood, Jackson, 1991; Barberis, 1998; Hood, 1998; Ferlie et al., 2005; Vigoda-Gadot, Meiri,

2008) synthesizes the reforms that leaded public organizations to a gradual abandon of their bureaucratic

archetype towards those of private companies. NPM started a process with logics, principles, and

management techniques used in private firms transplanted into public organizations. An adaptation of

private organizational models, rather than direct copying them (Meneguzzo, 1997; Borgonovi, 2006), was

required. The main changes suggested by NPM are: privatization; emphasis on citizen as a client;

decentralization or downsizing; strategic management; measuring results and evaluating performances; use

of market mechanisms (prevalently contracting-out and contracting-in); separation of politics and

administration; use of IT; pursuit of resources efficiency (Capano, 2003).

On one hand, the aim of the NPM was the re-design public organizations in terms both of their

organizational structures and of their inter-organizational relationships (Capano, 2003). On the other hand,

the NPM goal was to re-define the internal mechanisms of each organization.

Despite the great diffusion of the NPM discussion, public sector scholars (Bovaird, Löffler, 2001;

Stoker, 2006; O’Flynn, 2007) suggest to look beyond NPM considering its limitations, such as: the prevalent

(or exclusive) focus on the needs of customers; the division of power between politicians and

administrators; the consideration of the budget formulation as a top-down exercise; the prevalent focus on

technical efficiency, etc.

On this basis, public sector literature highlighted the shift from the “government” to “governance”

debate (Peters, Pierre, 1998; Lynn et al., 2000; Kettl, 2000; Bevir et al., 2003; Eckardt, 2008; Kelmann,

2007), evidencing that innovation might be considered as a question of coordination and integration

between public organizations and their broader environment (Kettl, 2002). In the Public Governance (PG)

discourse, social and economical phenomena can be more efficiently governed with close interactions

between public organizations and social actors, creating a favourable and an encouraging environment

(Kettl, 2002). In the PG discourse, the interactions between public organizations and social actors form the

basis of an effective public administration and make it easier to understand the “voice” of society (Kettl,

2002). New forms of citizens engagement, a more efficient service delivery and an easier access to

information can be regarded as “governance innovations” (Hartley, 2005; Moore, Hartley 2008; Bovaird,

2003).

Following PG arguments, the different tiers of government collaborate with each other and with

actors outside the public sphere (Peters, Pierre 1998; Lynn et al., 2000; Kettl, 2000; Bevir et al., 2003;

Stoker 2006), with the aim to strengthen the voice of the citizens in local decision making (Hambleton,

2004) and moving, in this way, beyond NPM indications.

In conclusion, if the NPM aims to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness in order to reduce

costs and to improve performance, the PG suggests to rebuild the relationship with the society and to

increase the participation to the public action. However, both NPM and PG aim to increase accountability in

5

public administration. The scope and meaning of accountability has also been extended in a number of

directions (Mulgan, 2003; Romzek, Dubnick, 1987; Beck Jørgensen, 1993; Erkkilä, 2007). Two types of

accountability may be identified: internal and external accountability. The first one supports top

management team to make efficient resources allocation and to maintain control on management choices

and activities, allowing their autonomy and responsibility for results. The external accountability, instead,

allow external actors monitoring the public decision makers concerning the allocation and the use of public

resources and the consistency of their choices with the organizational institutional mission (Hinna,

Monteduro, 2005). The necessity to be accountable is connected both to the sphere of ménage the action

of public administration and performance that characterized the NPM debate (Mulgan, 2003; Calciolari,

2009), and to active public decision making and transparent public action that characterized the PG

framework (Peters, Pierre, 2000: 67; Erkkilä, 2007).

At a first glance NPM principles and objectives are in conflict with the operative logics suggested by

PG. Previous literature suggests two different currents of thought about the relation between NPM

(government) and PG (governance). The first argues that PG replaces NPM approach: NPM principles are in

conflict with the operative logics suggested by PG. The second current of thought, on the contrary, argues

that NPM practices, if “reviewed and integrated”, represent a good opportunity to move towards PG

practices. This second vision, integrates New Public Management with the Public Governance approach

(Peters, Pierre, 1998; Kettl, 2000; Lynn et al., 2000; Bevir et al., 2003). Therefore, changes in public

organizations go beyond a mere technical approach and impact on the system of relationships between

public organizations and their stakeholders, whether indicated by NPM or PG arguments.

The paper may be also considered an attempting to demonstrate the potential application of this

second school of thoughts.

Reforming Italian Public Administrations

Several comparative analysis (Gualmini, 2008; Kickert; 2005; Pollitt, Bouckaert, 2004) demonstrate

specific or unique elements of the Italian public sector that have influenced the change management

approach to public administrations.

In the 1990s a radical reform cycle has been encouraged by some specific factors: the urgent need

to reduce public debt in order to enter in the European Monetary Union; the overturning of the political

class; the changed electoral system; the trade unions sustain to introduce some specific innovation. Italian

bureaucracy was, and still remains, characterized by an institutionalized organizational culture (that is

reinforced by the great presence of rules) and a strong system of organized interest groups. These factors

operate as a barrier to extensive managerial change, despite the presence of less cohesive and stable

governments still today (Gualmini, 2008; Kickert; 2005; Capano, 2003). Adopting a multi-causal approach to

administrative reform (Gualmini, 2008; Premfors 1998), the result of Italian reform process is a particular

mix of institutional forces that encourage the implementation of some components of NPM and, at the

same time, the adoption of PG’s components.

According to Gualmini (2008), three dimension of Italian change can be identified: (1) the

introduction of semi-independent organizational units, (2) the reform in the civil service organization and

(3) the “restyling” of several organizational mechanisms.

6

Focusing on the laws that have a great impact on the inner administrative processes, two group of

norms can be identified. The first group is composed by laws that suggest to introduce parameters,

technologies, instruments and techniques belonging to the private sector in order to support an

improvement of public action and policy. The second group, promote, instead, a change in the relationship

with citizens and the “external” social actors.

The first group of laws includes: a) the Legislative Decree 29/1993 that introduce the privatization

of the public employment and suggest a reorganisation of administrative units using the Management by

Objective’s principles; b) the Legislative Decree 286/1999 that reforms the instruments of public sector

audit and control; c) the decree D.L.150/2009 that introduce performance evaluation of all public agents

and stresses its integration with other forms of control. The second group of law includes: a) the Law no.

241/1990, which is the “milestone” of the Italian public sector reform, allowing citizens’ right of access to

government acts, setting up the figure of the leading authority or administrator of procedure and abolishing

or simplifying several administrative procedures); b) the Digital Administration Code and other laws looking

for the implementation and the diffusion of ICT tools and e-government practices, first among local

governments, then through specific agencies and lastly among central administrative organs.

3. FROM THE REFORM TO THE CHANGE IN PRACTICES

Both NPM and PG reforms require new and different cultural models in comparison with the

traditional models that characterized the values and the basic assumptions (Schein, 1988) of the public

bureaucracies. According to Caiden, “an administrative reform could be defined as the artificial inducement

of administrative transformation against resistance. It is deliberate, contrived, irreversible and innovative”

(Caiden, 1991: 41) and therefore it assumes an attempt to improve an inadequate situation. To start a

reform process by passing a bill does not necessarily mean to make change happen. However, change is a

gradual process whose implementation varies according to the context in which it is promoted (North,

1990; Fedele, 1998) and the existing learning capabilities of both the individuals and the organization

(Argyris, Schön, 1996). The introduction of new formal rules and new structures represent only an

approximate description of the “real” administrative functioning (North, 1990; Friedberg, 1996).

Following the scholars who see the organization as a “process” and not only as a “thing” (Tsoukas,

2005; Weick et al., 2005; Whetten, 2006), the theme of change in public administration is connected not

only with laws and regulations but also with procedural, cognitive, creative and cultural dimensions of

organizations (Moynihan, Landuyt, 2009; Van de Ven, Poole, 2005; Yanow, 2000). The administrative

change issues can be considered using the bottom-up approach (Battistelli, 2004), in order to favour a

process view instead of a variance view (Van de Ven, Poole, 2005). Concerning the organizational change,

Friedberg suggests to abandon the rational approach that characterizes management techniques and to

consider the administration as an operational system (Cotterrell, 2004). This theoretical construct can be

considered as the result of a blending between reforms prescriptions and effective practices of

organizational members. Nevertheless, the relevance of formal rules is not completely nullified: they

constitute an important starting point in order to understand both the practices and the behaviours in

7

action (Friedberg, 2007) at a first level, and the organization as it happens (Miettinen et. al, 2009; Boden

1990) at the second level.

Practice as point of view

The practice issue has been evolving across several fields of study. According to Miettinen et al.

(2009: 1309) “what humans actually do when managing, making decisions, strategizing, organizing” has

been an important part of studies of organizations.

The practice theory can be classified in two distinct but complementary research programmes (Miettinen

et. al, 2009): the first is a theoretical programme, the second is an empirical one. In order to explain the

social order, the first programme focuses the attention on the question concerning the dualism between

subject and object, between ontology and being (Heidegger, 1927), between mind and body (Dewey, 1925)

and between the free initiation of actions and the determinism of the structure (Bourdieu, 1994, Giddens,

1984). The second programme studies focuses on empirical studies that explain both “what people do

every day to get their work done, in this view, itself constitutes an explanation of social” (Miettinen et. al,

2009: 1312) and the organizational life. This stream of research (Llewellyn, Hindmarsh, 2010), following the

typical approach characterizing the qualitative studies, employs several tools that are influenced by

ethnographic and ethnomethodological methods: observation, interviews and collection of material of the

culture (Crabtree, Miller, 1999). As Miettinen et al. say, in the literature the concept of practice is usually

applied to study the organizational learning, the knowledge management (Blackler, 1993; Nicolini et al.

2003; Brown, Duguid, 2001; Gherardi, 2006), the strategy research (Whittington, 1996; Samra-Fredericks,

2003; Jarzabkowski, 2005) the design and uses of technology in organizations (Orlikowski, 2000).

In public administration the concept of practice was, and still remains, referred to the Street-level

bureaucrats’ ways of operating (Jorna, Wagenaar, 2007), to the sharing of knowledge and information

within “soft bureaucracies” (Vaast, 2007) and - using a narrative approach – to the process of managerial

identity formation in public sector professionals (Sims, 2008). Public organizations are characterized by a

condition of “mixed regulation” between “constitutional rule” and “constitutional practice” (Friedberg,

1996: 114) and the concept of practice enables the understanding of change inside the organizational

context.

Starting from these premises, the practice can be defined:

Such a concept of practice includes both the explicit and the tacit. It includes what is said

and what is left unsaid; what is represented and what is assumed. It includes the language,

tolls, documents, images, symbols, well-defined roles, codified procedures, regulations (…).

But also includes all the implicit relations, tacit conventions, subtle cues, untold rules of

thumb, recognizable intuitions, specific perceptions, well-tuned sensitivities, embodied

understandings, underlying assumptions and shared world of views (Wenger, 1998: 47).

Reform processes enable two different connections: a) between rules and actions; b) between

knowledge and praxis. These relationships enact some organizational changes (Weick, 2001) requiring to

public organizations do not betray their mission and their public nature.

8

The pressure to obtain better value (Moore, 1995) from public administration is growing and the

debate concerning the way to move from reform to “change in practice” is increasingly important (Figure

1). Changes faced by the public sector include cultural, structural, resource and technical problems as well

as a legacy of isolated developments which do not interrelate each other.

Figure 1 – The conceptual framework

NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

Practices

PUBLIC GOVERNANCE

Information System

Ref

orm

Ch

an

ge

Management by objectives

Right of access

Public organizations are different not only in their inherent structures, but also in the varying

nature of political systems, history and culture. According to Bozeman (1987) there is a common thread in

the struggle by public administration to integrate instruments which are technically, structurally and

socially diverse. Following NPM and PG, the introduction and the combination of large, diverse and un-

integrated instruments is at the heart of a major change facing public management today (Bannister, 2001).

4. CHANGING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: THE ROLE OF INFORMATION SYSTEM

Even if public bureaucracies are conservative by nature (Bannister, 2001), the introduction of new

and different instruments causes or is associated with certain changes in the organization or its members

(Covalesky, 1981). Over the last two decades public sector organizations - aiming to increase accountability

– are characterized by rapid advances in technological capabilities due to the introduction of Information

Systems (IS). However, IS are not confined to the design and the implementation of new technologies:

information could represent as a source of power and the increased demand for more internal and external

access to information makes IS management even more critical.

In order to improve accountability and to move from reform to “change in practice”, IS can be

regarded as enablers for introducing other tools suggested by NPM and PG approaches. The first step is to

understand IS as a part of a broader social and cultural context (Kling 1980, Bell, Wood-Harper 1998). As

suggested by reforms, IS are only one of several tools that work in concert to bring change in processes.

9

According to NPM approach, in order to improve internal accountability, IS could be supported by others

techniques as Management by Objectives (MBO). On the other hand, following PG perspective, public

sector organizations introduce several institutions that allows the exercise of rights of access and the

participation to the organizational processes to improve external accountability for citizens and to

institutions that provide both the political legitimacy and the financing for the organization.

Starting from these premises and in relation to our research questions, the introduction of

Information System is related to:

1. Management by objectives (MBO) as a NPM instruments

2. Right of access and the instruments that allows its exercise as PG instruments

Each one of this tool, alone or in combination, can be seen to have an effect on work-practices.

Information Systems: enablers for NPM and PG instruments

Changes in Information Systems (IS), for their pervasive nature, represent an essential and critical

part for all public sector reform initiatives. Government has been and still remains the largest user, holder

and producer of information which is a central resource for different state levels and activities for pursuing

the democratic-political processes, managing resources, executing functions, measuring performance and

service delivering (Heeks, 2000).

A typical component of the NPM and PG reforms is represented by making public sector more

accountable for their decisions and actions. The creation of new Information Systems is an essential

component in the creation of accountability. According to Stahl (2006), the fundamental idea is that an

essential part of accountability is information and the distribution of information (both to the internal and

external stakeholders).

Following NPM’s suggestion, IS provide support for monitoring of decision performance, and are

intended to assist in the control of that performance (Heeks, 2002); IS can easily support such processes by

using them to mirror movements of money or material (Stahl, 2006) but also to make more transparent the

decision making process. On the other hand, following PG’s suggestions, every democratic government

should be accountable to its citizens. This is one more reason to search for means of creating accountability

and IS can be one. IS can be used to publish information that allows citizens to scrutinize the public use of

funds, to identify good policy (Barata, Cain, 2001; Garson, 2003), to participate to organizational process

and to access to the administrative acts.

According to Berman et al. (2001), despite the relevance of Information Technology, as a major

catalyst of change, it inevitably clashes with the bureaucratic culture of public administrations. Previous

researches (Fulk, Desanctis, 1995; Griffith, 1999; Kurland, Egan, 1999; Lado, Zhang, 1998; Powell, Dent-

Micallef, 1997; Weisband et al., 1995; Davenport, Short, 1990) on the introduction of IS within

organizations focus on the ways in which IS alters the efficiency/effectiveness of organizations, the ways in

which decisions are made, the work life, the human task on a process, the ways in which activities are

structured, the power of different participants to influence the organizational activities and the distribution

of knowledge and experience within the organization.

In bureaucracies, the introduction of IS is an intervention into a complex political context, which

can be changed in unforeseen and unintended ways. According to Kling (1980), the technology that

10

enlarges the information processing capacity of people or organizations must have potent influences on

their interactions and work practices. Work processes and practices in bureaucracies have largely been

embedded in a culture of effective internal discipline and control of bureaucratic personnel (Berman,

2001). Rusted and Martin (1991) reveals that in government organizations IS have a significant impact on

the distribution of power, patterns of conflict and the formation and implementation of policy. Other

authors (Gerson, Koening, 1979; Myers, 1970) sustain that IS can help relieve 'specialists and professionals'

of the time-consuming and repetitive parts of their work. They indicate that organizations which carry out a

large volume of easily rationalizable tasks, as bureaucracies, are much more likely to find IS applicable, than

organizations where rationalizable tasks are a smaller fraction of the daily work The new IS are associated

also with the organizational learning (Orlikowski et al, 1995), complementary jobs, collaboration between

employees and teamwork.

There is also a negative perspective (Ouadahi, 2008) that reported only detrimental effects

associated with the introduction of IS within organizations as a disruption of work habits, an increase in

bureaucracy and centrality in decision making and a resulting loss of job autonomy.

However, supposing that IS has a direct impact on work practices, we propose the following

propositions.

Proposition 1. The introduction of Information System alters the location, speed,

quality, activities and other key characteristics of the work. The public servants’

capability to acquire and to manage information – reducing uncertainty and

ambiguity - improves organizational effectiveness and promotes a change in work

practices.

New Public Management Instrument, Internal accountability and Management by Objectives

techniques

Different doctrines are employed to tackle what are perceived to be the most pressing public sector

problems. Shifting the emphasis from “doing the job correctly and lawfully” to “doing the job efficiently”,

today the primary challenge is to “get better performance from the system” (Wintringham, 2003: 3).

Following NPM’s suggestions, methods and techniques drawn from business were used to

decentralize decision making, to emphasize cost containment, to improve organizational planning and

control, to increase accountability and to encourage customer orientation (Anthes, 1993; Cooney,

O’Flaherty, 1996; Gosling, 1997; Gebauer, Schad, 1998). A number of management instruments have been

promoted as rational means to increase organizational performance, to secure organizational survival and

to support organizational objectives. Even though many of these initiatives have been implemented in the

private sector (Ittner, Larcker, 1998), recent efforts in public organizations have also placed considerable

emphasis on performance measurement (Wholey, 1999; de Lancer Julnes, Holzer, 2001; Brignall, Modell,

2000; Pollitt, 2005) and the early conceptual and practical development of some techniques, like

Management by Objectives (MBO), owe a great deal to experience.

MBO has been suggested for planning strategies, for organizing resources, for implementing plans

and for assigning responsibility to subordinates (Aplin, Schoderbeck, 1976; Drucker, 1976). MBO is founded

11

on the simple assumption that if goals govern actions, then the specific identification of goals should lead

to more meaningful and purposeful actions on the part of organizational members.

Research concerning MBO has typically examined its effect on the attitudes and the performances

of individuals who use it, or the organizational factors that influence its successful implementation (Aplin,

Schoderbeck, 1976; Tosi, Carroll, 1970; Ivancevich et al., 1970; Meyer et al., 1964; Tosi et al., 1976). MBO in

public administration give the appearance of rationality in the formulation of policy which is consistent with

actors’ needs for both confidence building and conflict avoidance in running the State affairs (Dirsmith et

al., 1980).

At the organizational level, the implementation of MBO may influence both the civil servants (Perry,

1982) and the work practices across all hierarchical levels requiring the bureaucratic staff to include

objectives in their activities. Furthermore, MBO involves an ongoing dialogue between supervisor and

employees that links expectations, ongoing feedback and coaching, performance evaluations, development

planning, and follow up activities (Daley, 1985). Using objectives, supervisors define expectations for every

position in their organization (Gliddon, 2004). In terms of organizational practice, also the nature of job is

important.

The main limitation of MBO results from its goal orientation. The design of goal setting techniques

for administrations must take into account the vague and conflicting nature of public goals (Perry, 1982).

Secondly, MBO is inconsistent with the high density of generally binding rules and regulations

characterizing specialized and highly regulated work practices in traditional public administration. Today,

following NPM public sector is characterized transformation from a rule-oriented to a performance-

oriented administration (Caiden, 1991).

According to OECD (2003) MBO is not only a managerial tool, but also an alternative accountability

framework. MBO mechanism can be described as a “quasi-contract” (OECD, 2003) that specifies

organizational goals and targets to be achieved within a given time period and a degree of available

resources. Progress toward agreed targets is monitored by the management Information Systems

confirming that IS support MBO for the developing of the organization’s capability to change (DeWoolfson,

1975; Drucker, 1976; Slusher, Sims, 1975). In order to avoid efficiency losses and managing and monitoring

information through, IS has to reflect the needs and capacities of the numerous actors involved. The

comparison of tracked results with targets is the basis for performance assessment in the internal

accountability relationship between different levels of organizations. The transparency about

organizational and individual targets serve merely to coordinate activities and provide an accountability

framework that assigns responsibility, reporting requirements and accountability standards in terms of

which compliance has to be assessed (Davies, 2001).

Proposition 2. Management by Objectives represents an important source of

change because of their capacity to modify many organizational aspects (i.e.

culture, strategy, behavior, structure and dynamics of power and politics). This

change is reinforced by IS, and consequently IS supports MBO to promote a

change in work practices.

12

Public Governance Instrument, external accountability and instruments of access

The PG perspective stresses the importance of efficient public services and the necessity to increase

the external accountability. The attention is focused on the instruments that improve the administrative

transparency and the participation of different actors to the life of the public bodies (Rhodes, 1996;

Leftwich, 1993). In particular, the attention is focused on the inner administration process and on the

organizational mechanisms which support the change of civil servants’ work practices. In order to analyze

the relationship between PG and change in work practices the analysis of literature identifies the

instruments that allows the exercise of right of access.

The debate about right of access is officially recognized by the European Convention (Article 49)

which ratifies the transparency of the proceedings, the openness of the Union Institutions, the public

bodies and agencies’ work in order to promote good governance and to ensure the participation of the civil

society. According to Kim et al. (2005) participatory and transparent public action is a key aspect also in a

global debate (Kim et al., 2005). Consequently, the focus is on the organizational mechanisms that are

closely related to the inner administrative and innovative processes and, particularly, on the institution of

the leading authority or administrator of procedure who controls, validates and is accountable for the

public action (Faccioli, 2000, Arsi, et al, 1998). Erkkilä (2007) argues that transparency and access to

information support the external accountability; it is possible to consider also a new type of accountability,

named “deliberative”, which is often cited in PG literature (Peters 1989: 225; West, 2004). The main

novelties introduced by these instruments can be identified in: the administrative acts publication; the

possibility to gain access to structures, services, administrative acts and information; the identification and

the control of time limitation and velocity of the administration; the valorisation of various stakeholders

involvement forms in public affair (Bingham et al., 2005; Ingrassia, 2008).

In order to make easier access to information, to improve efficiency of service delivery and to get

better communication, the public administrations start to enable electronically the services provided or

commissioned by the public sector (Boivard, 2003; Streib, Navarro, 2006). IS support the adoption of web-

based technologies to deliver government services: Internet’s interactivity is expected to make

governments more responsive both to the needs and the demands of citizens (Verton, 2000; West, 2004).

Furthermore, a wider range of information delivered in a more timely way is expected to (a) increase the

transparency of government and (b) empower citizens for monitoring government performance more

closely. The possibility - everywhere and every time – to access to the administrations services and to take

part into the organizational processes makes E-government as a positive channel to increase external

accountability and to empower citizens (Demchak et al. 2000; La Porte, 2002).

The studies that investigate the relationship between civil servants’ practices and the

implementation of instruments that allow the access to public sector organizations stress three main

dimensions of analysis: a) symbolic; b) psychological; c) linked to discretional power. The first group of this

studies underline that institutions have helped to purpose a symbolic goal: the functions hold by

administrator of procedures and the different stages in the development of electronically provided

services, could be limited and the civil servants should build both a new role and different practices that

presuppose a simple and less bureaucratic relationship with the citizens (Brusson, 2002; Moon, 2002; Lippi,

1995). The second group of studies focuses the attention on psychological field and demonstrates that

13

citizens’ participation and control improves the empowerment of civil servants because public employees

perceive the own actions as controlled (Zimmerman, Rappaport, 1988). The last dimension regards the

critical role of street level bureaucrats in organizations that provide services (Norman, 1984). Even thought,

the mechanism that regulate the right of access or the requested role to civil servants during the

information process promotes a change in the approach with the customers, however it is necessary to

consider the role of discretional and informal power owned by bureaucrats’ practices (Meyers, Vorsanger,

2002; Lipsky, 1980; Crozier, 1963).

Proposition 3. The instruments that allows the exercise of right of access-

increasing participation represents an important source of change because of their

capacity to modify many organizational aspects (i.e. culture, strategy, behavior,

structure and dynamics of power and politics). This change is reinforced by IS, and

consequently, IS supports the set up of instruments for changing work practices.

5. METHODS

To answer our research question, we present a case-history. This choice is coherent both with

previous research programmes exploring practices and with the constructivist paradigm. The constructivist

paradigm “recognizes the importance of the subjective human creation of meaning, but doesn’t reject

outright some notion of objectivity. Pluralism, not relativism, is stressed with focus on the circular dynamic

tension of subject and object” (Crabtree, Miller, 1999: 10). The choice to focus on a case-history depends

from the necessity to answer “how” and “why” questions and to study the relationship between the

context (i.e. the organization) and the phenomenon (i.e. the actors’ work practice) (Yin, 2003). This choice

has allowed to gain subjective insight into problems by going into the “fields” (Crabtree, Miller, 1999: 254).

The administrative organization chosen is an Italian Non-Economic Public Agency called INAIL - The

Workers Compensation Authority. It pursues several objectives: the insurance of workers involved in risky

activities and the re-integration of work accident victims to the labour market and social life. INAIL’s

mission consists of providing services to the workers, thus keeping direct contacts with the costumers on

whole national territory. This Agency is composed of a headquarter, where management and strategy are

carried out and by some territorial branches, that provide services and operate mainly in the metropolitan

area, the chief provincial and sub provincial towns.

As the top management has reported during the scouting phase, in 1980 INAIL has started an

important process of change in order to introduce its Information Systems. INAIL invested a lot of resources

(financial, human, organizational, etc.) both to connect the different steps of internal labour processes and

to increase the relations with other organizations and its customers.

The implementation of this project implied the redesign of organizational processes: the main aim

was to modify a classic and bureaucratic administration - based on a divisional structure - in a more flexible

and customer-oriented one. Starting from this first step in the middle of 1990, a system of performance

measurement was introduced in order to plan, control and monitor the performance. In the same years,

several projects started in order to provide services using the new technologies. At the moment, the

introduction of e-government’s services is still ongoing.

14

Starting from our research’s goals, we focus on what the General Management defines the “army”

of clerks that works in the territorial branches and operates in close contact with the final users. The case-

study subjects, in particular, have been selected following two criteria: a) to belong to a specific territorial

branch1; b) to hold a specific position.

Four territorial branches have been selected: one in North Italy, one in Central Italy, one in South

Italy and the last one in Rome metropolitan area.

Inside each office, the unit of analysis were represented by the single employee that serve in the

institutional departments (Workers Department and Companies Department): these departments

represent “the heart of INAIL’s activities”.

Therefore, we gave priority to those actors working in the core sectors of the organization, dealing

with citizens every day. The case study relies on multiple sources of evidence and multiple data collection

techniques. First, we made use of archival data sources such as company documents. We gathered life

stories and experiences of employees inside the organization through interviews. We also used observation

technique. We spent about six month (January–June 2008) in the territorial structures and we directly

observed (Iacono et. al., 2009) how the bureaucrats were working. Thanks to the interviewees precious

cooperation, we have been able to “capture” their experience, analysing different aspects such as the work

of the bureaucrats, the perception of change by the organization and the subjective worker, the

technological changes and the changing relations with citizens.

The semi-structured interviews aimed to gather information on the professional life of public

officials in order to understand “if” and “how” the changes suggested by the reform have had an impact on

the sense given to their actions, on their work practices and on their identity. The semi-structured

interviews have been recorded and then entirely transcribed. The life stories interviews (Atkinson,1998;

Schwartzman, 1988) reveal the characteristics of the officials’ work and of the organization they belong to,

both in a diachronic and synchronic perspective, placing special attention on the changes introduced by the

reform.

The interviewees

The qualitative research gathering life stories inside the organization was carried out between

January and May 2008 and involved 44 bureaucrats. The following table illustrates a description of the

case-study subjects based on their territorial branches and professional roles.

1 After a closer analysis of the administration characteristics, we decided to select the territorial branches that had a

medium size and working in different Italian regions. On total 164 offices, 75 offices can be classified as small

dimension (up to 30 employees); 73 as medium dimension (from 31 to 70 employees) and 16 as large dimension (with

more 70 employees). The different geographical location was another element that characterized the choose: in the

Italian public administration debate, the so called institutional performance (Putnam et al, 1993) has a relevant role in

different Italian regions. The North and the South regions are characterized from a different civic community, which

influences not only the civic life but also the collective action.

15

Table 1 – Distribution of interviewees by territorial branch and role

Type of territorial branch

Operators

Director Total Workers

Department Companies

Department

Metropolitan branch 5 5 1 11

Center-Italy branch 5 4 1 10

North-Italy branch 5 6 1 12

South-Italy branch 6 4 1 11

Total 21 18 4 44

The research involved 25 women out of 44 interviewees and only one of these was a manager. The

mean age of the sample was 47 years (range 31-64 years), which is consistent to the one of the INAIL

employees (13.070 employees with a mean age in 2007 of 45,7 years), while 23 interviewees out of 44 have

a graduate level (10 law school; 7 business school; 6 political sciences school). Finally, the graduation

subjects are consistent with the Italian bureaucrats’ administration-legal and economical training (Conto

annuale del Tesoro - Dati RGS, 2008).

6. RESULTS

Information System change the practices, but it does not change the organization

Information System have brought a change which has deeply modified the working life of the

interviewees. Confirming our first Proposition, the most significant changes were the nearly total

disappearance of traditional practices, the evermore use of ICT to carried out actives and the reduction of

time spent on each single case: “technologies are improved, instruments and software allowed to

information procedures to be administrative procedures’ reflex” (Operator, Central territorial branch).

It’s possible to identify both an individual and an organizational level of impact. On the first level,

the experience described by the new bureaucrats is sometimes characterized by coercive aspects. The

interviewees describe their actions as if they were almost “appendices of a procedure or a regulation”. Daily

work is tied to pre-established and repetitive procedural activities, which reflect the rules in force. On

organizational level, the information system supports various passages into working process that the file

has to follow providing screening and control actions. Among the changes described by the interviewees,

the most significant are the gradual arise of a process-based organization and the establishment of a

planning, valuation and control system enabled by technologies. An interviewee declared that:

even if inside the structure the paper-based files tend to disappear and the their

processing has considerably changed, the organization, unfortunately, hasn’t had

the same course. We still have an organization that is similar to the previous and

that still works with isolated departments (Operator, metropolitan branch).

16

The acknowledge of the existence of a dichotomy between the organizational structure, still

concerned with the past, and technologies, that allow to operate in a flexible and process-based way, was

underlined by many interviewees, for example:

in our local office we didn’t have changes in the structure. For example, the

accounting department has remained equal even if when I was employed the

office’s name was “Ragioneria”, the Companies Department has been called in

many different ways but it is always the relation with the employers. There was a

change in the planning but not everyone understood it: the process-based

organization, which had to be the central element, in substance loosed its strength

(Operator, Northern territorial branch).

To manage means to define organizational goals and targets

When the interviewees were asked to describe the organization of the work inside their structure,

we found that the activity inside the public authority was organized starting from a program that planed

the annual task, identifying targets for each process and sub-process. A director clearly explained how the

planning was conceived:

every year the General Management elaborates an annual plan that leads us to

have 200/300 performance indicators. Using these indicators, the General

Management individuates about 20 strategic targets. These targets are universal,

meaning they are valid for all INAIL’s territorial branches.

As assumed in the second Proposition even when it is not clear whether MBO have the power to

modify some organizational elements or not, there is evidence that MBO promote some change to a

certain degree. It’s interesting to notice that the organization’s practices were deeply influenced by a

strong attention to result control, according to New Public Management. In order to evidence how some

private sector guidelines have contaminated public sector, a North-Italy branch’s worker underlined:

when I started to work, there wasn’t this planning, neither there was all this focus

on targets. Then work changed because the point of view in analysis development

changed. First there was random work… we hadn’t today’s controls: today’s’

Information systems allow to real time control one’s single worker’s activity, in this

sense a bit of private entered in the public sector. (Operator, Northern territorial

branch)

In every branch work was based on planning and control and monitoring moments, but with

different levels of urgency. In the Centre and South -Italy branches the situation appeared under control

without any backlog of work, whereas the metropolitan and the North-Italy interviewees claimed “the

continuous daily urgency state of work which messes up the planning” (Operator, metropolitan branch).

17

In relation to the Reform approach of the New Public Management, the process owner described their

selves as “the reference point of the whole process”.

The process owner had on one side the responsibility “to daily verify what is done in relation to the

planned and very stressful objectives” (Process owner, Northern territorial branch) and on the other side “to

organize clerk’s work in a calm environment” (Process owner, Southern territorial branch).

Among the interviewees, the role of the leading authorities was “to control the administrative procedures

assigned to the operators” (Operator, Southern territorial branch).

Instruments for the access: between responsibility, control and attention to the citizens’ needs

In order to investigate how the law on right of access had modified the practices of civil servants,

we asked to the interviewees the effects of: a) the Law no. 241/1990 that extended citizens’ right of access

to government acts and set up the figure of the leading authority or administrator of procedure; b) the

adoption of web-based technologies to deliver government services. From the interviewees’ stories, it

stand to reason:

the evolution of laws starting from ’90 has lead the organization toward a larger

attention to the citizens’ needs. (Operator, Northern territorial branch).

Stimulating the reflection on the possible changes in the actors’ practices after the set up of Law

no. 241/1990, in all the territorial branches the interviewees underlined that this law:

makes my colleagues and me responsible for the speedy of the legal file and for

the level of transparency in the relationship with the citizen. Thanks also to the

information procedures, everything is been organized in order to respect the law’s

principles. If we not always had regard for the respect of time when we worked a

file or we delivered a service; now we must respect precisely the time imposed

from the law. The duty to ask for possible defaults has created the condition to

control every aspect of work in order to adjust the organization according with

Law no. 241/1990 requirements (Operator, Southern territorial branch).

The interviewees underlined at length that “it’s a duty to have the responsibility of own action also

because on the document that you have worked there is the own name and surname”. The possibility “to be

indentified from the file” was also positively felt because:

the users know who is their problem solver and appreciate if you have done a good

work. This situation gives ourselves a lot of responsibilities, but also satisfactions.

Practically, this novelty knocks the civil servants off their pedestal, and on the

role’s level, this novelty has put in the middle the citizens. Even if those who use

the right of access or ask to talk with the administrator of procedure are not many,

these laws invite us to change our mind (Operator, metropolitan branch).

18

Therefore the interviewees stressed that transparency, legal certainty and simplification’s values –

that are on the base of right of access – have been improved and, therefore, the daily work changed,

confirming the proposition number 3. In particular, thanks to the implementation of information system,

the interviewees were “able not only to answer quickly to the request of access, but also to satisfy

accurately to the common needs of information”. It’s interesting to notice that the interviewees said that:

in the past the most difficult task on the front-office was the search of

administrative files. The documents that concern the user could be everywhere: on

the colleagues’ desks, in the protocol office, etc... and it was very difficult to

reconstruct the situation. Now, thanks to laws and to the information system we

are able to satisfy with efficiency the user’s need. (Operator, Central territorial

branch).

“The possibility to give answer” was singled out as the main front-office operator’s task. These

interviewees that often work with the public declare that “the bigger satisfaction is to note that the citizen

is happy. Even if your manager or the boss doesn’t see the quality of your work, the fact that I’m able to

satisfy a customer’s need, even if only an informative need, gives me a great gratification”.

Considering the information process, the interviewees underlined that “the organization are

working to make easier the «transaction» between citizens and public administrations in order to increase

efficiency and quickness” (Manager, metropolitan branch). In particular, the interviewees narrated how “in

the last years, INAIL has investing on the improvement of the Information System” (Manager, Northern

territorial branch). Even if “there is much to do”, the civil servants recognized the advantage of ICT: “the

technology enables the communication between citizens and public administration at any time (night and

day) without requiring the presence of public servants or the opening of the office” (Operator, Northern

territorial branch). The administration was always accessible: “the users now can login in the system,

«enter» in the procedures and makes a request about a particular service. This new possibility make the

process more simple, more fast and speeds up the time of services delivery" (Operator, Southern territorial

branch).

Another fundamental aspect was related to the increased participation of citizens to the public action:

The online services allow to the users to take part to the process and to be aware

of our work. The participation in the organizational process is the more positive

aspect in the service on line’s implementation: the client starts to know the

mechanism and the steps of our work. In this way the interactions with the

customers is more easy. The users hold in check everything and, when «enter» in

the on line procedures, can control the «stage of manufacture» (Operator, Central

territorial branch).

The mechanisms of organization were accountable for the external actors and accessible to the

citizens who participate to the administrative action in a transparent way.

19

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Projects of reforms in public organizations have followed two main approaches: a business-

managerial (NPM) one and a defined governance one (PG). NPM recommends the implementation of

private sector management tools and methods in order to improve public efficiency (Osborne, Gaebler,

1992). PG focuses the attention on the necessity to actively include the “external” social actors in the policy

making (Rhodes, 1996, 1997), highlighting the importance of improving not only the internal organizational

system.

Some authors (Bovaird, Löffler, 2001; Stoker, 2006; O’Flynn, 2007), criticizing the NPM’s focus both

on the pursuit of efficiency and on performances’ evaluation, give support to the necessity to move beyond

NPM including users’ and citizens’ need in decision making processes. The PG perspective, in this way, goes

beyond a vision of modernization focused only on internal structures and mechanisms of organization,

replacing NPM basic principles. In this way social, economic and environmental phenomena are more

efficiently managed through close interaction between public and social actors, pursuing different but

compatible purposes.

Other public sector scholars argue that NPM could represent a good opportunity to move towards

PG issues, also if today it seem to be “incomplete” (Pollitt, Bouckaert, 2004). This second stream of

research - suggesting the integration of NPM’s and PG’s perspectives - stresses the opportunity to enact

public organizational change trough the adoption of instruments able to reshape work practices.

Inside this last stream of research we think that our study provides some interesting insights.

Starting from the analysis of the life stories, organization actors’ practice seems to be oriented both

to effectiveness and efficiency. Public actors are, at the same time, both services’ producers and relations’

creator. The experience described by the new bureaucrats is essentially characterized by two dimensions:

the first one is operative and coercive; the second one is expressive and based on values.

The interviewees describe their actions as if they were almost “appendices of an informative

procedure or a regulation”. Daily work is tied to pre-established and repetitive procedural activities, which

reflect the rules in force. Nevertheless, standardized work is again considered interesting and “also gives

satisfactions” if thought and talked behind the counter or referring to the clients. The dimension

expressive-based on values is connected to the relationship with the organization’s clients and to the fact

that the interviewees’ work is “public”. Although methods and languages of the private labour sector have

been introduced, working in a structure “which offers a service contributing to the progress of society” gives

sense to one’s job.

One interviewee - who works in the Central Italy branch- has pointed out the two main factors that

enable a change in the weberian model:

Everything has changed and everything is changing. On one side, the Information

Systems have changed the operative and organizational processes; on the other

side, the Information System have supported the change in customers’ need

redefining the way of connection between them and the public workers (Operator,

Central territorial branch).

20

The results of our research show that the implementation of Information System is not neutral. The

information procedure is connected to already existent practices (Gherardi, Bruni, 2007: 81). The

introduction of technologies has enabled a change in actors’ practices, but the effective use of technologies

is inscribed into frames still partly linked to bureaucratic action. The new way of organizing the work tasks,

in fact, does not seem to have globally marked the old organ-pipe structure, which essentially remains a

distinctive feature of this administration.

Reconstructing the characteristics of the new managerial process, the interviewees talk about

“objectives”, “results”, “control” and about the activities resulting from the procedures. “Results” and

“control” are the keywords guiding the directors and process owners’ work; on the other side the

procedure (task and times scheduled) is the only guide for operators’ work. The work program is

“administered” by the “requirements of services’ production” (Normann, 1984, Mosley et al., 2001). Work

is regarded as a rational way of operating (Ouadahi, 2008). By the use of typical methods of the private

organizations (as MBO) a new form of control arise: the “neo bureaucratic control” (Kallinikos, 2004;

Hodgson, 2004).

The interviews reveal that, on one hand, the success of IS is strictly connected to a disruption of

work habits, to an increase in bureaucracy, to a loss of job autonomy, to a partial transformation of the

organizational structure, to a different understanding of the performance improvement by different

organizational actors; on the other hand, the emphasis on accountability and transparency requires a

reduction in the distance between institutions and citizens increasing the importance of the information

function and, consequently, of the implementation of Information System.

Therefore Information System support both the adoption of the managerial tools (as Management

by Objectives) and the implementation of the institutions that allows the exercise of the right of access. The

results confirm what is suggested by several scholars (Peters, Pierre, 1998; Kettl, 2000; Lynn et al., 2000;

Bevir et al., 2003): the limitations of NPM’s instruments could be overcome integrating them with PG’s

instruments.

Moreover, our conclusion would reinforce the idea that a number of tools suggested by NPM do

not seem to be totally incompatible with PG suggestions. They are not in conflict with the operative logics

of public administration (as evidencing by the critiques that underline the complexity of application of

these management tools in public organizations). On the contrary, they can represent a source of change

and evolution.

21

REFERENCES

Anthes G.H., 1993, “Stat tool weeds out bid-rigging companies”, Computerworld, Vol. 27, No. 27.

Aplin J.C. Jr., Schoderbeck P.P., 1976, “MBO: Requisites for success in the public sector”, Human Resource

Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 30-36.

Argyris C., Schön D.A., 1996, Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method, and Practice, Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company, Reading, MA.

Arsi M., Coronas M.G., De Luca P. (eds.), 1998, L'Italia da semplificare: Procedimenti amministrativi di

interesse delle imprese, Bologna, Il Mulino.

Atkinson R., 1998, The Life Story Interview, London, Sage.

Bannister F., 2001, “Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments”, Public Administration,

Information Systems Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 65–84.

Barata K., Cain P., 2001, “Information, Not Technology, Is Essential to Accountability: Electronic Records

and Public-Sector Financial Management”, The Information Society, No. 17, pp. 247 – 258.

Barberis P., 1998, “The new public management and a new accountability”, Public Administration, Vol. 76,

pp. 451-470.

Battistelli, F. 2004. Burocrazia e mutamento. Persuasione e retorica dell'innovazione amministrativa.

Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Beck Jørgensen T., 1993, “Modes of governance and administrative change”, in Kooiman J. (Ed.): Modern

Governance, New Government-Society Interactions, London, Sage, pp.219–232.

Bell S., Wood-Harper A.T., 1998, Rapid Information Systems development: Systems analysis and Systems

design in an imperfect world 2nd, McGraw Hill, London

Berman B.J., Tettey W.J., 2001, “African States, bureaucratic culture and computer fixes”, Public

Administration and Development, Vol. 21, pp. 1-13

Bevir M., Rhodes R.A.W., Weller P., 2003, “Traditions of governance: interpreting the changing role of the

public sector”, Public Administration, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Bingham Blomgren B.L., Nabatchi T., O’Leary R., 2005, “New Governance: Practices and Processes for

Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government”, Public Administration Review, pp.

547-558

Blackler F., 1993, “Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the

reframing of management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 864 – 884

Boden D., 1990, “The world as it happens: Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis”, Frontiers of

Social Theory: The New Synthesis, George Ritzer (ed.), pp. 185–213, New York, Columbia University

Press.

Borgonovi E., 2006, “Evoluzione delle funzioni delle amministrazioni pubbliche e cultura di management”,

Azienda pubblica, No. 2.

Bourdieu P, 1994, Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action, Paris, Seuil.

Bovaird T., 2003, “E-Government and e-Governance: Organisational Implications, Options and Dilemmas”,

Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 18, No. 37.

Bovaird T., Löffler E., 2001, “Emerging trends in public management and governance”, Teaching and

Research Review, Vol. 5.

22

Bozeman B., 1987, All Organisations are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organisational Theories, San

Francisco, Jossey- Bass.

Brignan S., Modell S., “An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the

new public sector?”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 281-306.

Brown J.S., Duguid P., 2001, “Knowledge and organization: A social practice perspective”, Organization

Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 198–213.

Brunsson N., 2002, The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in organizations (2nd ed.).

Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press.

Caiden G.E., 1991, Administrative Reform comes of Age, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter.

Calciolari S., 2009, Performance Management nella Pubblica Amministrazione, Economia e Management, n.

1.

Capano G., 2003, “Administrative traditions and policy change: when policy paradigms matter. The case of

Italian administrative reform during the 1990s”, Public Administration, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 781–801.

Cooney M.J., O’Flaherty B., 1996, “Structural Change via Information Technology in the Irish Civil Service”,

Global InformationTechnology and Socio-economic Development, Odedra-Straub M. (ed), Nashua NH,

Ivy League Publishing.

Cotterrell R., 2004, “Selznick Interviewed: Philip Selznick in Conversation with Roger Cotterrel”, Journal of

Law and Society, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 291-317.

Covaleski M.A., Dirsmith M.W., 1981, “MBO and Goal Directedness in a Hospital Context”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 409-418.

Crabtree B.F., Miller W.L., 1999, Doing qualitative research, Sage,.

Crozier M., 1963, Le phénomène bureaucratique, Paris: Sevill.

Daley D.M., 1985, “An examination of the MBO/performance standards approach to employee evaluation:

Attitudes toward performance appraisal in Iowa”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 6,

No. 1, pp. 11-29.

Davenport T.H., Short J.E., 1990, “The new industrial-engineering—Information technology and business

process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 11–27.

Davies A., 2001, Accountability. A public Law Analysis of Government by Contract, New York Oxford

University Press.

de Lancer Julnes P., Holzer M., 2001, “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public

Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation”, Public

Administration Review, Vol. 61, No. 6, Pp 693- 708,

Demchak C.C., Friis C.,. La Porte T.M., 2000, “Webbing Governance: National Differences in Constructing

the Public Face “, in G.D. Garson (ed.), Handbook of Public Information Systems, New York, Marcel

Dekker.

Dewey J., 1925, Experience and Nature, Chicago, Open Court.

DeWoolfson B.H., 1975, “Public sector MBO and PRB: Cross fertilization in management systems”, Public

Administration Review, Vol. 35, pp. 387-395.

Dirsmith M.W., Jablonsky S.F., Luzi A.D., 1980, “Planning and Control in the U.S. Federal Government: A

Critical Analysis of PPB, MBO and ZBB”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 303-329.

23

Drucker P.S., 1976, “What results should you expect? A user's guide to MBO”, Public Administration Review,

Vol. 36, pp. 12-19.

Eckardt, S. 2008. “Political accountability, fiscal conditions and local government performance-Cross

sectional evidence from Indonesia”, Public administration and development, Vol. 28, pp. 1–17.

Erkkilä T., 2007, “Governance and accountability. A shift in conceptualization”, Public Administration

Quarterly, Spring.

Faccioli F., 2000, Comunicazione pubblica e cultura del servizio, Rome, Carocci.

Fedele M., 1998, Come cambiano le amministrazioni pubbliche, Rome – Bari, Laterza.

Ferlie E., Lynn L. E., Pollitt C., 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford University Press.

Friedberg E., 1996, Power and Rules: The Organizational Dynamics of Collective Action. London. Avebury.

Friedberg E., 2007, “Il management del cambiamento: il contributo della sociologia dell’ organizzazione”,

Studi Organizzativi, Vol. 1.

Fulk, J., Desanctis, G., 1995, “Electronic communication and changing organizational forms”, Organization

Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 337–349.

Garson G.D., 2003, Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues, PA, USA Idea Group

Publishing, Hershey.

Gebauer J., Schad H., 1998, “Building an Internet-based workflow system”, Working Paper 98-WP-1030

Fisher Center for Management and IT, Berkeley CA, University of California.

Gerson E.M., Koenxg S.R., 1979, “Information systems technology and organizations: The impact of

computing on the division of labor and task organization”, Working Paper, San Francisco, Calif.,

Pragmatica Systems.

Gherardi S., 2006, Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning, Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Gherardi S., Bruni A., 2007, Studiare le pratiche lavorative, Bologna, il Mulino.

Giddens A., 1984, The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge, Polity

Press.

Gliddon D.G., 2004, “Effective Performance Management Systems. Current Criticisms and New Ideas for

Employee Evaluation”, Performance Improvement, Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 27-34.

Gosling P., 1997, Government in the Digital Age, Bowerdean, London.

Griffith T.L., 1999, “Technology features as triggers for sensemaking”, Academy of Management Review,

Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 472– 488.

Gualmini E., 2008, “Restructuring weberian bureaucracy: comparing managerial reforms in Europe and the

United States”, Public Administration, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 75–94.

Hambleton R., 2004, “Beyond new public management: City leadership, democratic renewal, and the

politics of place”, paper presented at the City Futures International Conference, Chicago.

Hartley J., 2005, “Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present”, Public Money &

Management, January.

Heeks R., 2000, “The approach of senior public officials to information technology-related Reform: lessons

from India”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 20, pp. 197-205.

Heeks R., 2002, “Information Systems for Public Sector Management”, Working Paper Series, Institute for

Development Policy and Management, Manchester, UK.

24

Heidegger M., 1927, Sein und Zeit, Halle.

Hinna L., Monteduro F., 2005, Nuovi profili di accountability delle Amministrazioni Pubbliche, Quaderni del

Formez.

Hodgson D., 2004, “Project Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-Bureaucratic

Organization”, Organization, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 81–100.

Hood C., 1998, The art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Hood C., Jackson M., 1991, Administrative Argument, Dartmouth, Aldershot.

Iacono J., Brown A., Holtham C., 2009, “Research Methods – a Case Example of Participant Observation”,

The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 39-46), available online at

www.ejbrm.com.

Ingrassia R., 2008, Organizzazione e comunicazione dell'azione amministrativa, Roma, Franco Angeli

Ittner C.D., Larcker D.F., 1998, “Innovations in performance measurement: trends and research

implications”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, pp. 205–238.

Ivancevich J., Donelly J.H., Lyon H.L., 1970,“A study of the impact of management by objectives on

perceived need satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 139-151.

Jarzabkowski P., 2005, Strategy as Practice: An Activity-Based Approach, Sage, London UK.

Jorna F., Wagenaar P, 2007, “The 'iron cage' strengthened? Discretion and digital discipline”, Public

Administration, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp- 189 – 214.

Kallinikos J., 2004, “The Social Foundations of the Bureaucratic Order”, Organization, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 13–

36.

Kelmann S., 2007, “Public Administration and Organization Studies”, The Academy of Management Annals,

Vol. 1, pp. 225-267.

Kettl D.F., 2000, “The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of

government”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 488-497.

Kettl D.F., 2002, The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for the 21st Century, Baltimore,

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kickert M.J.W., 2005, “Distinctiveness in the study of public management in Europe”, Public Management

Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 537 – 563.

Kim P.S., Halligan J., Cho N., Oh C.H., Eikenberry A.M., 2005, “Toward Participatory and Transparent

Governance: Report on the Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government”, Public Administration

Review, Vol. 65, No. 6.

Kling R., 1980, “Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research”,

Computing Surveys, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 61-110.

Kurland N.B., Egan T.D., 1999, “Telecommuting: Justice and control in the virtual organization”,

Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 500–513.

La Porte T.M., Demchak C.C., De Jong M., 2002, “Democracy and Bureaucracy in the Age of the Web.

Empirical Findings and Theoretical Speculations”, Administration & Society, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 411-46.

25

Lado A.A., Zhang M.J., 1998, “Expert systems, knowledge development and utilization, and sustained

competitive advantage: A resource-based model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 489–

509.

Leftwich A., 1993, “Governance, democracy and development in the Third World”, Third World Quarterly,

Vol. 14, No. 3.

Lippi A, 1995, “La riorganizzazione amministrativa come ristrutturazione simbolica: gli Uffici per la relazione

con il pubblico”, Rivista trimestrale di scienza dell’amministrazione, Vol. 1.

Lipsky M., 1980, Street level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services, New York, Russel

Sage Foundation.

Llewellyn N., Hindmarsh J., 2010, Organisation, Interaction and Practice. Studies of Ethnomethodology and

Conversation Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lynn L., Heinrich C., Hill C., 2000, “Studying governance and public management: challenges and

prospects”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 10, pp. 233-262.

Meneguzzo M., 1997, “Ripensare la modernizzazione amministrativa e il New Public Management.

L’esperienza italiana: innovazione dal basso e sviluppo della governance locale”, Azienda Pubblica, No.

6.

Meyer H., Kay E., French J.R., 1964, “Split roles in performance appraisal”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 43,

pp. 123-129.

Meyers M.K., Vorsanger S., 2002, “Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy”, in B.

Guy Peters and John Pierre’s (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp.

245-255.

Miettinen R., Samra-Fredericks D., Yanow D., 2009, “Re-Turn to Practice: An Introductory Essay”,

Organization Studies, Vol. 30. No. 12, pp. 1309–1327.

Moon M. J., 2002, “The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?”, Public

Administration Review, Vol. 62. No. 4, pp. 424-433.

Moore M., 1995, Creating public value. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Moore M., Hartley J., 2008, Innovations in Governance, Public Management Review, N. 1, Vol. 10.

Mosley H., Schütz H., Breyer N., 2001, “Management by Objectives in European Public Employment

Services”, Discussion Paper FS I 01 -203 prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for

Employment and Social Affairs.

Moynihan D.P., Landuyt N., 2009, “How Do Public Organizations Learn? Bridging Cultural and Structural

Perspectives”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 1097-1105.

Mulgan R., 2003, “One Cheer for Hierarchy. Accountability in Disjointed Governance”, Political Science, n. 2,

Vol. 55.

Myers C.A., 1970, Computers in knowledgebased fields, Cambridge, Mass.,.M.I.T. Press.

Nicolini D., Gherardi S., Yanow D. (eds), 2003, Knowing in organizations: A practice-base approach, Armonk,

NY, M. E. Sharpe.

Normann R., 1984, Service Management - Strategy and Leadership in Service Business, Chichester: John

Wiley. & Sons, Ltd.

26

North D.C., 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

O’Neil R., 2009, “The Transformative Impact Of E-Government On Public Governance In New Zealand”,

Public Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 751 – 770.

OECD, 2003, Managing Decentralisation: A New Role for Labour Market Policy, France, OECD Publication

Service.

O'Flynn J., 2007, “From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial

implications”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 353-366.

Orlikowski W.J., Yates J., Okamura K., Fujimoto M., 1995, “Shaping electronic communication-The

metastructuring of technology in the context of use”, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 423– 444.

Orlikowski W.L., 2000, “Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying

technology in organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 404–428.

Osborne D., Gaebler T., 1992, Reinventing Government, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ouadahi J., 2008, “A Qualitative Analysis of Factors Associated with User Acceptance and Rejection of a

New Workplace Information System in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Model”, Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, Vol. 25: 201–213

Patria de Lancer J., Holzer M., 2001, “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public

Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation”, Public

Administration Review", Vol. 61, No. 6, Pp 693- 708,

Perry J. L., Porter L. W., 1982, “Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations”, The

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-98.

Peters B. G., Pierre J., 2000, Governance, Politics and the State, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

Peters G.B., 1989, The Politics of Bureaucracy, 3rd Ed., New York, Longman.

Peters G.B., Pierre J., 1998, “Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration”, Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 8, pp. 223-243.

Pollitt C., 2005, “Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies”,

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, June, pp. 1-20.

Pollitt C., Bouckaert G., 2004, Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis, 2nd edn, Oxford, Oxford

University Press.

Powell T.C., Dent-Micallef A., 1997, “Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human,

business, and technology resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 375– 405.

Premfors R., 1998, “Reshaping the Democratic State: Swedish Experiences in a Comparative Perspective”,

Public Administration, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 141 – 59.

Rhodes R.A.W, 1996, “The New Governance: Governing without Government”, Political Studies, Vol. XLIV,

pp. 652-667.

Rhodes R.A.W, 1997, Understanding Governance, Buckingham, Open University.

Romzek B., Dubnick M., 1987, “Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy”,

Public Administration Review, Vol. 47.

Rusted R., Martin S., 1991, “Panacea or panopticom? The hidder power of computer mediated

communication”, Communication Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 427-459.

27

Samra-Fredericks D., 2003, “Strategizing as Lived Experience and Strategists' Everyday Efforts to Shape

Strategic Direction", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1; pp. 147-174.

Schein E., 1988, Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.

Schwartzman H.B., 1988, "Stories at Work: Play in an Organizational Context", in Bruner E.M. (ed.), Text,

Play and Story: The Construction and Reconstruction of Self and Society, Chicago, Waveland Press.

Sims D., 2008, “Managerial Identity Formation in a Public Sector Professional: An Autobiographical

Account”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 31, pp. 988–1002.

Slusher E.A., Sims H.P. Jr., 1975, “Commitment through MBO interviews”, Business Horizons, Vol. 8, No. 2,

pp. 5-12.

Stahl. B.C., 2006, “Accountability and Reflective Responsibility in Information Systems”, in C. Zielinski, P.

Duquenoy and K. Kimppa, (eds), The Information Society: Emerging Landscapes, New York, Springer.

Stoker G., 2006, “Public Value Management”, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36, No. 1,

pp. 41-57.

Streib G., Navarro I., 2006, “Citizen Demand for Interactive E-Government. The Case of Georgia Consumer

Services”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36 N. 3, pp. 288-300.

Tosi H.L., Carroll S.J., 1970, “Some factors affecting the success of management by objectives”, Journal of

Management Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 209-223.

Tosi H.L., Hunter J., Chesser R., Tarter J.R., Carroll S., 1976, “How real are changes induced by management

by objectives?”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 276-306.

Tsoukas H., 2005, Complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology, Oxford, Oxford University

Press.

Vaast E., 2007, “What Goes Online Comes Offline: Knowledge Management System Use in a Soft

Bureaucracy”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28, No. 3,, pp. 283–306.

Van de Ven A.H., Poole M.S., 2005, “Alternative Approaches for Studying Organizational Change”,

Organization Studies, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 1377-1404.

Verton D., 2000, “Electronic government”, Computerworld, Vol. 34, N. 50.

Vigoda-Gadot E., Meiri, S. 2008, “New public management values and person-organization fit: a socio

psychological approach and empirical examination among public sector personnel”, Public

Administration, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 11-131.

Weick K.E., 2001, Making sense in Organizations, Blackwell Publishing.

Weick K.E., Sutcliffe K.M., Obstfeld D., 2005, “Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking”, Organization

Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 409-421.

Weisband S.P., Schneider S.K., Connolly, T., 1995, “Computer-mediated communication and

socialinformation - Status salience and status differences”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38,

No. 4, pp. 1124 - 1151.

Wenger E., 1998, Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity, New York, Cambridge University

Press.

West D. M., 2004, “E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes”, Public

Administration Review, Vol. 64, N. 1, pp. 15-27.

28

West W., 2004, “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in

Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, No.

1, pp. 66-80.

Whetten D.A., 2006, “Albert and Whetten Revisited: Strengthening the Concept of Organizational Identity”,

Journal of Management Inquiry, 2006; vol. 15: pp. 219 – 234.

Wholey J., 1999, “Performance-Based Management: Responding to the Challenges”, Public Productivity and

Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 288-307.

Wintringham M., 2003, “Annual Report of the State Services Commissioner”, Annual Report of the State

Services Commission for year ended 30 June 2003.

Whittington R., 1996, “Strategy as Practice”, Long Range Planning, pp. 731-735.

Yanow D., 2000, “Seeing Organizational Learning: A `Cultural' View”, Organization, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 247-

268.

Yin R. K., 2003, Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zimmerman M. A., Rappaport J., 1988, “Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological

empowerment”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 5.