THE INTERNET-TIME AND THE STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS OF BUREAUCRACY: THE CASE OF

VENICE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Giuseppe Alfano

PhD candidate in Multimedia Communication at the University of Udine Visiting researcher at the Centre for Social Informatics – Edinburgh Napier University

ABSTRACT

The paper is based on empirical research focused on the

implementation of a series of on-line services inspired by the logic of the

„social web‟ in the Local Government of Venice: in particular IRIS, an on-

line platform where citizens can report urban maintenance problems by

posting a message on a web page, and expect an almost instant reply by

the Local Government.

More specifically the focus of the paper is the effect that the

implementation of web services that require an “internet-time” response

has on the organizational processes and organizational culture of the

Public Administration. The research is mainly based on expert interviews

and describes the managers' and representatives' activity of interpretation

and sense-making realized in order to manage the implementation of this

kind of internet-services. It is claimed in the paper that their interpretation

needs to encompass also a reconsideration of their role and the role that

public institutions should have in the knowledge society.

Moreover the paper develops theoretical considerations drawing from

this empirical data. It is discusses the concept of “enactment of

technology”, used both by Orlikowski (2000) and Fountain (2001), which

reconsiders the interplay between the characteristics of the technological

tools, the constraints of the institutional context and the interpretative

flexibility and self-reflexivity of human agents. The paper assesses how the

provision of an internet-time service, such as IRIS, and the development of

an effective interactive web platform by a local government could imply an

at least partial redefinition of the Weberian structural elements of

bureaucracy, such as the principles of hierarchy and specialization.

Key words: Weber, public administration theory, structuration theory, institutional theory, Venice Local Government, social web, expert interview methodology, enactment of technology

1. INTRODUCTION The role public servants can play in the effective implementation of new technologies

within the public sector is a topic of growing importance in the field of e-government and e-

democracy (Kim, C., Holzer, M., 2006; Chou, T., Chen, J., Ching-Kuo, P., 2007). The aim is to

assess the relevance of their activity for the complete exploitation of the potentialities of new

technologies - in particular the Internet – within the public sector. E-government and public

administration scholars are focusing on how the relationship between public officials and

citizens – or, more specifically, between public administration and its stakeholders – can help

or limit the implementation of ICTs in Government. (Gil-Garcia, Martines-Moyano, 2006;

Snellen, I., 2002)

The topic of the article is the implementation process of an Internet service, called IRIS,

in the Local Government of Venice. IRIS is an on-line platform for the reporting of urban

maintenance needs where citizens can report urban maintenance problems by posting a

message on a web page, and expect a prompt reply by the Local Government. Venice Local

Government is considered a benchmark for the application of ICTs to public services in the

European context1. The implementation of IRIS, in fact, is only a part of a project called Venice

2.0 – that started in the year 2009 - which aims to use the Internet to build a new kind of

relationship between citizens and the Local Government and a new form of “digital identity”

for the City of Venice. The project, both for its aims and for the way in which was conducted,

represented a significant discontinuity in the organizational culture of the Local Government.

The article in particular is focused on the representatives’ and public managers’ exposition

and interpretation of this discontinuity.

Venice Local Government’s representatives and managers elaborated new frames of

meaning suitable to orient successfully the implementation activity of the new Internet

services. The management of an effective internet-time communication with citizens implied

a reconsideration of many elements that have had characterized the processes and the values

of the Local Government until the start of the project. In particular the ‘sensemaking’ and

conceptualization of the public managers was focused on the effort to connect the logic of

network computing with that of public administration. For the specific role they played in the

1 In particular Venice Local Government has been inserted in the list of the 11 potential case studies for the EXPGOV Project of IPTS, the Institute for Perspective Technological Studies of the European Commission. The EXPGOV Project –acronym for ‘Exploring emerging ICT-enabled governance models in European cities – aims at deepening the understanding of the interplay between ICTs and governance processes at city level in the EU. http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/EXPGOV.html

implementation processes of the new technologies and for the peculiarity of Venice Local

Government’s case these managers can be considered ‘experts’, i.e. they have an exclusive

experience and a specific knowledge which is particularly relevant for the interpretation and

the decision-making of a given field of activity. In our considered opinion the description and

interpretation of their knowledge and experience is an important tool to understand which

kind of difficulties the full exploitation of potentialities of the Internet pose for the public

sector.

2. THE ON-LINE SERVICE AND THE VENICE 2.0 PROJECT 2.1 IRIS. Commonalities and differences from Fix My Street

IRIS is an acronym for Internet Reporting Information System2. It is an on-line service

of the Venice Local Government for the reporting of urban maintenance needs. Citizens can

report problems on an online map showing the location where the problem is (fig. 1). They

can also take photographs of the sites they want to signal and upload them on the websites or

sent them via MMS. The reported problems are visible to all users both on the map and on a

chronological list (fig. 2). They are subdivided into separate sections corresponding to

different typologies. A statistic with all the problems typologies is also shown on the website.

The Local Government provides a feedback to each problem report within few hours,

indicating which office has the competence for its resolution and tracking the solution process

of each case on the website. At any time the citizen who reported the problem or another one

can post an update and express comments about Local Government’s intervention (fig. 3).

IRIS is a service directly drawn on Fix my street3. The British website Fix my street

enables citizens to report and discuss local problems and to keep track of their resolution by

the local governments. It was developed by the charity My Society and, at least initially, was

funded by the UK central government. The maps on the website are referred to the whole

Great Britain. All the British citizens can report the problems of their own area. Problems

reported by users are sent automatically by the system to the appropriate local government

via email. This is the biggest difference between IRIS and Fix my street. The latter is designed

2 http://iris.comune.venezia.it/ 3 http://www.fixmystreet.com/

Fig 1. IRIS. The on-line map

Fig. 2. IRIS. The chronological list of the problem report

Fig. 3. IRIS. An update to the problem report with the comments of a citizen about Local Government’s

intervention.

as a public service on-line forum that provides access to user-generated reports but is not

related to the responsibility of any specific local government. It is important to notice that, as

reported in a recent study, Fix my street is considered by council officers a duplication of

existing on-line services, especially local council websites that, in some cases allows citizens

to report urban maintenance problems as well (King, Brown, 2007, p. 77). Nevertheless on

those websites problem reports are not visible to all. On the contrary what it is worth to

notice about IRIS, the Venice Local Government on-line service, is that the Local Government

itself makes both the reported problems and the results of its intervention visible to all. This

fact has represented a significant discontinuity in the organizational culture of the Local

Government of Venice and has implied a huge effort in defining new frameworks of meaning

and new concepts for the activity orientation.

The implementation of IRIS is only a part of a project conducted by the Venice Local

Government that has had implications both at the internal organizational level and at the city

policy level. The name of the Project is Venice 2.0 and its aim is the utilization of network

technologies to build a new kind of relationship between citizens and the Local Government,

to increase the economic competitiveness of the Venice urban area and, finally, to shape a new

form of digital citizenship for Venetian inhabitants.

2.2 The Venice 2.0 Project

The Venice 2.0 project was structured on two different levels: one related to the City’s

policies and the other one related to the organizational and communicational aspects of the

Local Government. For what concerns the policy level project’s main activity was to provide

digital infrastructures for the City and to design new touristic services. In particular the city

policy level of Venice 2.0 was characterized by three main elements: the building of a city

fibre-optic broadband network owned by the Local Government itself, the diffusion of free

public wi-fi hot spots in the city and the putting on-line of Venice Connected, the Venice’s

official site for tourism. In this sense, for what concerns the city level, the ‘vision’ that oriented

the Venice 2.0 project was to change the image of the City: from an old city with an economy

based almost exclusively on mass tourism to the “city of immateriality”, capable to experiment

new forms of Internet application to services, in particular touristic services. This aim is also

stated by a public managers of Venice Local Government

“Venice Local Government didn’t build the digital infrastructures only to provide free Internet

connections to citizens. In the future Venice will not be able to have heavy industries but areas of

excellence that will use the Internet as a work item. This is a policy strategy. New technology companies

can find in Venice a city that truly fit for new technologies.

For what concerns the Local Government the Venice 2.0 Project has regarded both the

internal communication – in particular the renewal of the Intranet inspired by the logic of

social networks – and the external one, addressed to the citizens. IRIS is only one of the new

Internet services that the Local Government developed following the approach of the ‘social

web’ or the so called ‘web 2.0’. It is beyond the scope of the article to describe these services

in the details. We briefly mention the fact that these services are designed to allow citizen

participation and discussion, and are inspired by the approach often called ‘co-production’

(Boyle, Harris, 2009).

The Venice 2.0 Project has represented a huge discontinuity in the tradition of Venice

Local Government also from a cultural and an organizational point of view. The Project was

conducted in an innovative way for Public Administration’s tradition. Local Government’s

officers were invited to collaborate not on the basis of their official specialization, but on the

basis of their competence and interest in new technologies. The project was leaded in

particular by three managers and the vice-mayor. They created a teamwork between officials

in which each of them was free to give his contribution regardless of the hierarchical position

or the office’ competence.

This study is focused in particular on the sense making activity and the effort of

building new frames of meaning for the activity orientation made by the three managers who

lead the projects and the Vice-mayor. In order to conduct the project successfully they tried to

reconsider and – at least marginally – to modify the organizational culture of the Local

Government. Our tenet is that this effort implied also a partial reconsideration of the

principles of public administration theory. We applied the expert interview methodology in

order to describe the concepts and the frameworks of meaning elaborated by the leaders of

the project.

3. THE GIDDENS’ CONCEPT OF ‘DOUBLE HERMENEUTICS’ AND THE EXPERT INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY

There is a vast literature – not only in the professional field but also in the

institutional and policy field – which, celebrating the integrative power of the Internet,

doesn‟t consider the complex interplay between the technology enactment and the

organizational change in the public sector. Network technologies can enhance public sector

transformation but, on the other hand, it can also be the case that their potentiality could be

constrained by public sectors‟ institutional characteristics. We are with Fountain when she

states that: “technology enactment and organizational change, catalyzed by the Internet and

related technologies, must follow similar patterns. Absent theories that connect the logic of

networked computing with that of institutions, researchers and practitioners are left without

sufficiently realistic analytic frameworks.” (Fountain, 2001, p. 97).

In line with a Structuration Theory‟s perspective, we think that scholars‟ role in

designing theoretical frameworks could be significantly facilitated by dealing with public

officer‟s and decision-makers‟ direct experience. Human actors do have the „conceptual

capabilities‟ and the „theoretical understanding‟ of the social systems to whose existence

they contribute (Giddens, 1984, p. 5). Therefore, scholars could help public officers and

decision-makers to enhance their „discursive penetration‟ (ib., p. 374) of the public sector‟s

characteristics and – especially in regards to benchmarking cases – of the interplay between

network technologies‟ implementation and the cultural and organizational change of the

public sector. By doing so scholars can put into practice Giddens‟ concept of „double

hermeneutics‟, i.e. the interpretation of the frames of meaning used by actors to orient their

daily activities of social or organizational life. In this sense scholars invent meta-languages,

„second-order‟ concepts that are based and presume the capability of the actors - whose

action studies are referred to – to develop the conceptual tools they need to enable their

social environment (ib., p. 284).

It is in this specific regard that we use the methodology of expert interviews. This

methodology is tightly related to Giddens‟ concepts of „discursive consciousness‟ (Giddens,

1979, p. 73) and „institutional reflexivity‟ (Giddens, 1991, p. 20) “which supposes that all

premises of individual and organizational activity will be routinely examined in the light of

new information about such practices” (Bogner et alii, 1991, p. 4). As Giddens states,

institutional reflexivity is “the regularised use of knowledge about circumstances of social

life as a constitutive element in its organisation and transformation” (Giddens, 1991, p. 20).

In Giddens‟ view actors‟ knowledge is not incidental to institutions but constitutive

of them. Expert knowledge is related to „abstract systems‟ (ib.). It is belonged by high-level

workers who have an exclusive and comprehensive view on a professional or institutional

field, who can relevantly influence the conditions of actions for other workers and, finally,

whose knowledge is particularly important for problem-solving activity. In this sense expert

knowledge is related to the „institutional reflexivity‟ because its distinctive element is the

use of new information for the transformation of institutional characteristics of

organizations. Expert interviews help scholars to reconstruct the knowledge and expertise

that are mastered by experts but, at the same time, are latent. In this sense expert interviews

follow “the goals that lies at the heart of qualitative research: the reconstruction of latent

content of meaning” (Bogner et alii, 1991, p. 4). They are characterized by a semi-structured

form and are aimed to let the interviewee develop his own concepts and formulate his own

relevances. “The aim of the expert interview is neither to subject the interview partner to an

interrogation-like nor to an artificial “non-directive” interview situation, but rather to create

a communication situation with which he is familiar, that is to conduct a quasi normal

conversation” (Pfadenhauer, 1991, p. 84).

4. THE INTERVIEW’S STRUCTURE AND THE PRINCIPLES OF BUREAUCRACY In designing the structure of the interview for Venice Local Government‟s case, on

one hand we followed Fountain‟s suggestion about the development of a framework able to

connect the logic of networked computing with that of institutions (see previous paragraph),

on the other hand we tried to exploit the „theoretical understanding‟ of the interviewees

about their institutional environment. We made that with a particular reference to

interviewee‟s problem-solving experience. The structure of the interview is based on open

and abstract questions. In fact, in our considered opinion, the connection between public

administration‟s concepts and the logic of networked computing cannot be found without

developing a dialectical structure. In our view there is a structural oppositional relationship

between the concepts of the two fields. The experts that deal with the implementation of

network technologies within the public sector face with problems that are not only related

with organizational dynamics but are linked with the conceptualization and logic of the

public administration itself. In this sense they are obliged to reconsider – and in some sense

reshape – notions belonging to the public administration theory. They need to make use of

their capacity of abstraction and conceptualization in order on one hand to monitor their

actions and, on the other hand, to reflect about the frames of meaning in which these actions

are inserted and the final consequences they could have.

Taking as a starting point interviewees‟ direct experience, the structure of the

interview we used in this research force them to reflect about the oppositions and the

possible contradictions that the implementation of network technologies within the public

sector could bring about. Our aim was to understand how the re-shaping of some public

administration concepts oriented the experts in their day-to-day activity of implementation

of the new Internet services. In order to do this we took as a point of reference Weber‟s

theorization of bureaucracy which, still nowadays, represents the clearer and more complete

definition of the principles that orient public sector‟s organization and processes, especially

for what concerns the Western countries. Weber describes bureaucracy focusing on its very

abstract and distinctive elements, and depicts it as an ideal typology. “Every democratically

governed industrial nation organizes as a bureaucratic state following the form delineated by

Weber” (Fountain, 2001, p. 49). Our tenet is that, still nowadays, public servants who are

involved in renewal projects that entail an at least marginal reconsideration of the cultural

frameworks and the organizational processes of institutions – such as the implementation of

new technologies – have to deal with the principles coined by Weber. As it will be shown

afterword, this hypothesis is confirmed by the results of the interviews.

It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a detailed description of Weber‟s

theorization. We just outline the Weberian structural elements of bureaucracy that, in our

considered opinion, are more central and, at the same, could be considered more in contrast

to the logics that network technologies bring along. Among these principles we can number

the followings:

- Official jurisdictional areas. In Weber‟s theorization the „office‟ is a concept. It is

the central feature of bureaucracy. It is a sphere of legal authority that is granted and

assigned to an organizational area, which is under the responsibility of an

administrator. Office‟s functions are assigned as official duties and are defined in a

stable way. The authority to give commands is defined in the same stable way and it

is strictly delimited by rules.

- Specialization. This principle is tightly related to the former one. Weber states that

“bureaucratization offers above all the optimum possibility for carrying through the

principle of specializing administrative functions according to purely objective

considerations. Individual performances are allocated to functionaries who have

specialized training and who by constant practice increase their expertise” (Weber,

1978, p. 975). Therefore specialization is a concept that is not only related to office‟s

tasks but also to officials‟ competence and expertise. Personnel are employed only if

they qualified under general rules and passed special examinations. Afterwards they

are specifically trained for their assignments. The office‟s activity demands their full

working capacity.

- Hierarchy. Offices‟ functions and spheres of legal authority are linked by a chain of

command that is hierarchically organized. The system of super- and sub- ordination

is clearly established. The higher offices supervise the lower ones and the decisions

of the latter can be appealed by the governed to the corresponding superior authority.

- Written documents. Bureaucratic activity is based on written documentation and

systems of file keeping. Written documentation is a precondition of the legitimacy of

the decision making of bureaucratic offices. In this sense between the original and

the draft form of documents there is a significant difference that is related with the

legal value and the officialdom itself of office‟s activity.

- General rules. The office is managed following abstract and impersonal rules, both

for what concerns the internal interpersonal relationship between the officials and the

external regulation of the matters covered by office‟s competence. The aim is to

eliminate individual and arbitrary judgments or ethical considerations from the day-

to-day activity and decision-making processes. Officials remain impersonal in their

contacts with the public. They treat people as „cases‟ rather than as „individuals‟.

The interview is focused on the oppositions that could occur between the conception

of public administration drawn from the afore-mentioned Weberian principles and the logics

of networked computing. In particular we try to describe the strategies actors use to solve

these possible oppositions reconsidering, avoiding and reinterpreting bureaucratic principles

in the light of the challenges network technologies pose. The oppositions are the following:

- Transparency versus Exposure. In Weber‟s view one of the consequences of

bureaucratization is the tendency to develop secrecy, “especially in regard to the

knowledge they hold and to their intentions or their plans” (Morrison, 2006, p. 386).

Network technologies can increase accessibility to institutions‟ internal processes

and can be used by the public to discover and highlight not only good results but also

inefficiency. In this sense network technologies can dramatically shift the boundaries

between what is secret and what is public for public administration.

- Speed versus Accuracy. External requests that come in via network technologies

automatically lead to demands of prompt replies. This fact could imply a diminished

accuracy in public administrators‟ answers which not only are expected to be always

correct but, in many case, have a legal value for citizens.

- External collaboration versus Legitimacy. In Weber‟s view every power need a

strong self-justification (Weber, 1978, p. 953-4). Legitimacy is people‟s belief that

institutions have the right to rule over others or to manage monopolistically some

activities –such as, for examples, tax imposition – on the basis of exclusive

competences. Nevertheless processes of work collaboration enabled by ICTs are

characterized by information sharing and can imply or can lead to a change in the

power relationship between collaborators. Even important organizations can loose

their centrality and, therefore, run the risk to be de-legitimated.

- Internal collaboration versus Specialization. In collaborative networked processes

is more likely that persons bring their own contribution independently of job

positions or office‟s competence. Networked collaboration is usually associated with

innovation and creative processes. Nevertheless it could also lead to frictions,

collisions between different views and conflicts between personal interests that can

create losses of efficiency and a diminished reliability of the decision processes. This

is the reason why, in Weber‟s view, the technical superiority of bureaucracy was due

to the principle of specializing administrative functions according to purely objective

considerations, … calculable rules and „without regard for persons” (Weber, 1978,

p. 975).

- Process vs Network. In collaborative networked processes officials may bring their

own contribution independently of hierarchical positions. This could lead to conflicts

between different hierarchical levels.

- Agency competences vs Policies necessities. Network technologies bring about an

increased „disintermediation‟ between institutions and citizens. The increased

perception of an absence of filters in the communication with institutions could lead

citizens to ask questions which are relevant for their needs but are not encompassed

in the specific competence of an institution.

Although the form and the sequence of interview‟s questions can change, they are all

grouped following the afore-mentioned structure (see the appendix for details). As it is

mentioned in the previous paragraph the sequence of the questions change in order to let the

interviewee describe his experience, explain the frames of meaning orienting his actions

and, finally, develop his conceptualization about his field of activity. Nevertheless the

general structure underneath the questions guides the conversation between the interviewer

and the interviewee and makes the interviews comparable. Four in-depth interviews of

approximately two hours each were conducted for this study. The interviewees are the vice-

mayor of the Venice Local Government and the three managers that, with the vice-mayor,

were the main points of reference for the development and the management of the Venice

2.0 Project.

5. REINTERPRETING WEBERIAN PRINCIPLES In this paragraph we show the final results of the qualitative analysis of the interviews.

The analysis process of expert interviews has several consequential steps that go from the

transcription and paraphrasing to the category formation and the theoretical

conceptualization (Meuser and Nagel, 2009). Nevertheless it is beyond the scope of the article

to examine all these steps in detail. We will focus on the concepts that helped actors to orient

their activity and, using those as a starting point, we will try to develop theoretical

frameworks suitable to connect the logic of public administration with that of networked

computing. Therefore only the passages regarding the influence of the Internet services on

organizational processes and public administration theory will be reported.

One of the most interesting results of the analysis of the interviews is that, although the

interviewees have not a direct knowledge of the Weberian bureaucratic principles, these

principles are anyway an important part of their ‘theoretical understanding’ of their field of

activity. In some sense it is feasible to say that the interviewees reconstruct these principles

from their observation and conceptualization about their day-to-day activity. In our

considered opinion, this fact is a confirmation that the Weberian theorization about

bureaucracy still nowadays is orienting public administration’s activity.

Moreover, from our point of view what is very interesting to notice is that two slightly

distinct theoretical efforts emerge from the analysis of the interviews. On one hand, in fact,

the interviewees’ conceptualization is focused on the description, the reconsideration and the

constructive criticism of the bureaucratic principles. Drawing on the ‘structure of

argumentation’ coined by Francis Bacon we’ll define this part of the interviews the ‘pars

destruens’ of actors’ theorization. On the other hand, in their exposition of the

implementation of the new services interviewees make an endeavour to define new

frameworks of meaning that could be suitable to orient local government’s activity in dealing

with the logics of network computing and the Internet. We define this part ‘pars costruens’

and, taking that as a starting point, we will try to abstract a general conceptualization from

their words.

5.1 Pars destruens

Transparency and secrecy

The interviewees are aware both of the tendency of bureaucratic organization to develop

secrecy and of the importance of ‘transparency’ for the actual public administration. They

consider secrecy a point of weakness of public administration. Even ‘transparency’ is defined

as an outdated concept.

“I don’t like the word transparency. It’s a term obsolete. It implies that there is someone who works and

then has the goodness to inform citizens about the sense of his work. The Internet, Web 2.0 platforms

allow dialogues. Dialogue takes place between peers. There is no place for someone who jealousy hides

secrets. Public Administration and citizens should dialogue at the same level. This is the real revolution.”

Legitimacy

It is interesting to notice that a strict tie between secrecy and legitimacy emerges from

the interviews. The strict relationship between secrecy and legitimacy was theorized by

Weber himself (Weber, 1978, p. 952). The interviewees try to reshape the notion of legitimacy

starting from the ties between the public accessibility to information and the legitimacy and

power of institutions.

“Don’t fear that your failures are seen because from citizen’s reports about local problems you can also

derive benefit in your response procedure, you can derive benefit in your ability to intervene”

Moreover the notion of legitimacy is reconsidered in the light of historical and

institutional consideration about the weakness of the public administration in the current

times.

Interviewer: “are you ready to risk public administration’s money and legitimacy for that?”

Interviewee: “I don’t care because it’s already seriously compromised. The world is going in another

direction. We cannot behave as if we were a isolated castle”

Specialization

The notion of specialization is called into question from two different points of view, i.

e. considering the office’s functions and the officials’ competences. On one hand it is stated

that, although offices should maintain their specialised administrative functions and their

official jurisdictional areas, the boundaries between the areas of activity are being blurred by

citizens’ pressure. For this reason there is an increasing need of horizontal collaboration

between offices’ different specialized functions.

“There are specialized functions that no one will ever question. Nevertheless I even theorize that there is

no single function you cannot mix with other ones. (…) Citizens want urban area management, they don’t

care about public institutions’ management.”

On the other hand it is theorized that in order to achieve good results in the

implementation of Internet services institutions should exploit official’s competence and

expertise that are not utilized in their regular assignments.

“In Public Administration there are a lot of people with expertise but often they cannot utilize it in their

official jobs. We found Web 2.0 pros, or open source experts in the social policy office or the tourism policy

office”

Hierarchy

The principle of hierarchy was reshaped ‘de facto’ during the design and

implementation process of the Internet services. Officials were allowed to give their

contribution to the project - and in some cases to take its leadership - regardless of their

hierarchical level. Interviewees are aware of how much this fact could be innovative for the

culture and the processes of public administration.

“When the call to participate to the Venice 2.0 project was made only those who had participate in a

questionnaire response were invited to the seminar that opened the Project, and many managers were

not invited.”

“You should choose skilled people regardless of their hierarchical levels”

General rules

The interviewees are aware that abstract and impersonal rules are not effective in

Internet communication and in network relationships. On one hand they are ready to apply, at

least in part, self-regulation principles to the Internet services of the Local Government. The

interviewees consider citizens responsible users and think that they could even provide an

indispensable help in monitoring the services and preventing abuses or misuses.

“A bit at a time we are trying to educate them (the citizens. ed.) But in reality the Internet is a tool you

cannot govern. You must accept what comes. It self-regulates itself.”

On the other hand, the aim of public managers is to change the logics of Venice Local

Government’s communication. More specifically their aim is that the Local Government’s

Internet communication with the citizens would be focused on citizens’ individual needs and

not on the explanation of ‘cases’ or general rules.

“The biggest job we have done on our own house is to change the lexicon of our colleagues in dealing with

citizens. That must be a colloquial vocabulary, a shared one. People do not want to hear protocol

numbers”

5.2 Pars costruens

From legitimacy to responsibility and networking

It is interesting to notice that the interviewees are aware that in the implementation

process of the Internet services a part of their power is called into question. They are looking

for a kind of legitimation that is not based on secrecy - as theorized by Weber - but on the

contrary could imply a full information access for citizens. This kind of legitimation is based

on an increasing and constant contact with citizens. In fact in order to provide an effective

service - and in particular a kind of service that is based most of all on Internet

communication – public administration should consider service provision not only as an

official duty but also as a natural consequence of the relationship with citizens.

“The secret, I mean the word secret, is what justifies the maintenance of power. You decide to waive a

portion of your power”

“IRIS is a good example. When citizens report problems the official who has jurisdiction to intervene can

not pretend. If I do not answer, do not take charge of the alert that I get through IRIS I’m exposed to the

criticism from everyone, because everyone sees everything. On the other hand this should change my way

of working. It should simplify. Surely I will be under the magnifying glass but it should help me to

organize my work, to take my responsibility and plan my business”.

Moreover, in order to use the Internet effectively the Local Government should

understand networking logics. In particular it should recognize that it is just a part of the

network and that it is not the exclusive provider of information about the City. Very likely

citizens share information and dialogue about community’s problems on many Internet

platforms. Therefore Local Government’s Internet Communication in order to be interesting

for citizens should be focused on their needs.

“We are a significant player in the field but not the unique one”

“I am convinced that e-democracy, e-government, e-everything doesn’t work until it touches the interest

of the person. When you touch citizens’ interest then they participate. Citizens do not tell you what they

think about you. People want to know from you what you do for them. Perhaps Venice is a success

precisely for these reasons.”

The interviewees are trying to develop a kind of legitimacy for which citizen’s access to

information could be a point of strength and not a point of weakness. They are trying to

develop a concept of legitimacy that is suitable for the ‘information society’ and for the

particular historical and economic conditions the public administration has to face nowadays.

“Today we are in an epoch of lack of resources and limited resources forces you to choose. In their

implementation these choices must be continuously reinforced and monitored by citizens. These tools

allow citizens to participate in democratic processes. Otherwise they are not involved. Especially in this

time, when political parties no longer exist and institutions are very week”.

From official jurisdictional areas and official duties to adaptation and dialogue

In order to be effective Local Government’s Internet communication with citizens

should be adapted to the logics of peer-to-peer dialogue. An important consequence of the

dialogue between peers is the obligation to answer to citizens, even though these answers are

not perfectly encompassed in office’s competences or the institutional duties. Citizens should

be free to ask information or to express any need without any kind of filter from institutions.

The reason for this is that from citizens’ requests, even though they are not related to local

government’s official duties, the public administration could learn more about citizens needs

and could adapt the services to those needs.

“In my opinion in the dialogue with citizens you have the obligation to answer. Even to say “I can’t do it”. I

can’t do it because I have no money, I can’t do it because it is not legitimate. It doesn’t matter. You have

the obligation of the response. Citizens are annoyed when you don’t answer to them. Reply “no”, but

reply”.

“There is no longer a thing called “not my competence”. This fact implied that I (the local government.

Ed.) was organized as I wanted regardless of citizens’ needs. I should organize myself in a manner suited

to citizens’ needs. These needs are expressed to me through an intelligent use of network technologies.”

From specialization to innovation and formalization

In interviewees’ view public administration’s activity should be characterized not only

by the recursive reproduction of the functions assigned as official duties but also by

innovation. Nevertheless innovation should be associated with the respect to administrative

norms. Therefore Venice Local Government’s administrators are trying to develop and to

apply in their day-to day- activity of implementation of the new Internet services a two-steps

process capable to make innovation compatible with the respect of public administration’s

norms. On one hand Venice Local Government should be ready to insert new ideas,

knowledge and experience coming from different sources - also external ones – in its activity.

On the other hand the Local Government should be capable to assess these contributions in

order to evaluate if they could be coherent with the norms and the official duties of public

administration. In this view offices’ and officials’ specialization has still an important role but

not a predominant one. It is utilized for the assessment of the innovation proposals.

“Do not expect the specialization of the engineer who does the engineering thing. Anything can come

from all over”.

“We are developing a project to involve students of a technical college of Venice in order to build a

software developer community focused on Local Government’s activity”

“I use engineer’s competence to validate the goodness, I mean if I take a product from the outside I

cannot leave all the responsibility to an eighteen-year-old. The validation should be provided by someone

who has the technical skills. But the guy who develops the thing, who is able to transform this mobile

phone in a multi-channel system to communicate with me, he must be a bit a imaginative, out of mind.”

6. THE ‘ENACTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY’ AND THE CASE OF VENICE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

6.1 the notion of ‘enactment of technology’

The Venice 2.0 Project represents a significant discontinuity in the organizational

culture and processes of the Local Government of Venice, both for its aims and for the way in

which it was conducted. It is interesting to notice that a significant part of interviewees’

reflections about the implementation of the new Internet services are concerned with the

interplay between new technologies’ characteristics and institutional and organizational

characteristics of the Local Government and the Public Administration in general. Therefore

in our considered opinion from the information derived from the analysis of this case it is

possible to develop some considerations about the notion of ‘enactment of technology’, which

is focused on implementation processes of technological tools within organizational contexts.

In particular it is focused on the interplay that can occur between the characteristics of the

technological tools, the constraints of institutional contexts and the activity of human actors.

The notion of “enactment of technology” deals with the subjective and objective ways

of defining and using a technology within an organizational context. It refuses the concept of

technological tools as mere “reified objects” and postulates a difference between the set of

material characteristics of technology and its emergent and situated use in a given context.

The notion of “enactment of technology” focuses on this interplay between the material

attributes of technological devices and the part that is socially constructed and interpreted

through its use. The two main scholars that focus on the notion of ‘enactment’ and apply it -

from different perspectives - within an overall conceptualization of the use of technology in

organizations are Fountain (Fountain, 2001) and Orlikowski (Orlikowski, 2000). For Fountain

“enacted technology is the perception, design, and use of objective technology” (Fountain,

2001, p. 98). For Orlikowski the notion of ‘enactment’ is an analytical and ‘practice lens’ that

focus on the open-ended possibilities of the different uses of technology in different contexts.

Orlikowski states that “enacted structures of technology use … are the set of rules and

resources that are (re)constituted in people’s recurrent engagement with the technologies at

hand” (Orlikowski, 2000, p. 407).

Both in Fountain’s view and in Orlikowski’s view the starting point of the

considerations about ‘enactment’ is the evidence that the full potentiality of a technology is

used very rarely within an organizational context. The individual perceptions and attitudes of

users can influence the utilization of a technology to the point that their “objective”

characteristics can be used in different ways within different organizational contexts, or even

not utilized at all. Therefore the material characteristics of technology are of little predictable

value in understanding the way in which tools will be utilized. The ‘enactment perspective’ is

aimed to analyze how and why people in different contexts use, misuse or not use at all the

different characteristics and potentiality of technological tools. However, between the two

scholars there is a difference in the definition of the notion of ‘enactment of technology’ that

derives from the specific perspective and theoretical traditions they belong to.

5.2 The institutional perspective on the enactment of technology

Institutional theories stress the constraints that organizations impose on action. As

Fountain states, the institutional perspective on technology “draws attention to structure and

process as well as the play of bureaucratic inertia, habits of mind, and the relative stability

and durability of institutionalized forms and arrangements in the context of new capabilities

occasioned by technology” (Fountain, 2007, p. 5). In the institutional perspective on e-

government and on technological change of the public sector – which is mainly represented

by Fountain (Fountain, 2001) – the interest of bureaucrats and decision-makers towards

technology is systematically influenced by institutions. Actors’ structural position in the

organization and ongoing relations in social and institutional networks have a bigger

relevance in comparison to individual interests. The social and political choices new

technologies bring along are always significantly mediated - or even ‘shaped’ (Bellamy,

Taylor, 1998, p. 152) - by the institutional settings in which they are embedded.

Fountain’s technology enactment framework is aimed “to show how the embeddedness

of government actors in cognitive, cultural, social, and institutional structures influences the

design, perceptions, and uses of the Internet and related IT” (ibid., p. 88). In Fountain’s view

the application of new information technologies to the public sector doesn’t lead necessarily

to transformation but – most likely – could be associated with the strengthening of the ‘status

quo’. In line with the institutional approach - and with the relevance it attributes to the

stability of institutions more than to their change – in Fountain’s work the key words

associated with enactment of technology are ‘reproduction’ and ‘preservation’ (Fountain,

2001, p. 90). “The process of enacting technology refers to the tendency of some

organizational actors to implement new IT in ways that reproduce, indeed strengthen,

institutionalized socio-structural mechanisms even when such enactments do not use

technology rationally or optimally” (ibidem). Although organizational actors are

knowledgeable about Internet’s potentiality, in enacting technology their interests come first.

These interests are related to actors’ institutional tasks, incentive structure and ongoing

social and network relations. It is for this reason that the preservation of the social and

network relationships and the maintenance of the performance programs and organizational

routines is the predominant concern in the utilization of a new technological tool. Therefore

the final aim of the enactment of technology will be the sustainment of what Fountain called

“deep institution” (ibidem), i. e. the history, the culture, the mental models and the values of

the organization. In Fountain’s view a marginal change in institutions can occur only in case of

an environmental “shock” – economic, political or technological – and because of the pressure

of an external actor (ibidem, p. 93; p. 103).

Could the Venice’s case lead to a partial reconsideration of this thesis? We can’t

consider the pressure to implement the Venice 2.0 project as external. Moreover it wasn’t

developed under the circumstance of an ‘environmental shock’. On the contrary, internal

actors’ autonomous considerations about Venice’s peculiar socio-economic situation, together

with autonomous reflections about the role public institutions should have in the ‘network

society’, were the most important conditions that led to the development of the project. The

project was only partially addressed to sustain what Fountain calls ‘deep institution’. On the

contrary, the implementation of the new services happened together with a partial

reconsideration of the mental models and the values of the organization. In the design and

implementation phase of the project the ‘knowledgeable actors’ of the Venice Local

Government combined the restructuration of the organizational processes and the

reconsideration of the organizational values. In order to do this they had recourse

considerably to their ‘reflexivity’ about the institutional context they belong to.

It is feasible to say that the Venice Local Government case could be considered a

demonstration that, even if the organizational constraints are undoubtedly relevant in a

process of enactment of technology, the initiative and the strategic choice of public managers

should not be overlooked. Institutional theories should consider the fact that public managers

not only adapt to their institutional environments but, in some cases, try to modify them with

their discretion. Although institutions define a scope of action, scholars should not ignore the

room for autonomous considerations and initiative public administrators have. In his variant

of institutional approach to technology Werle states that “individual actors acting as

representatives, delegates or agent on behalf of a corporate or collective actor … have

different social background, socialization histories, knowledge, experience and views of the

world and therefore must be regarded as enjoying a high degree of autonomy” (Werle, 1998,

p. 7). In order to better understand the Venice Local Government case, therefore, it is useful

to examine also another perspective on the concept of ‘enactment of technology’

5.2 The Structuration Theory’s perspective on the enactment of technology

Structuration Theory’s perspective on ‘enactment of technology’ considers the

implementation of technology not only an activity to reinforce organizations’ values and

characteristics. Enactment of technology could also lead to transformation. For Structuration

Theory human actors are never mere bearers of social structures. On one hand, in fact,

between objective structures and human action there is a dialectical relationship. Structures

– both institutional and technological - constrains human actions but at the same time the

latter ones actualize and is a precondition for the existence of the former ones. On the other

hand human actors are not mere bearers of structures because of their capacity of awareness

and discursive penetration of the social system to whose existence they contribute. They all

are knowledgeable actors in some degree.

In this sense, Structuration Theory’s perspective on ‘enactment of technology’

attributes an important role to human agents. Users choose how to interact with technology

in their recurrent social or organizational practice. “Through their regularized engagement

with a particular technology (and some or all of its inscribed properties) in particular ways, in

particular conditions, users repeatedly enact a set of rules and resources which structures

their ongoing interactions with that technology” (Orlikowski, 2000, p. 407). Nevertheless this

choice is not completely open. In fact in Orlikowski’s view there is an interplay between the

flexibility of human actors in interpret the way to use the technology and the meanings and

power relations embedded in institutional contexts. “Because the enactment of a technology

… is situated within a number of nested and overlapping social systems, people’s interaction

with technology will always enact other social structures along with the technology, … for

example, a hierarchical structures within a large bureaucracy, a cooperative culture within a

participative workgroup or the normative structure of a professional community” (ibidem, p.

411). In contrast with Fountain’s thesis, for Orlikowski the implementation of a technology

could lead to an organizational transformation but this possibility is influenced by the

characteristics of the organization itself. In particular the type of ‘enactment of technology’

that could lead to the transformation of the structural ‘status quo’ is associated with

“institutional conditions that included a strong team focus, a cooperative culture, and a strong

commitment to ongoing learning” (ibidem, p. 423). In Orlikowski’s view in this type of

organizational environment it is more likely that human actors could have recourse to their

knowledge and reflexivity in order to choose to use new technologies to alter their existing

work practices. In hierarchical and competitive organizational cultures, on the contrary, is

more likely that the ‘enactment of technology’ would lead to the reproduction and the

reinforcement of the status quo, with little use of the innovative potentialities of new

technologies.

It is feasible to say that the case of Venice Local Government and the experience of the

Venice 2.0 project could be utilized in order to reconsider Orlikowski’s thesis. Although, in

fact, The Venice Local Government traditionally was not characterized by an innovative and

cooperative culture, the implementation process of the new services happened together with

a huge effort to change the organizational values. Therefore, in our considered opinion e-

government scholars should not overlook the fact that public administrators can have

recourse to their knowledge, social background and ‘institutional reflexivity’ in the effort to

make the organizational culture more suitable for the exploitation of the potentials network

technologies bring along.

7. CONCLUSION

IRIS, the on-line service of the Venice Local Government for the reporting of urban

maintenance needs, is characterized by two main elements. On one hand the Local

Government commits itself to provide an almost instant reply to the problem reports citizens

post on the website. On the other hand citizens’ messages and reports are visible to all and

everyone can add comments about interventions. This fact could expose the Local

Government to more criticism.

The successful implementation of an on-line service such IRIS implied a significant

effort to reconsider and partially modify the processes and, most of all, the organizational

culture and values of the Local Government. In their elaboration of new frames of meaning

suitable to successfully orient the implementation of the new on-line services the managers

were obliged to reconsider and to call into question notions belonging to public

administration theory. One of the most interesting results of the of Venice Local Government’s

case is that, although the managers were not aware of the Weberian principles of

bureaucracy, these ones were anyway significantly present in the description of their day-

today activity. It is feasible to say that this fact could be considered a demonstration that

Weber’s conceptualization is still orienting public administration’s activity and on the other

hand, that it is a corroboration of Gidden’s thesis for which actors‟ knowledge is not

incidental to institutions but a constitutive element of them.

In this article we described the ‘theoretical effort’ that managers made in order to

connect the logic of Weberian bureaucracy with that of network computing. By doing so they

had recourse to their ‘institutional reflexivity’ but also – in some degree- to their autonomous

considerations and choices. Therefore the analysis of the Venice Local Government’s case

could also be useful in order to reconsider the theorizations about the roles of organizational

constraints and human agents’ activity in the implementation of new technologies. Although

organizational constraints are relevant, scholars cannot overlook the room that they leave for

diverse strategies and choices of public managers. Using their knowledge, their social

background and their personal professional networks public managers not only are able to

adapt to their institutional environments but, in some cases, are capable to modify them with

their discretion. As Werle states “The dynamics of interaction processes result from both the

actors’ heterogeneity and relative autonomy as well as the institutional opportunities and

constraints which frame a situation” (Werle, 1998, p. 7).

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bellamy, C., Taylor, J. A., Governing in the Information Age, Open University Press, Buckingham

– Philadelphia, 1998.

Bogner, A., Litting, B., Menz, W., (Eds), Interviewing Experts, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Boyle, D., Harris, M., The challenge of co-production. How equal partnerships between

professionals and the public are crucial to improve public services. Discussion Paper.

Nesta, London, 2009

Castells, M., The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society

and Culture. Volume 1. Blackwell, Oxford, 1997.

Castells, M., Himanen, P., The Information Society and the Welfare States. The Finnish Model.

Oxford University Press, Oxford – New York, 2002.

Chou, T., Chen, j., Ching-Kuo, P., “Exploring the collective actions of public servants in e-

government development”, Decision Support System, vol. 45. 2008.

Fountain, J. E., Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change.

Brooking Institutions Press, Washington D.C., 2001.

Fountain, J. E., “Bureaucratic Reform and E-Government in the United States: In Institutional

Persperctive”, NCDG Working Paper, No. 07-006, 2007.

Giddens, A., Capitalism and modern social thory. An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim

and Max Weber. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge – New York, 1971

Giddens, A., Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social

Analysis. University of California Press. Berkeley – Los Angeles, 1979.

Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society, University of California Press, Berkley, 1984.

Giddens, A., Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press,

Cambridge, 1991.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Martinez-Moyano I. J., “Understanding the evolution of e-government: The

influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics”, Government Information

Quarterly, 24, 266-290, 2007.

Goldsmith, S., Eggers, W. D., Governing by Network. The New Shape of the Public Sector.

Brookings Institution. Washington, 2004

Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A. (Eds), Handbook of Interview Research. Context & Method. Sage,

London, 2001.

Kim, C., Holzer, M., “Public Administrator’s Acceptance of the Practice of Digital Democracy: A

Model Explaining the Utilization of Online Policy Forums in South Korea”, International

Journal of Electronic Government Research, vol. 2., issue 2, 2006.

King, S. F., Brown, P., “Fix My Steet or Else: Using the Internet to Voice Local Public Service

Concerns”, ICEGOV2007, December 10 -13, 2007. Macao

Morrison, K., Marx, Durkheim, Weber. Formations of modern social thought. Second edition.

Sage. London. 2006.

Orlikowski, W. J., “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in

Organizations”, Organization Science, 1991.

Orlikowski, W. J., “Use Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying

Technology in Organizations”. Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2000.

Orlikowski, W., J. Gash, D. C., “Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology

in Organizations”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1994.

Pfadenhauer, M., “At Eye Level: The Expert Interview – a Talk between Expert and Quasi-

expert”, in Bogner et alii, 2009.

Punier, Y., Misuraca, G., Osimo, D., Public Services 2.0: The Impact of Social Computing on Public

Services. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. European Commission. 2009

Snellen, I., “Electronic Governance: Implications for Citizens, Politicians and Public Servants”,

International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 68, 2002.

Torres, L., Pina, V., Acerete B., “E-government developments on delivering public services

among EU cities”, Government Information Quarterly 22, 2005.

Weber, M., Economy and Society. Roth, G., Wittich, C., (eds), University of California Press,

Berkeley, 1978.

Weick, K. E., Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., Obstfeld, D., “Organizing and Process of Sensemaking”,

Organization Science, Vol 16, No. 4, 2005.

Werle, R. “An Institutional Approach to Technology”, Science Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1998.

West, D. M., Digital Government. Technology and Public Sector Performance. Princeton

University Press. Princeton – Oxford, 2005.

Yang, K., “Neo-institutionalism and E-government: Beyond Jane Fountain”, Social Science

Computer Review, Vol. 21, No 4., 2003.

9. APPENDIX

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

TRANSPARENCY VS EXPOSURE

A1 - Could the increasing transparency and accessibility of your processes and competences

highlight the fact that something is missing or inefficient? Does this increasing transparency

lead to more criticism? Can this be avoided and if so, how?

A2 - Does the use of this technology shift the boundaries between what is public and what is

secret, i. e. something only accessible by your organization? What do you think should

continue to remain secret or accessible exclusively by your organization? What kind of

information or process shouldn’t be managed within this technology?

SPEED VS ACCURACY

B1 - External requests that come in via these technologies automatically lead to the request of

a prompt reply. Is there a risk that a quick reply diminishes accuracy?

B2 - The utilization of these technologies for the internal communication between officials

make collaboration and information sharing more rapid and, consequently, make it difficult

for managers to keep up to date with everything. Are you ever concerned that this may result

in you not having complete control?

EXTERNAL COLLABORATION VS LEGITIMACY

C1 - If an external party has the opportunity to challenge or question your knowledge does it

not worry you that this could start a process of de-legitimization?

C2 - If you are involved in a process of collaboration with a third party the roles and

competences of the subjects can change. Are you ever concerned that this could diminish your

power and legitimacy?

INTERNAL COLLABORATION VS SPECIALIZATION

D1- Can internal collaboration, which is made more immediate by the use of collaboration

technologies, lead to a risk of overlapping between the responsibilities of various public

administration offices and thus runs the risk of stepping on each other’s toes?

D2- In a collaborative networking process each person may bring his own contribution

independent of hierarchical position or job responsibilities. Do you think that in the long run

this could weaken the specialist competences of your collaborators?

PROCESS VS NETWORK

E1 - In a collaborative networking process each person may bring his own contribution

independent of hierarchical position or job responsibilities. Do you think that this could lead

to a conflict between hierarchical levels?

E2- Could it be said that the more rapid the information sharing and thus collaboration,

amongst the lower ranks of the public administration, the more likely it is that

responsibilities increase more quickly.

E3. Which specific competences should a public officer have in order to make the most of the

use of collaboration technologies?

E4 – It is not possible to predict the quality or arrival of external contributions. Does this

compromise the quality or accuracy of your job?

AGENCY COMPETENCES VS POLICY NECESSITIES

F1 – Do you believe that it could be a risk to answer questions which are not within your

responsibility?

F2- what are the differences between the competences that come from a third party and those

which already exist in the organization. What uses do you make of information that comes

from a third party?