Steering Institutionalization Through Institutional Work:The Case of an eProcurement System in Indonesian Local Government

Fathul Wahid1,2 & Maung K .Sein1,3

1Department of Information Systems, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway2Department of Informatics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia3Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

fathul.wahid@uii.ac.id & maung.k.sein@uia.no

HICSS 2014, 6-9 January 2014

UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA

Background: problem formulation

• Some eGovernment initiatives are successfully implemented• ... Others are not. Why?

• The influential role of institutional entrepreneurs have been highlighted • only a few studies have examined how they do it

• Institutional entrepreneurs • purposeful actors with resources, skills (social and political) and social

position to lead change (Dacin et al., 2002)• initiate divergent changes, actively participate in implementation of these

changes• thus transform existing institutions or to create new ones (Battilana et al.,

2009)

2

Background: theoretical

• Call for research• to examine role of individuals in the implementation of information systems,

through a fine-grained analysis of the situated practices (Avgerou, 2000; Currie, 2009; Suddaby, 2010)

• to study institutionalization using an historical approach by focusing on its process rather on its outcome (Mignerat & Rivard, 2009)

• Specifically in public sector (Weerakkody et al., 2009)

• Our research question How do the institutional entrepreneurs carry out institutional work

during the institutionalization process of a system? • Specific system studied: eProcurement System in the Indonesian public sector• Institutional entrepreneur studied: Mayor of the city of Yogyakarta

3

eProcurement

•Definition• “The use of integrated (commonly web-based) communication systems for the

conduct of part or all of the purchasing process; a process that may incorporate stages from the initial need identification by users, through search, sourcing, negotiation, ordering, receipt and post-purchase review” (Croom & Brandon-Jones, 2007, p. 295).

•Benefits of eProcurement systems• a more efficient procurement process, cost reduction, and improved internal

service and status of the purchasing function (Croom & Brandon-Jones, 2007; Henriksen & Mahnke, 2005; Transparency International, 2008).

4

eProcurement in the public sector

•Additional benefits• enhanced transparency, better access for non-local bidders, better access for

SMEs, corruption avoidance (Transparency International, 2008)

•Additional complexity (Boyne, 2002; Henriksen & Mahnke, 2005; Mougeot & Naegelen, 2005)• must adhere to rigid regulations and depends on a political decision• transparency becomes basic requirement• involves a variety of stakeholders with different and often conflicting agendas• often implemented under a unified public procurement plan that involves

different government agencies (such as different departments)

•Consequently, institutionalization of such systems becomes challenging and institutional work needed to be done becomes more complex

5

Institutional work•D

efinition• “The sets of practices through which individual and collective actors create,

maintain and disrupt the institutions of organizational fields” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 219).

6

Creating Maintaining Disrupting

Disconnecting sanctionsDisassociating moral

foundationsUndermining assumptions

and beliefs

AdvocacyDefiningVestingConstructing identitiesChanging normative associationsConstructing normative networksMimicryTheorizingEducating

Enabling workPolicingDeterringValourizing and demonizingMythologizingEmbedding and routinizing

Type of institutional work

Type Description Examples Cultural Practices that stimulate common

ways of acting and behaving (Perkmann & Spicer, 2008)

Constructing normative networksConstructing identitiesChanging normative associations

Political Involves the enactment of rules and regulations through exercise of coercive power (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006)

AdvocacyDefiningVesting

Technical Involves the construction of ‘mental models’ and shared world views (Scott, 2008)

TheorizingStandardizingMimicryEducating

7

•Retrospective interpretive case study

•Research sites: the city of Yogyakarta, Indonesia

•Data• Interviews with key players (11 informants)• Documents (reports. slides, news in the media,

websites)• Observations

•Data analysis• Temporal bracketing

Research method

8

Yogyakarta

The timeline

9

Findings: Identified institutional work

Stage Institutional work TypeDisrupting Disassociating moral foundation* CulturalCreating Changing normative associations* Cultural

Counterfactual thinking** CulturalConvening*** CulturalConnecting to the macro-level discourse** PoliticalAligning with highly legitimate actors** PoliticalEducating* Technical

Maintaining Policing* PoliticalLeveraging** PoliticalDeterring* PoliticalEnabling work* TechnicalEmbedding and routinizing* Technical

10

Notes: * Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) ** Dorado (2005)

*** Tracey et al. (2011)

Findings: Patterns

•Cultural institutional work was important at the beginning of institutionalization process• to bring divergent change• to create a collective awareness and to develop a new shared identity

•Political institutional work was important at • creating stage to facilitate a smooth start by minimizing resistance and getting

broadest possible support• maintaining stages to make other stakeholders enrol in the practices and

simultaneously to deter others

•Technical institutional work was important • for maintaining the new institution

•as iterative work to routinize and embed new practices in the organizational practices 11

Conclusion – role of the entrepreneur

•The involvement of the dominant actor (i.e. the mayor) gradually diminished at the later stages of the institutionalized process – a strong indication that the practice has become routinized and institutionalized

12

Contributions of the study

•Illustrates that the notion of institutional work provides a good insight into what institutional entrepreneurs do in the institutionalization process • builds upon previous studies by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), Tracey et al.

(2011), and Dorado (2005) to develop a sharper interpretive lens

•Identifies a set of specific institutional work carried out by institutional entrepreneurs in the institutionalization process

•For practice, offers insights about possible strategies for implementing an initiative• ‘values instilling’, ‘careful exercise of political power’, ‘building collective

awareness to overcome collective inaction’, ‘typification’ and ‘gradual implementation strategy’.

13

For your attentionThanks

Tusen takkTerima kasihMatur nuwun

Questions?Spørsmål?

Pertanyaan?

Fathul Wahid Maung K. Seinfathul.wahid@uii.ac.id maung.k.sein@uia.no

14