Deconstructing complexity: A comparative study of government collaboration in national digital platforms and smart city networks in Europe

Abstract

This research deconstructs complexity as a key challenge of intergovernmental digitalisation projects. While much of the literature acknowledges that the fundamental restructuring coupled with technical capacity that these joint projects require leads to increased complexity, little is known about how different types of complexity interact within the collaborative process. Using established concepts of substantive, strategic, and institutional complexity, we apply complexity theory in collaborative digital environments. To do so, eight digital projects are analysed that differ by state structure and government level. Using a cross-case design with 50 semi-structured expert interviews, we find that each digitalisation project exhibits all types of complexity and that these complexities overlap. However, clear differences emerge between national and local level projects, suggesting that complexity in digitalisation processes presents different challenges for collaborative digitalisation projects across contexts.

Keywords

Collaboration digitalisation public sector complexity Europe

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agranoff

Yildiz

(2007) Decision-making in public management networks. In: Morcol

(ed). Handbook of Decision-Making. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Publications, 395–416.

Anthopoulos

Reddick

(2016) Understanding electronic government research and smart city: a framework and empirical evidence. Information Polity 21(1): 99–117. DOI: 10.3233/IP-150371

Apostolou

Mentzas

Stojanovic

, et al. (2011) A collaborative decision framework for managing changes in e-government services. Government Information Quarterly 28(1): 101–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.007

Asgarkhani

(2005) Digital government and its effectiveness in public management reform. Public Management Review 7(3): 465–487. DOI: 10.1080/14719030500181227

Bailey

Barley

(2020) Beyond design and use: how scholars should study intelligent technologies. Information and Organization 30(2): 100286. DOI: 10.1016/J.INFOANDORG.2019.100286

Basadur

Pringle

Speranzini

, et al. (2000) collaborative problem solving through creativity in problem definition: expanding the pie. Creativity and Innovation Management 9(1): 54–76. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8691.00157

Bonomi Savignon

Meneguzzo

Kuhlmann

, et al. (2021) Guest editorial: interinstitutional performance management: theory and practice of performance indicators at organizational boundaries. International Journal of Public Sector Management 34(3): 241–246. DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-03-2021-0057/FULL/PDF

Breaugh

Rackwitz

Hammerschmid

(2023) Leadership and institutional design in collaborative government digitalisation: evidence from Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, and the UK. Government Information Quarterly 40. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101788 .

Costumato

(2021) Collaboration among public organizations: a systematic literature review on determinants of interinstitutional performance. International Journal of Public Sector Management 34(3): 247–273. DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-03-2020-0069

10.

Dawes

(2009) Governance in the digital age: a research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly 26(2): 257–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.003

11.

Dearborn

Simon

(1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry 21(2): 140–144.

12.

di Giulio

Vecchi

(2021) Implementing digitalization in the public sector. Technologies, agency, and governance. Public Policy and Administration 38(2). DOI: 10.1177/09520767211023283

13.

Eppel

(2012) What does it take to make surprises less surprising?: the contribution of complexity theory to anticipation in public management. Public Management Review 14(7): 881–902. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2011.650055

14.

Gil-García

(2012) Enacting electronic government success: an integrative study of government-wide websites, organizational capabilities, andinstitutions. Springer 31. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2015-6

(2020) Towards a comprehensive understanding of digital government success: integrating implementation and adoption factors. Government Information Quarterly 37(4): 101518. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101518

16.

Gilpin

Miller

(2013) Exploring complex organizational communities: identity as emergent perceptions, boundaries, and relationships. Communication Theory 23(2): 148–169. DOI: 10.1111/COMT.12008

17.

Head

(2008) Wicked Problems in Public Policy. Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0

18.

Head

Alford

(2015) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society 47(6): 711–739.

(2018) Digital innovation and transformation: an institutional perspective. Information and Organization 28(1): 52–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004

(2017) Proposing a framework of barriers to opening government data in China. Library Hi Tech 35(3): 421–438.

(2021) Complexity theory as a new lens for digital social advocacy. Public Relations Review 47(3): 102056.

22.

Karppi

Vakkuri

(2020) Becoming smart? pursuit of sustainability in urban policy design. Public Management Review 22(5): 746–766. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1718188

23.

Klievink

Janssen

(2009) Realizing joined-up governmen: dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.12.007

24.

Klijn

Koppenjan

(2014) Complexity in governance network theory. Complexity, Governance and Networks 1(1): 61–70. DOI: 10.7564/14-CGN8

25.

Klijn

Koppenjan

(2016) Governance Networks in the Public Sector. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

26.

Liu

Zheng

(2018) Cross-departmental collaboration in one-stop service center for smart governance in China: factors, strategies and effectiveness. Government Information Quarterly 35(4): S54–S60.

, et al. (2021) Sensemaking and social processes in digital government projects. Government Information Quarterly 38(2): 101570. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101570

28.

Luna-Reyes

Gil-Garcia

(2011) Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-Government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007

29.

Luna-Reyes

Gil-Garcia

Cruz

(2007) Collaborative digital government in Mexico: some lessons from federal web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 24: 808–826. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.003

30.

March

Olsen

(1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. 1st edition. Mumbai: The Free Press.

31.

Meijer

(2015) E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly 32(2): 198–206.

32.

Mergel

(2016) Agile innovation management in government: a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly 33(3): 516–523.

33.

Mergel

(2018) Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of challenge.gov. Public Management Review 20(5): 726–745. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1320044

(2018) Agile government: systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly 35(2): 291–298. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.04.003

35.

Mintzberg

(1983) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

, et al. (2019) Joining forces for public value creation? exploring collaborative innovation in smart city initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 36(4): 101411. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.101411

37.

Nowell

Albrecht

(2018) A reviewer’s guide to qualitative rigor. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29: 34–363.

38.

O' Connor

Joffe

(2020) Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Method, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

39.

O’Leary

Vij

(2012) Collaborative public management: where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration 42(5): 507–522. DOI: 10.1177/0275074012445780

(2020) Studying transformational government: a review of the existing methodological approaches and future outlook. Government Information Quarterly 37(2): 101458. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101458

41.

Orlikowski

(2007) Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 255–305. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84628-901-9_10

42.

Orlikowski

Gash

(1994) Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organisations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12(2): 174–207.

43.

Palys

(2008) Purposive sampling. In Given

(Ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (Vol.2). Sage: Los Angeles, pp. 697–698.

, et al. (2021) Leading for public value in multi-agency collaboration. Public Policy and Administration 38(1). DOI: 10.1177/0952076721999490

(2018) Conceptualizing the landscape of decision making for complex problem solving. International Journal of Public Administration 41(14): 1132–1144. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2017.1347946

(2021) Digital transformation: from hierarchy to network-based collaboration? the case of the German “online access act. der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 14(1): 101–120. DOI: 10.3224/DMS.V14I1.05

(2007) Collaborative e-government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector. European Journal of Information Systems 16(2): 121–133. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000673

48.

Ran

(2019) The entangled twins: power and trust in collaborative governance. Administration and Society 51(4): 607–636. DOI: 10.1177/0095399718801000

49.

Reese

(2018) The proximity principle. In: Krämer

Orlando

(eds) Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 219–233.

50.

Ruhlandt

RWS

(2018) The governance of smart cities: a systematic literature review. Cities 81(February): 1–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.014

51.

Scharpf

(1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. https://www.routledge.com/Games-Real-Actors-Play-Actor-centered-Institutionalism-In-Policy-Research/Scharpf/p/book/9780813399683.

52.

Scholl

Kubicek

Cimander

, et al. (2012) Process integration, information sharing, and system interoperation in government: a comparative case analysis. Government Information Quarterly 29(3): 313–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.009

53.

Scholl

(2014) Smart Governance: A Roadmap for Research and Practice. In: iConference 2014 Proceedings. (p 163–176). doi:10.9776/14010 .

, et al. (2020) Barriers and drivers of digital transformation in public organizations: results from a survey in the Netherlands. In: Pereira

Janssen

Lee

, et al. (eds) Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 19th IFIP WG 8.5. Berlin: Springer International Publishing, 42–56. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-57599-1 . International Conference, EGOV 2020.

55.