Public Private Partnerships In Egovernment

Slide 1: Ensuring Project Success in Public-private Partnerships in e-government A Pilot Study of Bygga Villa Presentation at Offentliga Rummet 2007 www.offentligarummet.se May 31, 2007 Robin Teigland Inkeri Ruuska robin.teigland@hhs.se inkeri.ruuska@hut.fi Helsinki University of Technology Stockholm School of Economics

Slide 2: Project and presentation overview • We have a relatively poor understanding of the dynamics of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and in particular of triple helix partnerships in e-government • In order to improve our understanding, we performed a pilot study of the e-government project, Bygga Villa, from May to October 2006, financed by Vinnova • We found that triple helix partnerships are faced with significant challenges to success due to the potential for conflict from several sources • However, this conflict can be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes by moving beyond project management to collective competence management Teigland & Ruuska 2

Slide 3: We conducted relevant background research • Review of academic literature – Public-private partnerships (PPPs) – Alliances and inter-organizational partnerships – Project management – Power • Review of practitioner literature – EU documents on PPPs – World Bank documents on PPPs • Interviews – Interviewed In-service Trainee for EU Commission General Directorate for Regional Policy involved in PPPs Limited understanding of the dynamics of public-private partnerships and in particular of partnerships focusing on knowledge-based services Teigland & Ruuska 3

Slide 4: From PPPs to triple helix partnerships •Public-private partnerships do not necessarily contain both government and university actors in addition to Business University firm business actors •We prefer the term, Triple Helix Partnership, to represent the Government presence of all three actors and focus on innovation Triple Helix Partnership (THP) •Limited understanding of triple helix partnerships •Limited understanding of partnerships with knowledge-based outcomes Teigland & Ruuska 4

Slide 5: We conducted a pilot study of the project - May to September 2006 • Purpose – To develop a portal for all information and services that are required for “Family Andersson” to effectively plan, build, and live in their house over time • Consortium led by six partners from THP sectors – Lantmäteriet, Boverket, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, Tekis AB, WM Data AB, Högskolan i Gävle • Partially financed by Vinnova – Total ~15 MSEK for 2005-2008 (6.5 mln from Vinnova) • More information at www.byggavilla.org Teigland & Ruuska 5

Slide 6: www.mittbygg.se Beta test January to September 2007 Teigland & Ruuska 6

Slide 7: To improve our understanding, we focused on two research questions 1. What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? 2. How can these challenges be overcome? Teigland & Ruuska 7

Slide 8: We collected data primarily through interviews • Ten ~2 hour interviews with individuals from partner organizations – Steering group • Decerno/Tekis • Högskolan i Gävle • Lantmäteriet x 2 • Nacka kommun/Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting • WM-data – Project management & project team • Decerno/Tekis • Högskolan i Gävle • Lantmäteriet x 2 • Secondary data in form of publicly available information on Bygga Villa Teigland & Ruuska 8

Slide 9: Our research questions • What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? – Organizational conflict – Individual conflict • How can these challenges be overcome? Teigland & Ruuska 9

Slide 10: THPs are characterized by high conflict potential stemming from three primary sources Different goals Organizational Scarcity of resources conflict Task interdependence Adapted from Pfeffer 1981 Teigland & Ruuska 10

Slide 11: Government, university, and business have differing underlying interests, purposes, and stakeholders University Business •“To publish or perish” •To realize profits •Quest for knowledge •Market opportunities •Global academic •Shareholders community THP Government •To improve public services •Greater public good •Electorate Teigland & Ruuska 11

Slide 12: A closer look reveals even further differences… • Differences within sectors – Government – From local to national actors – University – From theory to practice focus – Business – From service to product firms • Different time horizons – From short term to long term • Different nature of good produced – From private to public good Teigland & Ruuska 12

Slide 13: … leading to a high diversity of underlying goals Theory Long National govt Practice Time horizon Local govt Product firm Service Short firm Private Public Good produced Teigland & Ruuska 13

Slide 14: We live in different worlds – researchers focus on creating new knowledge/ publications while companies want to develop products that can be sold. And it’s difficult to achieve real cooperation even if you understand one another. There are always culture crashes when researchers meet people from the public and private sectors…it takes time to build bridges between the different worlds. Teigland & Ruuska 14

Slide 15: Required resources may have different levels of scarcity in the partner organizations What leads to resource scarcity? •Size of organization •Importance/priority of project to organization and business Teigland & Ruuska 15

Slide 16: The higher the interdependence of the actors, the higher the potential for conflict Low High Interdependence Pooled Sequential Reciprocal Thompson 1967 Teigland & Ruuska 16

Slide 17: Differences in how the partners view the project: Where is the project in the matrix? High visibility/importance Government actor Occasional Concrete Open-ended solution solution Business actor Low visibility/importance Briner, Hastings & Geddes, 1996 Teigland & Ruuska 17

Slide 18: In addition to organizational level conflict, conflict may also arise at the individual level. Different goals Organizational Scarcity of resources conflict Individual conflict Task interdependence Adapted from Pfeffer 1981 Teigland & Ruuska 18

Slide 19: Diversity is one source of individual level conflict • Surface diversity – Ethnic background, age, gender • Structural diversity (deep-level) – Different training/educational and occupational backgrounds • Learning histories, i.e., own patterns of information acquisition and use • Perspectives on analyzing and solving problems • Example: Basic researcher vs politician vs salesperson Teigland & Ruuska 19

Slide 20: The participants have quite different understandings of the project’s goals. So, it’s really important to talk through everything and make sure that the right persons are there. And it’s important to remember that the right organization does not necessarily mean the right person. Teigland & Ruuska 20

Slide 21: Our research questions • What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? • How can these challenges be overcome? - Or how can conflict be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes? 1. Project management 2. Collective competence management - Moving beyond project management Teigland & Ruuska 21

Slide 22: 1a. Develop a clear project charter • Spend sufficient time specifying – What are the vision, purpose, and goals/objectives? – What are the “rules of the game”? – How are decisions to be made? – How are conflicts to be resolved? – How are resources to be supplied? Teigland & Ruuska 22

Slide 23: The project was quickly on its way into the ditch. The members had not spent enough time in the beginning talking through things. Teigland & Ruuska 23

Slide 24: Why spend the time? Reducing complexity Identifying priorities Highlighting to something and importance, interdependence manageable sequence of activities between actors and tasks My view…. Making views Creating a explicit common language Teigland & Ruuska 24

Slide 25: 1b. Select project manager with appropriate skills and competence A networked host and politician • Ability to understand and Steering Group respect all stakeholder interests (individual and organizational) – Experience in different organization types aligned with Project Manager project focus • Generalist as opposed to specialist Project Team • Good communicator and contact maker Teigland & Ruuska 25

Slide 26: Our project leader really understands the different worlds of the project since he has worked both as a practitioner and as an academic. He is good at networking and communicating with everyone. Teigland & Ruuska 26

Slide 27: 1c. Align the project with the development phase Product/service development phases Basic Applied Market Market research research introduction growth Project plan Flexible “Set in stone” Involvement & decision making authority Academia Industry Teigland & Ruuska 27

Slide 28: Our research questions • What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? – Organizational conflict – Individual conflict • How can these challenges be overcome? - Or how can conflict be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes? 1. Project management 2. Collective competence management - Moving beyond project management Teigland & Ruuska 28

Slide 29: What is collective competence? Shared understanding Shared language Created in the course of joint action and problem solving Shared norms Shared routines Group’s ability to work together to solve problems and achieve common goals Teigland & Ruuska 29

Slide 30: Collective competence It’s really important to get a collective perspective in order for everyone to understand the project’s core and to develop the project’s goals and outcomes…a critical point is when everyone is on the same page and is able to look at the project with the same ”set of eyeglasses”. Teigland & Ruuska 30

Slide 31: 2a.Ensure continuous awareness of conflict sources • Goals – How do the long term and short term goals differ? – How should the goals be defined? – How can a mutual understanding of the goals be reached? • Resources – What resources are necessary for the project? – Where are they located in the partner organizations? – Are these resources secured for the project both in the short-term and long-term? • Interdependence – Which partners are dependent upon one another throughout the project? – How are their tasks interdependent? Teigland & Ruuska 31

Slide 32: 2b. Conduct joint problem solving tasks • Ensure participation by all partners in joint tasks from the very beginning of the project – Example: Development of project objectives • Use boundary objects to facilitate understanding Teigland & Ruuska 32

Slide 33: 2c. Ensure continuous communication of overall picture by project manager • Balance and respect partner interests – All partners’ interests important Steering Group • Link “big picture” with “little picture” – Balance long-term vision with Project Manager everyday operations – Avoid parochialism resulting from partners receiving different information due to division of Project Team labor • Communicate timely and continuously Teigland & Ruuska 33

Slide 34: 2d. Create trust through open, balanced communication Provide open forum for discussion between all partners, e.g., virtual project space Teigland & Ruuska 34

Slide 35: We started to draw pictures for one another. ”Let’s make a simple sketch, what should the website look like?” We started by drawing something on the computer, something visible around which we could discuss. And then we had 3-4 workshops and invited a reference group to which we presented the workshop results. It was important to get commitment and feedback and to ensure that the reference group had the same picture as we did. Teigland & Ruuska 35

Slide 36: Creating collective competence on both project levels 1a. Develop clear project charter 1b. Recruit appropriate project Steering Group manager 1c. Align project plan with development phase Project Manager 2a. Develop continuous awareness of conflict sources 2b. Conduct joint problem solving Project Team tasks 2c. Ensure continuous communication of overall picture by project manager 2d. Create trust through open, balanced communication Teigland & Ruuska 36

Slide 37: What is project success? Two types of project outcomes 1. Objective – Fulfillment of objectives on budget and on time 2. Subjective - Satisfaction with project by partners Leverage differences among participants to produce innovative and synergistic solutions Teigland & Ruuska 37

Slide 38: Some questions for consideration • What is the role of academia in triple helix partnerships? – To what degree should academia be involved? – In what phase(s) should academia be involved? • What are the criteria for project selection? • How do e-government partnerships differ from other kinds of triple helix partnerships? Teigland & Ruuska 38

Slide 39: For more information… • Presentation found at slideshare.net • Madeleine Siösteen-Thiel, Vinnova – Madeleine.Siosteen-Thiel@VINNOVA.se • Patrik Ottoson, ByggaVilla Project Leader (Lantmäteriet) – patrik.ottoson@lm.se • Inkeri Ruuska, Helsinki University of Technology – inkeri.ruuska@hut.fi • Robin Teigland, Stockholm School of Economics – robin.teigland@hhs.se Teigland & Ruuska 39

Slide 40: An international research duo Robin Teigland, Ph.D. Inkeri Ruuska, Ph.D. • Assistant Professor, Stockholm School • Associated Researcher, Stockholm of Economics School of Economics • Teaching and research interests: • Teaching and research interests: Intra- Creation and diffusion of knowledge in and inter project learning, competence networks of practice and the impact on and knowledge management a firm’s competitive advantage • Doctorate in Work Psychology, • Doctorate in International Business, Helsinki University of Technology Stockholm School of Economics • Master of Law, University of Helsinki • M.B.A. in Operations and Production • Seventeen years of management and Management in Multinational consulting experience at organizations Organizations, The Wharton School such as Merita Bank (Nordea) and • M.A. in International Studies, Talent Partners Oy University of Pennsylvania • B.A. in Economics, Stanford University • Seven years of full-time international business experience at organizations such as McKinsey & Co. and Esso • Personal homepage: www.knowledgenetworking.org Teigland & Ruuska 40