Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Public Private Partnerships In Egovernment

3,114 views

Published on

This presentation describes how project success can be ensured in a public-private partnership in egovernment. The case study is of ByggaVilla, a construction portal in Sweden.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Public Private Partnerships In Egovernment

  1. 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 [email_address] Stockholm School of Economics Inkeri Ruuska [email_address] Helsinki University of Technology
  2. 2. Project and presentation overview <ul><li>We have a relatively poor understanding of the dynamics of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and in particular of triple helix partnerships in e-government </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>We found that triple helix partnerships are faced with significant challenges to success due to the potential for conflict from several sources </li></ul><ul><li>However, this conflict can be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes by moving beyond project management to collective competence management </li></ul>
  3. 3. We conducted relevant background research <ul><li>Review of academic literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public-private partnerships (PPPs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alliances and inter-organizational partnerships </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Power </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Review of practitioner literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EU documents on PPPs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>World Bank documents on PPPs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interviewed In-service Trainee for EU Commission General Directorate for Regional Policy involved in PPPs </li></ul></ul>Limited understanding of the dynamics of public-private partnerships and in particular of partnerships focusing on knowledge-based services
  4. 4. From PPPs to triple helix partnerships University Business firm Government <ul><li>Public-private partnerships do not necessarily contain both government and university actors in addition to business actors </li></ul><ul><li>We prefer the term, Triple Helix Partnership , to represent the presence of all three actors and focus on innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Triple Helix Partnership (THP) </li></ul><ul><li>Limited understanding of triple helix partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Limited understanding of partnerships with knowledge-based outcomes </li></ul>
  5. 5. We conducted a pilot study of the project - May to September 2006 <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consortium led by six partners from THP sectors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lantmäteriet, Boverket, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, Tekis AB, WM Data AB, Högskolan i Gävle </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Partially financed by Vinnova </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Total ~15 MSEK for 2005-2008 (6.5 mln from Vinnova) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More information at www.byggavilla.org </li></ul>
  6. 6. www.mittbygg.se Beta test January to September 2007
  7. 7. To improve our understanding, we focused on two research questions <ul><li>What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? </li></ul><ul><li>How can these challenges be overcome? </li></ul>
  8. 8. We collected data primarily through interviews <ul><li>Ten ~2 hour interviews with individuals from partner organizations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Steering group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Decerno/Tekis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Högskolan i Gävle </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lantmäteriet x 2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Nacka kommun/Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>WM-data </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management & project team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Decerno/Tekis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Högskolan i Gävle </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lantmäteriet x 2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Secondary data in form of publicly available information on Bygga Villa </li></ul>
  9. 9. Our research questions <ul><li>What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How can these challenges be overcome? </li></ul>
  10. 10. THPs are characterized by high conflict potential stemming from three primary sources Organizational conflict Task interdependence Scarcity of resources Different goals Adapted from Pfeffer 1981
  11. 11. Government, university, and business have differing underlying interests, purposes, and stakeholders <ul><li>Government </li></ul><ul><li>To improve public services </li></ul><ul><li>Greater public good </li></ul><ul><li>Electorate </li></ul><ul><li>Business </li></ul><ul><li>To realize profits </li></ul><ul><li>Market opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Shareholders </li></ul><ul><li>University </li></ul><ul><li>“ To publish or perish” </li></ul><ul><li>Quest for knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Global academic community </li></ul>THP
  12. 12. A closer look reveals even further differences… <ul><li>Differences within sectors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government – From local to national actors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University – From theory to practice focus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business – From service to product firms </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different time horizons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From short term to long term </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different nature of good produced </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From private to public good </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. … leading to a high diversity of underlying goals Time horizon Good produced Private Public Short Long Product firm Local govt National govt Service firm Theory Practice
  14. 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.
  15. 15. Required resources may have different levels of scarcity in the partner organizations <ul><li>What leads to resource scarcity? </li></ul><ul><li>Size of organization </li></ul><ul><li>Importance/priority of project to organization and </li></ul><ul><li>business </li></ul>
  16. 16. The higher the interdependence of the actors, the higher the potential for conflict Pooled Sequential Reciprocal High Low Interdependence Thompson 1967
  17. 17. Differences in how the partners view the project: Where is the project in the matrix? Low visibility/importance High visibility/importance Open-ended solution Concrete solution Briner, Hastings & Geddes, 1996 Occasional Government actor Business actor
  18. 18. In addition to organizational level conflict, conflict may also arise at the individual level . Organizational conflict Adapted from Pfeffer 1981 Individual conflict Task interdependence Scarcity of resources Different goals
  19. 19. Diversity is one source of individual level conflict <ul><li>Surface diversity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ethnic background, age, gender </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Structural diversity (deep-level) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Different training/educational and occupational backgrounds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Learning histories, i.e., own patterns of information acquisition and use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perspectives on analyzing and solving problems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Example: Basic researcher vs politician vs salesperson </li></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 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.
  21. 21. Our research questions <ul><li>What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? </li></ul><ul><li>How can these challenges be overcome? </li></ul><ul><li>- Or how can conflict be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective competence management - Moving beyond project management </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. 1a. Develop a clear project charter <ul><li>Spend sufficient time specifying </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the vision, purpose, and goals/objectives? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the “rules of the game”? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How are decisions to be made? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How are conflicts to be resolved? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How are resources to be supplied? </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. The project was quickly on its way into the ditch. The members had not spent enough time in the beginning talking through things.
  24. 24. Why spend the time? Reducing complexity to something manageable Identifying priorities and importance, sequence of activities Highlighting interdependence between actors and tasks Creating a common language My view…. Making views explicit
  25. 25. 1b. Select project manager with appropriate skills and competence <ul><li>A networked host and politician </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to understand and respect all stakeholder interests (individual and organizational) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experience in different organization types aligned with project focus </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Generalist as opposed to specialist </li></ul><ul><li>Good communicator and contact maker </li></ul>Steering Group Project Team Project Manager
  26. 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.
  27. 27. 1c. Align the project with the development phase Basic research Applied research Market introduction Market growth Product/service development phases Project plan Flexible “ Set in stone” Involvement & decision making authority Academia Industry
  28. 28. Our research questions <ul><li>What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How can these challenges be overcome? </li></ul><ul><li>- Or how can conflict be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective competence management - Moving beyond project management </li></ul></ul>
  29. 29. What is collective competence? Group’s ability to work together to solve problems and achieve common goals Shared norms Shared routines Shared language Shared understanding Created in the course of joint action and problem solving
  30. 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”.
  31. 31. 2a.Ensure continuous awareness of conflict sources <ul><li>Goals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How do the long term and short term goals differ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How should the goals be defined? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can a mutual understanding of the goals be reached? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What resources are necessary for the project? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where are they located in the partner organizations? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are these resources secured for the project both in the short-term and long-term? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Interdependence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Which partners are dependent upon one another throughout the project? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How are their tasks interdependent? </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. 2b. Conduct joint problem solving tasks <ul><li>Ensure participation by all partners in joint tasks from the very beginning of the project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Example: Development of project objectives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use boundary objects to facilitate understanding </li></ul>
  33. 33. 2c. Ensure continuous communication of overall picture by project manager <ul><li>Balance and respect partner interests </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All partners’ interests important </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Link “big picture” with “little picture” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Balance long-term vision with everyday operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid parochialism resulting from partners receiving different information due to division of labor </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Communicate timely and continuously </li></ul>Steering Group Project Team Project Manager
  34. 34. 2d. Create trust through open, balanced communication <ul><ul><li>Provide open forum for discussion between all partners, e.g., virtual project space </li></ul></ul>
  35. 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.
  36. 36. Creating collective competence on both project levels <ul><li>1a. Develop clear project charter </li></ul><ul><li>1b. Recruit appropriate project manager </li></ul><ul><li>1c. Align project plan with development phase </li></ul><ul><li>2a. Develop continuous awareness of conflict sources </li></ul><ul><li>2b. Conduct joint problem solving tasks </li></ul><ul><li>2c. Ensure continuous communication of overall picture by project manager </li></ul><ul><li>2d. Create trust through open, balanced communication </li></ul>Steering Group Project Team Project Manager
  37. 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
  38. 38. Some questions for consideration <ul><li>What is the role of academia in triple helix partnerships? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To what degree should academia be involved? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In what phase(s) should academia be involved? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What are the criteria for project selection? </li></ul><ul><li>How do e-government partnerships differ from other kinds of triple helix partnerships? </li></ul>
  39. 39. For more information… <ul><li>Presentation found at slideshare.net </li></ul><ul><li>Madeleine Siösteen-Thiel, Vinnova </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Patrik Ottoson, ByggaVilla Project Leader (Lantmäteriet) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inkeri Ruuska, Helsinki University of Technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Robin Teigland, Stockholm School of Economics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. An international research duo <ul><li>Robin Teigland, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>Assistant Professor, Stockholm School of Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching and research interests: Creation and diffusion of knowledge in networks of practice and the impact on a firm’s competitive advantage </li></ul><ul><li>Doctorate in International Business, Stockholm School of Economics </li></ul><ul><li>M.B.A. in Operations and Production Management in Multinational Organizations, The Wharton School </li></ul><ul><li>M.A. in International Studies, University of Pennsylvania </li></ul><ul><li>B.A. in Economics, Stanford University </li></ul><ul><li>Seven years of full-time international business experience at organizations such as McKinsey & Co. and Esso </li></ul><ul><li>Personal homepage: www.knowledgenetworking.org </li></ul><ul><li>Inkeri Ruuska, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>Associated Researcher, Stockholm School of Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching and research interests: Intra- and inter project learning, competence and knowledge management </li></ul><ul><li>Doctorate in Work Psychology, Helsinki University of Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Master of Law, University of Helsinki </li></ul><ul><li>Seventeen years of management and consulting experience at organizations such as Merita Bank (Nordea) and Talent Partners Oy </li></ul>

×