From Theory to Practice Digital Governance

Dear readers, I’d recommend you read the previous post to have a clear picture of the information I’m sharing here, as I mention a case study from the previous post. Wish you a lovely reading, and I hope you find useful information that helps you in your daily work.

How to set up rules and systems within a company to ensure it improves its use of digital technology and can change in a purposeful way to achieve its goals. To explore how governance structures can be crafted within the public sector to strengthen digital capabilities and promote meaningful digital transformation among stakeholders. To address this, we will delve into the insights obtained from the case study that has been mentioned previously in the first question of this report, within a public healthcare organization.

Ambidexterity Theory

Earlier in this report we discussed the case study “Stakeholders’ enactment of competing logics in IT governance” by Albert Boonstra et al. (2017) that illustrated how engaging various stakeholders in a project is not an easy task. In the context of digital governance in the public sector, this may manifest as conflicts between maintaining stability and fostering innovation, expliotation and exploration, or between meeting short-term performance targets and investing in long-term strategic initiatives. These challenges resonate across sectors, where diverse stakeholders with varying backgrounds and perspectives influence decision-making processes related to digital initiatives (Boonstra et al., 2017).

Ambidexterity theory offers a valuable strategy for managing the dual challenges of exploiting existing digital capabilities and exploring innovative solutions. The ambidexterity theory posits that organisations need to simultaneously pursue both exploitation and exploration to achieve long-term success. By creating a supportive organiztional culture that encourages both exploration and exploitation. Whilst ambidexterity theory acknowledges that pursuing exploitation and exploration simultaneously can create tensions and trade-offs within organizations (Magnusson et al., 2020). Exploitation and exploration concepts hand in hand with efficiency and innovation ideas. While efficiency is essential for optimizing resources and processes, excessive focus on efficiency may stifle innovation. Conversely, shadow innovation, if embraced responsibly under proper governance, can provide valuable insights for advancing digital initiatives. Efficiency creep and shadow innovation highlight the importance of balancing efficiency-oriented investments with innovation-driven initiatives in digital governance.

Digital Recoupling

One strategic approach could be applied is digital recoupling. Digital recoupling promotes a more reflective culture within organizations and opens them up to new insights and challenging viewpoints (Magnusson et al., 2021). According to Magnusson et al (2021), organizations and individuals use various strategies. At the organizational level, strategies focus on collective actions and structures within the organization as a whole. This includes being open to external insights and avoiding a defensive stance against challenging information, known as the “Openness” strategy. By embracing external perspectives, organizations can benefit from valuable insights to drive future operations. On the individual level, strategies pertain to the actions and behaviors of employees or team members. “Proactiveness” involves being proactive in coping with disruptive changes by simplifying processes, lowering corporate buy-in thresholds, and creating environments conducive to digital development. Additionally, “Committedness” emphasizes the importance of individuals within the organization being committed to digital transformation. This shared responsibility can be fostered through formal means like staff restructuring or cross-functional teams. These approaches are interconnected and enable organizations to effectively integrate digital initiatives with their core business operations. Rather than merely defending against digital challenges, organizations can embrace change and innovation to thrive in the digital age. The benefits of digital recoupling stretgies is promoting a culture of reflection, innovation, and adaptability (Magnusson et al., 2021)

Similarly, the lessons obtianed from the “stakeholders’ enactment” study extend beyond the healthcare sector, offering valuable insights for any organization undergoing digital transformation. By embracing and addressing diverse viewpoints, organizations can navigate challenges more effectively and make informed decisions in the face of change (Albert Boonstra et al., 2017).

Dancing with Competing Logics

Mastering how to manage tensions and Trade-offs is fundemental to foster good collaboration among stakeholders ( Park., Son., Angst., 2023). However, how can we reach this balance if there is a misalignment between stakeholders? Designing governance structures based on digital recoupling principles is essential for driving purposeful digital transformation in the public sector. But, we need to take into account competing logics. By understanding, competing logics organizations can strive to achieve alignment, coherence, and synergy in their governance practices, ultimately enhancing performance and fostering innovation in the IT domain.

In the teaching hospital case study, the interplay of competing logics among stakeholders may lead to situations where compromise is needed to address conflicting perspectives and reach consensus on governance decisions. Alternatively, stakeholders may engage in synthesis to blend different logics creatively, fostering a more holistic and adaptive approach to IT governance that leverages the strengths of diverse perspectives. By understanding how competing logics can be connected with compromise and synthesis, organizations can navigate complexity, manage conflicts, and promote effective decision-making processes that balance diverse viewpoints and drive innovation in governance practices (Boonstra et al., 2017).

When we touch compromise and synthesis it is essential to highlight communication enhancement among different groups/individuals in an organisation. Because effective communication is critical for bridging the gap between stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and perspectives (Albert Boonstra et al., 2017). In the public sector, where communication channels may vary across hierarchical levels and departments, fostering open dialogue is essential for promoting understanding and alignment in digital governance discussions. Clear communication channels, regular meetings, and feedback mechanisms can facilitate the exchange of ideas and ensure that all stakeholders are informed and engaged in decision-making processes related to digital initiatives (Carroll, Conboy, & Wang, 2023).

Discussion

The dynamic environment of digital transformation makes it challenging to design governance in a certain way because it depends on several factors, such as organization size, management, technology infrastructure, organizational culture, and stakeholder engagement.

If we scan the following terms discussed in the second question in this report: Ambidexterity theory, competing logics, tradeoff, digital recoupling, openness, proactiveness, commitment. One common thread among these theories/strategies/ concepts is that they all relate to aspects of adaptation in response to changing environments.

This makes me reflect on a quotation by Charles Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.” This quote by Darwin emphasizes the importance of adaptability in the context of evolution. It clarifies that survival and success depend not on strength or intelligence alone, but on the ability to adjust and thrive in response to changing circumstances.

One of the crucial aspects to consider when designing governance is stakeholders’ involvement. If you’re looking to get an actor to adapt, you’ve got to make sure they’re in the loop and feel like they’re a crucial part of it all. Therefore, governance needs to be designed to align the interests of the stakeholders. To ensure that stakeholder interests are in sync with transformation goals, helping to overcome resistance to change. Simultaneously, transparent communication keeps everyone in the loop about progress, challenges, and impact, building trust and enabling meaningful contributions from stakeholders (Kaganer et al., 2023; Teichert, 2019; Carroll, Conboy, & Wang, 2023). Stakeholders need to have a shared vision of the organization’s digital transformation goals and priorities. This shared understanding helps in defining action items, prioritizing activities, and developing a strategic roadmap for digital transformation (Teichert, 2019).

To sum up, organizations need to engage stakeholders actively to tap into their diverse perspectives and expertise, which requires an adaptive mindset to keep up with today’s dynamic landscape. To engage the stakeholders, effective communication is necessary. By taking into account these considerations it will foster a collaborative environment among different stakeholders.

Sources

  • Andersen, K.N., Lee, J., Henriksen, H.Z. (2020). Digital Sclerosis? Wind of Change for Government and the Employees. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3360000 
  • Baiyere, A., Grover, V., Lyytinen, K.J. (2023). Digital “x”–Charting a Path for Digital-Themed Research. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/isre.2022.1186 
  • Baker, Jeff & Singh, Harminder. (2019). The roots of misalignment: Insights on strategy implementation from a system dynamics perspective. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963868718301793?via%3Dihub 
  • Bel, G., Elston, T. (2023). When the time is right: testing for dynamic effects in collaborative performance. Public Manag. Rev. ahead-of-print, 1–27. 
  • Boonstra, A., Eseryel, U.Y., Van Offenbeek, M.A.G. (2017). Stakeholders’ enactment of competing logics in IT governance: polarization, compromise or synthesis. 
  • Carroll, N., Conboy, K., Wang, X. (2023). From transformation to normalization: An exploratory study of a large-scale agile transformation. Journal of Information Technology, 38, 267–303. 
  • Carroll, N., Hassan, N.R., Junglas, I., Hess, T., Morgan, L. (2023). Transform or be transformed: the importance of research on managing and sustaining digital transformations. European Journal of Information Systems, 32, 347–353.https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2023.2187033 
  • Damen, Petrosjan (2017). Cooperation in operations: insights into the governance of cooperation in the financial services industry. 
  • Jacobsen, C.B., Hansen, A.L., Pedersen, L.D. (2023). Not too narrow, not too broad: Linking span of control, leadership behavior, and employee job satisfaction in public organizations. Public Adm. Rev. 83, 775–792. 
  • Janssen, M., Voort, H. van der (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Gov Inform Q 33, 1–5
  • Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L.S., Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Gov Inform Q 37.
  • Kaganer, E., Gregory, R.W., Sarker, S. (2023). A Process for Managing Digital Transformation: An Organizational Inertia Perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 1005–1030.
  • Magnusson, J., Elliot, V., Hagberg, J. (2021). Digital transformation: why companies resist what they need for sustained performance. J Bus Strategy ahead of- print. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JBS-02-2021-0018/full/html 
  • Magnusson, J., Koutsikouri, D., Päivärinta, T. (2020). Efficiency creep and shadow innovation: enacting ambidextrous IT Governance in the public sector. Eur J Inform Syst 29, 1–21. 
  • Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V. (2023). The Digital Undertow and Institutional Displacement: A Sociomaterial Approach. Organ. Theory 4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26317877231180898 
Instagram Spotify