Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Digitizing the Public Organization:

Digitizing the Public Organization:

Ratings: (0)|Views: 191|Likes:
Published by Claude Rochet
L'article est téléchargeable sur le site de Haldusklutuur
L'article est téléchargeable sur le site de Haldusklutuur

More info:

Published by: Claude Rochet on Jul 22, 2012
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See More
See less



The aim of this paper is to focus on the problems encountered in digitizing publicadministration. It puts emphasis on what is at stake with e-administration andunderlines the contrast with the high rate of failure in managing such projects. After a review of why so many projects fail, the paper outlines, through the experience of a pilot project implemented in the Ministry of Finances in France, which key com- petencies need to be improved in the public sector and what could be an appropriatetraining program.
information system architecture; information technology; eGovern-ment; innovation; complex systems; design science
1. Introduction
Since the advent of the computer, Information Technology’s (IT) promise to radi-cally transform public administration and foster innovation fueled the rhetoric of many reformists. To date, the results are ambivalent: on the one hand, it is clear,thanks both to academic research and practical experiences carried out by govern-ments all over the world, that IT may attain such results. On the other hand, on manyoccasions, IT projects do not deliver. In the worst cases, they fail, and in the major-ity of cases, they run over budget and deliver poor results.Information technology was a central topic in the rhetoric of New PublicManagement (NPM), as it was supposed to help “reinvent government”. In the neo-classical economy and its counterpart in the public sector, NPM, technology appearsto be manna from heaven that directs our lives, before which we must bow, and towhich we must adapt. As Brian Arthur puts it “we have created a thing, technology,that responds not primarily to human needs but to its own needs” (Arthur 2009).Arthur adds that our relation with technology is ambivalent, since what is at stake isnot the technique in itself but our relation with nature. Technology is “nature orga-nized for our purposes”, but we forget that we must design these purposes. When we
Claude Rochet, Joris Peignot and Adrien Peneranda. 2012. “Digitizing the Public Organization: InformationSystem Architecture as a Key Competency to Foster Innovation Capabilities in Public Administration.”
 Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture
13 (1), 49-66.
Digitizing the Public Organization: Information System Architecture as a Key Competency to Foster InnovationCapabilities in Public Administration
Claude Rochet, Joris Peignot and Adrien Peneranda Aix-Marseille University, France
Claude Rochet, Joris Peignot and Adrien Peneranda
 place too much hope on technology, it tends toward closure and self-determinationand becomes an end in itself.This situation is not particular to the public sector, since there is a global problemof systems design – which we call “complex systems architecture” management.This problem is rooted in a misunderstanding of the very nature of technology.Systems Architecture is a generic discipline which aims to handle objects (materialor not) in a way that supports reasoning about their structural properties. A system iscomplex when it aggregates heterogeneous components like humans, hardware andsoftware to perform its mission. The level of complexity is dependent on the number of interrelations between these components and their degree of heterogeneity (Maier 2000; Aiguier, Golden and Krob 2010). Systems architects use models to buildabstract representations of the reality that help understand the complexity, and designsystems consistently with their purpose. “Complex systems architecture” is, accord-ing to the definition coined by Marc Aiguier, Boris Golden and Daniel Krob in 2010,a “generic discipline to handle objects called systems in a way that support reasoningabout the structural properties of these objects”.
2. The oblivion of the Baconian Legacy
The mainstream trend in technology management, influenced by neoclassicaleconomy, seems to have forgotten the recipe of the industrial revolution that madeEurope the richest continent in the world, although all the technology it used wasinvented somewhere else – mainly in ancient China (Pomeranz 2000). The key tothis success is well known to historians of economic development, but not enoughto public managers and researchers. This key is the Baconian program in knowledgemanagement. Francis Bacon suggested to use technological progress in order toattain material progress, through a program that “consisted of the application of inductive and experimental method to investigate nature, the creation of a universalnatural history, and reorganization of science as a human activity” (Mokyr 2003). In
The Advancement of Learning 
(1605), Bacon criticizes the politicians’ disdain for knowledge and defines what must be an appropriate use of knowledge: not a “vain philosophy” – as condemned by St Paul – but a means “to give ourselves repose andcontentment”, keeping us aloof from the temptation to fully understand the verymystery of nature.Bacon (1620) defines knowledge as a process, both in its social status that must be improved by the state and the king (the Latin translation of “advancement” is “deDignitate”) and as a progress in knowledge. Both are linked, since there can be no progress without a rewarding social status. We can understand today that this statusand the alliance between the state and the progress of knowledge is one of the keyfactors of the “great divergence” (Needham 1969; Pomeranz 2000) between Chinaand the West at the time of the industrial revolution, and of the “long divergence” of the Muslim world (Kuran 2010).According to Bacon, knowledge is a process that must rely on both theoreticaland empirical knowledge. If real knowledge “takes away the wildness and barbarismand fierceness of men’s mind”, a superficial knowledge “does rather a contraryeffect” (Bacon 1605). The real knowledge implies experimentation and a round trip
Digitizing the Public Organization
to theory. This process must be guaranteed by the state, as an architect of the numer-ous initiatives in research activities, through appropriate institutions. Such institu-tions appeared after Bacon’s death, namely the Royal society in England (1660) andthe
 Académie des sciences
in France.The advancement of learning was identified with invention (the discovery), thenwith innovation (practical applications that improve the condition of mankind).Hilaire-Perez (2000) puts an emphasis on the impact this approach had on the mod-ernization of the public administration during the
 Ancien régime
. Evaluating andvalidating inventions to grant the inventors with patents required the development of an expertise within the State that leveraged the modernization of public administra-tion, since departments were obliged to work together. A virtuous circle betweeninstitutional renewal (the modernization of public administration) and scientific progress (innovation) was set in motion. Let us point out that this process is exactlywhat we call today “competitive intelligence” at the government level: breaking thesilos in public administration, sharing information and building expertise in order toenhance decision-making and produce strategic knowledge.Although there is no direct link between the Baconian program and the firstindustrial revolution since it was mainly the fruit of empirical improvements bycraftsmen, it created a cultural- and innovation-friendly institutional climate and trig-gered an adaptive institutional evolution that was the key to the industrial take-off inthe West. The Baconian program reached full bloom with the second industrial revo-lution, which was based on scientific discovery (chemistry and electricity), in thesecond half of the 19
century.It is quite striking that those who, today, wax lyrical about economics and itsmarvelous achievements are the same who never gave the Baconian program muchcredit for this development. As Mokyr put it, “technology is knowledge”: the word
“technology” embeds two concepts: the τέχνη (
) – or the pure craft that makesa taciturn job that alleviates the burden of man and makes things that, unaided, he
could not achieve – and λόγος (
) – or knowledge, that is the process of design-ing what technology must do and for which purpose. This knowledge is built on theone hand on our theoretical knowledge, but mainly on what Mokyr calls “usefulknowledge” produced by the interaction of our epistemic knowledge with our induc-tive experience and our beliefs. By playing with technology, we discover and learnwhat technology can do, what it may do and what it may not do.This problem is quite common in the Western world: we have forgotten FrancisBacon, and we confuse technology with technique. By a semantic drift, technologyhas forgotten the knowledge dimension and has come to be able to define good ends by its own means. This is the reason why our projects escape to our ends.
3. Technology as manna from heaven
In the neoclassical framework, translated in public management in NPM, technol-ogy is exogenous and considered to be “manna from heaven, as initially defined bySolow in his approach of economic growth (Solow 1956). Since then, much of theliterature envisions technology as a public good that only needs to be applied toreveal its benefits. Endogenous growth theory, on the contrary, reveals that “much

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->