Generic Structures that Guide the
Implementation of IT-Based Innovations
in the Public Sector
Sharon S. Dawes - CTG
Anthony M. Cresswell - CTG
Laura Black - MIT
David F. Andersen - RC
George P. Richardson - RC
Luis F. Luna - RC
Ignacio J. Martinez - RC
Agenda
• The opportunnity
• How the idea was depeloped
• The group modelling session
– Pre-meeting activities
– Meeting activities
– Post-meeting activities
• What is next
The Opportunity
• Past fall, MIT students visit to Albany – Laura
Black presented to us her work with technology
and Cross-Boundary Collaboration
• The Center for Technology in Government at the
University at Albany,
– worked since 1993 to study just this process through
implementation of Technology-Based Innovations in
the Public Sector
– Gateways to the Past, Present, and Future: Practical
Guidelines to the Secondary Uses of Electronic Records
How The Idea Was Developed
Jan/2001
Mar/13/2001
Mar/20/2001
Mar/29/2001
Apr/13/2001
DFA starts talking with potential
participants – Paper proposal
Meeting with Tony Cresswell (CTG) –
Group modelling approach
Meeting with all the KDI team – Initial
interest in the project
Meeting with modeling group – HIMS
project selected / session scheduled
First modeling meeting – More than a
paper
Modelling Session
Pre-meeting Activities
• Create Script (Richardson and Andersen, 1995)
– Roles
•
•
•
•
•
Facilitator
Modeler/Reflector
Process Coach
Recorder
Gatekeeper
DA
GR
GR
LL / IM
AC
• Get CTG approval
• Create Concept Model
• Complete logistics
Meeting Activities
8:30
·
·
·
·
Review Agenda for the day
Purpose, discussion and clarification
Concept Model: a fast overview of final product
Boundary Clarification – stakeholders, actors, sectors in the
model, key variable (especially stocks) elicitation, key
variables and the reference mode
10:20
BREAK
10:30
·
·
·
·
Stock mapping
Feedback loop mapping
Modeler Feedback
Next steps and future tasks
The Modelling Group
David Andersen
Donna Canestraro
Meghan Cook
Anthony Cresswell
Mark LaVigne
Ignacio Martinez
Theresa Pardo
George Richardson
Fiona Thompson
Luis Luna
Rockefeller College
Center for Technology in Government
Center for Technology in Government
Center for Technology in Government
Center for Technology in Government
Rockefeller College
Center for Technology in Government
Rockefeller College
Center for Technology in Government
Rockefeller College
Concept Model
People
productivity
Tasks to do
Progress rate
Finished
work
People on project
Trust
People
Fraction of people
assigned to project
Trust building
rate
Trust built per task
accomplished
Trust erosion
Time for trust to
break down
Concept Model
Project and Trust Progress
600
450
300
150
0
0
10
20
Tasks to do : Final1
Finished work : Final1
Trust : Final1
30
40
50
60
Time (Day)
70
80
90
100
Task
Task
Task
Concept Model
Project
definition
Fraction
remaining
B
People
productivity
Tasks to do
Progress rate
Effect of trust over
productivity
Finished
work
R
People on project
Trust
People
Fraction of people
assigned to project
Trust building
rate
Trust built per task
accomplished
Trust erosion
Time for trust to
break down
Concept Model
Project and Trust Progress
600
450
300
150
0
0
18
Tasks to do : Trust Normal
Finished work : Trust Normal
Trust : Trust Normal
36
Time (Day)
53
71
Task
Task
Task
Concept Model
Project
definition
Fraction
remaining
People
productivity
Tasks to do
Progress rate
Finished
work
Effect of trust over
productivity
People on project
Trust
People
Fraction of people
assigned to project
Trust building
rate
Trust erosion
R
Trust built per task
accomplished
Time for trust to
break down
Concept Model
Project and Trust Progress
600
450
300
150
0
0
10
20
Tasks to do : Normal
Finished work : Normal
Trust : Normal
30
40
50
60
Time (Day)
70
80
90
100
Task
Task
Task
Key Variables Elicitation
• Number of interactions or
meetings
• Level of the people
involved
• Trust
– Providers role to the state
– Providers trust to Bob and
CTG
– Providers trust among them
– Individual trust
• Feedback from work
(evidence of listening)
• Percent
of
HIMS
developed
• Level of engagement (at
meetings) – Ownership
• Level of leadership
• CTG involvement amount
and role
• Providers
appreciation
about the value of HIMS
to themselves
Boundary Clarification
01/98
01/01
CTG ends
its
participation
Business
case/ smart IT
tools
Prototype
Common service
eval model
Common data
HIMS
Leadership
Financing
Further
develop
Implementation
Structure Elicitation
component
growth
Common
understanding of
what and how
Use of SMART
IT tools
CTG involvement
Feasible
prototype
components
Structure Elicitation
component
growth
Common
understanding of
what and how
Use of SMART
IT tools
Feasible
prototype
components
Capacity to
collaborate
Willingness to
collaborate
Collaboration
Trust
CTG involvement
Responsibiliy for
collaboration
Leadership
Provider
Engagement
Structure Elicitation
Pressure to be
accountable
Personal prior
experience
Demonstrated
results
Expectations
Welfare reform
pressure
Bob activity
component
growth
Opportunity to act
Common
understanding of
what and how
Use of SMART
IT tools
Feasible
prototype
components
Capacity to
collaborate
Willingness to
collaborate
Collaboration
Trust
CTG involvement
Responsibiliy for
collaboration
Leadership
Provider
Engagement
Structure Elicitation
Pressure to be
accountable
Personal prior
experience
Demonstrated
results
Expectations
Welfare reform
pressure
Bob activity
Bob used
negative
experience
component
growth
Opportunity to act
Common
understanding of
what and how
Use of SMART Role of
IT tools
corporate
partner
CTG involvement
Responsibiliy for
collaboration
Feasible
prototype
components
Capacity to
collaborate
Willingness to
collaborate
Collaboration
Trust
Leadership
BHS and QA
engagement
Provider
Engagement
Structure Elicitation
Pressure to be
accountable
Personal prior
experience
Demonstrated
results
Expectations
Welfare reform
pressure
Bob activity
Bob used
negative
experience
component
growth
Opportunity to act
Common
understanding of
what and how
Use of SMART Role of
IT tools
corporate
partner
CTG involvement
Responsibiliy for
collaboration
Feasible
prototype
components
Capacity to
collaborate
Willingness to
collaborate
Collaboration
Trust
Leadership
BHS and QA
engagement
Provider
Engagement
Reflector Feedback
Uncommitted
providers
Gaining
commitment
Loss of
commitment
Committed
providers
Reflector Feedback
+
Involvement of the
State (BHS, QA)
+
Perceived
Potential
Involvement of
CTG
+
Involvement of
providers
+
Building
+ Perceived
threat
Level of
commitment
of the
committed
+
Eroding
R1
Uncommitted
providers
Gaining
commitment
+
Loss of
commitment
Committed
providers
+
Positive word of
mouth
Reflector Feedback
+
Positive prior
expectations
(process)
+/-
Feasible
Prototype
Components
+/Satisfaction in
demostrated results
+
Negative
expectations
(process)
R2
Collaboration +
+
- +
+
+
Involvement of the
State (BHS, QA)
+
Perceived
Potential
Involvement of
CTG
+
Involvement of
providers
+
Building
- +
+ Perceived
threat
Level of
commitment
of the
committed
+
Eroding
R1
Uncommitted
providers
+
+
Gaining
commitment
+
Loss of
commitment
Committed
providers
+
Positive word of
mouth
Reflector Feedback
+
+/-
Feasible
Prototype
Components
+/Satisfaction in
+
demostrated results
+
+
R2
Collaboration +
+
- +
Positive prior
expectations
(process)
+
+
Involvement of the
State (BHS, QA)
+
Perceived
Potential
- +
+ Perceived
threat
+
Perceived
validity of
+ the process
Involvement of
CTG
Negative
expectations
(process)
+
Involvement of
providers
+
Building
Level of
commitment
of the
committed
+
Eroding
R1
Uncommitted
providers
+
+
Gaining
commitment
+
Loss of
commitment
Committed
providers
+
Positive word of
mouth
Reflector Feedback
+
- +
Infeasible
Prototype
Components
Vision +
+
Common +
Understanding
R2
+
Collaboration +
+
+ - +
+
+
Involvement of the
State (BHS, QA)
+
Positive prior
expectations
(process)
Negative
expectations
(process)
- +
+ Perceived
threat
Perceived
Potential
Trust
+
Perceived
validity of
+ the process
Involvement of
CTG
+
+/+
+/- Satisfaction in
+
demostrated results
+
+
Feasible
Prototype
Components
+
Opportunity/pressure
to act
+
Involvement of
providers
+
Building
Level of
commitment
of the
committed
+
Eroding
R1
Involvement of
Corporate Partner
Uncommitted
providers
+
+
Gaining
commitment
+
Loss of
commitment
Committed
providers
+
Positive word of
mouth
What Is Next
•
•
•
•
•
Formulate the Model
Second Meeting on May, 8th
Poster in Atlanta Meeting
Paper in SD Review or other Journal
Obtaining funding to model other CTG
projects
• Dissertation