IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v54y2021i4d10.1007_s11077-021-09438-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to the digital transformation of infrastructure sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Liliane Manny

    (ETH Zürich
    Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology)

  • Mert Duygan

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
    University of Basel
    EPFL ENAC IIE HERUS)

  • Manuel Fischer

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
    University of Bern)

  • Jörg Rieckermann

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology)

Abstract

Digital technologies can be important to policy-makers and public servants, as these technologies can increase infrastructure performance and reduce environmental impacts. For example, utilizing data from sensors in sewer systems can improve their management, which in turn may result in better surface water quality. Whether such big data from sensors is utilized is, however, not only a technical issue, but also depends on different types of social and institutional conditions. Our article identifies individual, organizational, and institutional barriers at the level of sub-states that hinder the evaluation of data from sewer systems. We employ fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to compare 23 Swiss sub-states and find that two barriers at different levels can each hinder data evaluation on their own. More specifically, either a lack of vision at the individual level or a lack of resources at the organizational level hinder the evaluation of data. Findings suggest that taking into account different levels is crucial for understanding digital transformation in public organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Liliane Manny & Mert Duygan & Manuel Fischer & Jörg Rieckermann, 2021. "Barriers to the digital transformation of infrastructure sectors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 943-983, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-021-09438-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-021-09438-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-021-09438-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-021-09438-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Giest & Annemarie Samuels, 2020. "‘For good measure’: data gaps in a big data world," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 559-569, September.
    2. Jacopo Klaus, 2020. "Do municipal autonomy and institutional fragmentation stand in the way of antisprawl policies? A qualitative comparative analysis of Swiss cantons," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(9), pages 1622-1638, November.
    3. Wood, B. Dan & Waterman, Richard W., 1991. "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 801-828, September.
    4. Charles R. Shipan & Craig Volden, 2008. "The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 840-857, October.
    5. M. Chatwin & G. Arku & E. Cleave, 2019. "Defining subnational open government: does local context influence policy and practice?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 451-479, September.
    6. Sarah Giest & Reuben Ng, 2018. "Big Data Applications in Governance and Policy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 1-4.
    7. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    8. de Reuver, Mark & van der Lei, Telli & Lukszo, Zofia, 2016. "How should grid operators govern smart grid innovation projects? An embedded case study approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 628-635.
    9. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    10. Lorenz Kammermann, 2018. "Factors Driving the Promotion of Hydroelectricity: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(2), pages 213-237, March.
    11. Arduini, Davide & Belotti, Federico & Denni, Mario & Giungato, Gerolamo & Zanfei, Antonello, 2010. "Technology adoption and innovation in public services the case of e-government in Italy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 257-275, July.
    12. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    13. Bram Klievink & Bart-Jan Romijn & Scott Cunningham & Hans Bruijn, 0. "Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    14. Reto Steiner, 2003. "The causes, spread and effects of intermunicipal cooperation and municipal mergers in Switzerland," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 551-571, December.
    15. Sarah Giest, 2017. "Big data for policymaking: fad or fasttrack?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 367-382, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hui Zhang & Huiying Ding & Jianying Xiao, 2023. "How Organizational Agility Promotes Digital Transformation: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Bennich, Amelie, 2024. "The digital imperative: Institutional pressures to digitalise," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Jianing, Pang & Bai, Keke & Solangi, Yasir Ahmed & Magazzino, Cosimo & Ayaz, Kamran, 2024. "Examining the role of digitalization and technological innovation in promoting sustainable natural resource exploitation," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Zhixia Qiu & Shifa Wang & Yaxin Hou & Sheng Xu, 2023. "What Drives Infrastructure Participants to Adopt Digital Technology: A Nexus of Internal and External Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Justyna Światowiec-Szczepańska & Beata Stępień, 2022. "Drivers of Digitalization in the Energy Sector—The Managerial Perspective from the Catching Up Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Xuemei Xie & Yuhang Han & Hao Tan, 2024. "Greening China’s digital economy: exploring the contribution of the East–West Computing Resources Transmission Project to CO2 reduction," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duygan, Mert & Fischer, Manuel & Ingold, Karin, 2023. "Assessing the readiness of municipalities for digital process innovation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    2. Ukobitz, Desirée Valeria & Faullant, Rita, 2022. "The relative impact of isomorphic pressures on the adoption of radical technology: Evidence from 3D printing," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Tedi Skiti, 2020. "Institutional entry barriers and spatial technology diffusion: Evidence from the broadband industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1336-1361, July.
    4. Xin Xu & Viswanath Venkatesh & Kar Yan Tam & Se-Joon Hong, 2010. "Model of Migration and Use of Platforms: Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1304-1323, August.
    5. Roel Heijlen & Joep Crompvoets & Geert Bouckaert & Maxim Chantillon, 2018. "Evolving Government Information Processes for Service Delivery: Identifying Types & Impact," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Pranpreya Sriwannawit & Ulf Sandström, 2015. "Large-scale bibliometric review of diffusion research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1615-1645, February.
    7. Nicola Matteucci & Raffaella Santolini & Silvio Di Fabio, 2023. "ICT diffusion in public administrations and business dynamics: Evidence from Italian municipalities," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(4), pages 1233-1271, December.
    8. van Hezewijk, A.P. & van Assen, M.F. & van de Velde, S.L., 2003. "The impact of innovation and organizational factors on APS adoption: Evidence from the Dutch discrete parts industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2003-084-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Moshe Maor, 2020. "Policy over- and under-design: an information quality perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 395-411, September.
    10. Sarah Louart & Gildas Boris Hedible & Valery Ridde, 2023. "Assessing the acceptability of technological health innovations in sub‑Saharan Africa: a scoping review and a best fit framework synthesis," Post-Print hal-04428148, HAL.
    11. Lawarée, Justin & Jacob, Steve & Ouimet, Mathieu, 2020. "A scoping review of knowledge syntheses in the field of evaluation across four decades of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. Sarah Giest & Annemarie Samuels, 2020. "‘For good measure’: data gaps in a big data world," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 559-569, September.
    13. Saeideh Sharifi fard & Ezhar Tamam & Md Salleh Hj Hassan & Moniza Waheed & Zeinab Zaremohzzabieh, 2016. "Factors affecting Malaysian university students’ purchase intention in social networking sites," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1182612-118, December.
    14. Citera, Emanuele & Sau, Lino, 2019. "Complexity, Conventions and Instability: the role of monetary policy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201924, University of Turin.
    15. Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah & Kobus Muller & Kwame Ameyaw Domfeh, 2018. "‘Complex crisis’ and the rise of collaborative natural resource governance: institutional trajectory of a wildlife governance experience in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 2205-2224, October.
    16. Davood Askarany & Malcolm Smith, 2008. "Diffusion of innovation and business size: a longitudinal study of PACIA," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(9), pages 900-916, October.
    17. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    18. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    19. Li, Xu & Vermeulen, Freek, 2021. "High risk, low return (and vice versa): the effect of product innovation on firm performance in a transition economy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120268, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:54:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-021-09438-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.