IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/syspar/v35y2022i4d10.1007_s11213-021-09579-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional Divergence of Digital Item Bank Management in Bureaucratic Hybridization: An Application of SSM Based Multi-Method

Author

Listed:
  • Nur Muhammaditya

    (University of Indonesia)

  • Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto

    (University of Indonesia)

  • One Herwantoko

    (University of Indonesia)

  • Yulia Gita Fany

    (University of Indonesia)

  • Mahari Is Subangun

    (University of Indonesia)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze institutional divergence of Beckert (2010) by measuring the reframing of three constitutive principles of Digital Weberian Bureaucracy (DWB). In contrast to the studies by Gaus et al. (2017), Sofyani et al. (2018), Muellerleile and Robertson (2018), Turner et al. (2019), and Meilani and Hardjosoekarto (2020), this study explores normative and mimetic mechanisms resulting in the mixed pattern of public administration (Traditional Public Administration (TPA), New Public Management (NPM), and Post NPM), focusing on the transformation of Digital Era Governance (DEG). Employing Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) by Reynolds and Holwell (2010), combined with Text Network Analysis (TNA) by Segev (2020) and Social Network Analysis (SNA) by Borgatti et al. (2014), this study shows the micro dynamics of relationships between actors, the meso dynamics of organizations, and the absence of regulations at the macro level, all of which lead to institutional divergence in the form of fully hybrid governance (as proposed by De Waele et al. (2015)) that is also caused by normative and mimetic mechanisms. Complementing the study of DWB, this study suggests that computer literacy and programming languages are essential to be improved by future bureaucrats as social actors to achieve the success of digital transformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Nur Muhammaditya & Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto & One Herwantoko & Yulia Gita Fany & Mahari Is Subangun, 2022. "Institutional Divergence of Digital Item Bank Management in Bureaucratic Hybridization: An Application of SSM Based Multi-Method," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 527-553, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:35:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11213-021-09579-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11213-021-09579-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11213-021-09579-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11213-021-09579-4?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. Walter Diegel & Alexandra Moritz & Joern H. Block & Antonia Botsari & Frank Lang & Helmut Krämer-Eis, 2020. "Measuring Venture Capital Sentiment in Europe," FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, in: Alexandra Moritz & Joern H. Block & Stephan Golla & Arndt Werner (ed.), Contemporary Developments in Entrepreneurial Finance, pages 137-174, Springer.
    2. James A. Danowski & Kenneth Riopelle, 2020. "Correction to: Scaling constructs with semantic networks," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 235-247, February.
    3. James A. Danowski & Kenneth Riopelle, 2019. "Scaling constructs with semantic networks," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(5), pages 2671-2683, September.
    4. Lia Muliawaty & Kamal Alamsyah & Ummu Salamah & Dian Sa'adillah Maylawati, 2019. "The Concept of Big Data in Bureaucratic Service Using Sentiment Analysis," International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), IGI Global, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, July.
    5. Lhawang Ugyel, 2014. "Explaining Hybridity In Public Administration: An Empirical Case Of Bhutan'S Civil Service," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(2), pages 109-122, May.
    6. Florian Gebreiter & Nunung Nurul Hidayah, 2019. "Individual responses to competing accountability pressures in hybrid organisations," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(3), pages 727-749, April.
    7. Stephen Curtis, 2019. "Digital transformation—the silver bullet to public service improvement?," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 322-324, July.
    8. Philip Rogiers & Stijn Viaene & Jan Leysen, 2020. "The digital future of internal staffing: A vision for transformational electronic human resource management," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 182-196, October.
    9. Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2011. "Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 215-230, September.
    10. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. van den Broek, Tijs & van Veenstra, Anne Fleur, 2018. "Governance of big data collaborations: How to balance regulatory compliance and disruptive innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 330-338.
    2. Amin Vahidi & Alireza Aliahmad & Ebrahim Teimouri, 2019. "Evolution of Management Cybernetics and Viable System Model," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 297-314, June.
    3. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Phillips, Fred & Afshari-Mofrad, Masoud & Bigdelou, Nasrin, 2021. "Innovation lives in ecotones, not ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 572-580.
    4. Ramon Uribe-Echeberria & Juan Ignacio Igartua & Rafael Lizarralde, 2019. "Implementing Open Innovation in Research and Technology Organisations: Approaches and Impact," JOItmC, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-25, November.
    5. James A. Danowski & Bei Yan & Ken Riopelle, 2021. "A semantic network approach to measuring sentiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 221-255, February.
    6. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks [Se frayer un chemin parmi les différentes recommandation," Post-Print halshs-01491454, HAL.
    7. Jim Sheffield, 2004. "The Design of GSS-Enabled Interventions: A Habermasian Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 415-435, September.
    8. Nagy, A., 2009. "Adoption of interorganizational information systems : The adoption position model," Other publications TiSEM af471297-bf03-43bf-88c1-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Jianying Xiao & Lixin Han & Hui Zhang, 2022. "Exploring Driving Factors of Digital Transformation among Local Governments: Foundations for Smart City Construction in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Nguyen, Le Khanh Ngan & Howick, Susan & Megiddo, Itamar, 2024. "A framework for conceptualising hybrid system dynamics and agent-based simulation models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(3), pages 1153-1166.
    11. Garcia-Canal, Esteban & Rialp-Criado, Alex & Rialp-Criado, Josep, 2013. "Speed of ICT integration strategies in absorptions: Insights from a qualitative study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-307.
    12. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    13. Roman Beck & Sven Weber & Robert Wayne Gregory, 2013. "Theory-generating design science research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 637-651, September.
    14. Sumantra Sarkar & Anthony Vance & Balasubramaniam Ramesh & Menelaos Demestihas & Daniel Thomas Wu, 2020. "The Influence of Professional Subculture on Information Security Policy Violations: A Field Study in a Healthcare Context," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1240-1259, December.
    15. Jackson Emerson Abraham, 2017. "Theoretical and Methodological Context of (Post)-Modern Econometrics and Competing Philosophical Discourses for Policy Prescription," Journal of Heterodox Economics, Sciendo, vol. 4(2), pages 119-129, December.
    16. Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma & Ibrahim Salama, 2020. "What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1583-1628, March.
    17. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    18. Kwabena Asiama & Rohan Bennett & Jaap Zevenbergen, 2019. "Towards Responsible Consolidation of Customary Lands: A Research Synthesis," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-22, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Joerg Becker & Bjoern Niehaves & Karsten Klose, 2005. "A Framework for Epistemological Perspectives on Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(4), pages 1-1.

    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:spr:syspar:v:35:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s11213-021-09579-4. 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.