Integration of confiscation processes within the criminal justice chain

(1)

1

Integration of confiscation processes within the criminal justice chain

Master Thesis, Supply Chain Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

January 25, 2016 by Thieu Werter Student number: 1908138 E-mail: t.p.m.werter@student.rug.nl

Supervisor/ University of Groningen Carolien de Blok

Co-Assessor/ University of Groningen Jerry van Leeuwen

Supervisor/ Field of study Arjen Polstra Co-Assessor/ Field of study

Piet Hoving

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen Tel: +31 (0)503633741

Organization

(2)

2

Abstract

The performance of the criminal justice chain is far from perfect. Different tools can contribute to a better performance of this specific supply chain. One of these tools is the application of internal supply chain integration practices. This study researches integration practices regarding the confiscation process performed by an organization that is part of the criminal justice chain. A single case study on this confiscation process at the Public Prosecution Service in Groningen reveals how internal integration takes place within this context. The focus in this study is on criminal justice characteristics that have influence on factors, which in their turn have influence on dimensions of internal supply chain integration, which ultimately have influence on performance of this supply chain.

The findings of this study show that the criminal justice characteristics: autonomy of internal partners, high amount of internal chain partners, specialized knowledge of professional and the complex hierarchy within criminal justice organizations have high influence on factors that hamper or facilitate internal supply chain integration. In addition, four concepts are identified that seem essential requirements for achieving internal supply chain integration within the criminal justice context.

Key words

(3)

3

List of Tables

Table 1 Criminal justice chain characteristics... 11

Table 2 Elements of internal integration ... 14

Table 3 Influencing factors to internal integration ... 16

Table 4 Overview Workshops ... 24

Table 5 Influencing factors to internal integration in the confiscation process ... 34

Table 6 Criminal justice chain characteristics influencing internal integration in the confiscation process ... 34

(5)

5

List of Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual Model ... 18 Figure 2 Confiscation process ... 22 Figure 3 Effect of criminal justice chain characteristics and influencing factors on informational

integration ... 27 Figure 4 Effect of criminal justice chain characteristics and influencing factors on operational

integration ... 29 Figure 5 Effect of criminal justice chain characteristics and influencing factors on relational

(6)

6

Preface

To finish my master study Supply Chain Management at the University of Groningen I investigated the problems that occur regarding the integration of confiscation processes within the Public Prosecution Service in Groningen.

I would like to thank the people that made it possible to write my master thesis about this topic: • My supervisor from the University of Groningen, Carolien de Blok, for your frequent, timely

and useful feedback I received from you during the process of writing this master thesis. • My supervisor from the Public Prosecution Service in Groningen, Arjen Polstra, for making it

possible to do research at the Public Prosecution Service and for helping me during the data collection for this thesis.

• All the employees of the Public Prosecution Service that I have interviewed and from whom I had a useful contribution during the workshops.

• My mother and father for their support. I hope you will enjoy reading this thesis.

Thieu Werter

(7)

7

1. Introduction

Estimates show that criminals in the Netherlands earn more than 9 billion euro with drugs dealing, arms trading and human trafficking. Only 1 percent of that amount was taken away from criminals by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) last year (De Volkskrant, 2015). The PPS is one of the partners in the criminal justice chain. The processes performed by the PPS ensure that criminal profits1

It is widely accepted that supply chain integration leads to supply chain performance improvement (Frohlich & Westbrook, 2001; Lee, Kwon, & Severance, 2007; Flynn, Huo & Zhao, 2010; Narasimhan & Kim, 2002; Cousins & Menguc, 2006 ). Mellat-Parast and Spillan (2014) defined supply chain integration as the processes and procedures by which firms obtain operational and strategic efficiencies, through a more efficient handling of criminal cases in terms of time, effort and money, both internally through collaboration among internal functions as well as externally through collaboration with external firms. Integration of internal functions is a pre-requirement for integration of the entire supply chain (Flynn et al., 2010; Pagell, 2004; Zhao, Huo, Selen, & Yeung, 2011). Informational integration, operational integration and relational integration are the three main dimensions of integration, which each contribute to (internal) supply chain integration (Leuschner, Rogers, & Charvet, 2013). Flynn et al. (2010:59) mentioned that ‘’the environment that an organization operates within shapes its structures and processes’’. To understand the relationship between the dimensions of (internal) supply chain integration and performance criteria (Wong, Boon-Itt, & Wong, 2011) you need to know the organizations structures and processes. These structures and processes are influenced by the environment. This means that in each chain certain contextual factors are at stake that facilitate or hamper integration.

will be taken away from the convicted persons. These confiscation cases are insufficiently registered and processed at the moment (Openbaar Ministerie, 2015). As mentioned by the former Minister of Safety and Justice Opstelten (Dutch Ministry of Safety and Justice, 2012): ‘’the aim of optimizing and, where necessary, restructuring the working processes throughout the chain is not only to reduce the processing times, but also to improve the quality of the handling of criminal cases, a better cooperation between the chain partners and, as a result, a better performance of the chain as a whole’’. This research aims to contribute to a better cooperation between and within chain partners, as it looks at the effect of different influencing factors on integration of different functional areas within the criminal justice chain, which ultimately leads to better supply chain performance.

Following contingency theory, internal integration can be achieved within a specific chain as the criminal justice chain, but it depends on the specific chain contextualities. Processes and operations of professional organizations in the criminal justice chain are usually complex. (Pekkanen

(8)

8

& Niemi, 2012). Justice organizations within the criminal justice chain have a dualistic nature (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012). On one hand, they act like traditional manufacturing environments: the cases flow through the process from one functional area, for example the case assessment secretary, to another, for example a functional area of the administration, and wait in queues between the areas. On the other hand, the cases are crafted by highly skilled, independently working professionals (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012). As mentioned Lewis and Brown (2012:2): ‘’what makes professional employees different is that this body of knowledge is externally (but non-governmentally) regulated and controlled in its content and application. Professionals also adhere to explicit external codes of ethics and implicit norms that guide appropriate ‘professional’ behaviour.’’ This might collide with integration of the processes within the chain these professionals work in since not every internal partner is authorized to perform all tasks in the criminal process. As also mentioned by (Huo, Han, Chen, and Zhao (2015:721): ‘’The understanding of what influences supply chain integration is incomplete’’. The understanding of how criminal justice characteristics are influencing internal integration in the public sector is currently also unknown. Understanding this contextual influence would enable better internal integration, which ultimately contributes to better performance of the public sector organizations (Bagchi, Ha, Skjoett-Larsen, & Soerensen, 2005).

Therefore, this research assesses the influence of justice chain characteristics on internal informational-, operational- and relational integration. The main influencing factors to internal integration within this criminal justice context will be given and this research will try to give explanations for these influencing factors. Therefore, the main research question of this research is:

’’How does the criminal justice context raise influencing factors to internal integration in the confiscation process chain?’’

Sub questions based on this main research question are:

• How does integration take place within the confiscation process? • How do the contextual factors influence the dimensions of integration?

• What are the main influencing factors to internal integration within the criminal justice context?

(9)

9

A single case study at the PPS in Groningen is done to answer these questions. The case study focuses on the confiscation process within the PPS. The theoretical contribution of this research is that it adds essential conditions (to achieve internal integration within this specific criminal justice chain context) to extant theory about supply chain integration.

(10)

10

2. Theoretical Background

This section starts with describing the criminal justice chain with a main focus on the PPS. The subsection thereafter will elaborate on the professionals and the services they perform within this criminal justice chain. A table with criminal justice chain characteristics arises from these two sections. The two subsections thereafter will define the two concepts of supply chain integration and internal supply chain integration. The dimensions of internal supply chain integration and influencing factors that have effect on these integration dimensions are discussed in subsection 2.4. The last subsection defines the conceptual framework, which forms the base behind this research.

2.1 The criminal justice chain

(11)

11 Table 1 Criminal justice chain characteristics

Criminal justice chain characteristics

Examples/Explanation Process

characteristics

Process variability (Lewis & Brown, 2012:2): ‘’situations where individual (and/or team) judgement have a central role in service delivery contribute to a high degree of service process ‘variation’’’.

Unpredictable processing times and progression of the process (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012):

A confiscation case may be waiting until additional investigation is completed or judgment is needed. (Lewis & Brown, 2012:2): ‘’situations where individual (and/or team) judgement have a central role in service delivery contribute to a relatively slow ‘throughput time’’’. Professionals High amount of chain partners/co-operating institutions (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012):

Main partners: police, PPS, the court, central judicial collection agency.

Co-operating organizations/institutions: BOOM/Functional Parquet, Tax authorities, Victim support, Lawyers

Complex hierarchy in criminal justice chain organizations (Jehle & Wade, 2006):The public prosecutors are supervised by the board of prosecutors general, not by internal supervisors of the public prosecution.

Autonomous working professionals (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012):A greater emphasis on self-management in criminal justice chain organizations. As mentioned by Pekkanen en Niemi (2015:606), ‘’the fear of losing objectivity and autonomy can manifest in the form of a negative attitude towards process improvement’’.

Policy and regulation

Regulated activities and fixes procedures (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012): All tasks and powers of internal criminal justice chain partners and co-operating organizations/ institutions are defined in legal codes and related jurisprudence.

2.2 Organizations and professionals in the criminal justice chain

The work of professionals in criminal justice organizations is externally regulated and controlled in its content and application. In addition, as mentioned by Lewis and Brown (2012:2): explicit external codes of ethics and implicit norms guide appropriate ‘professional’ behaviour. As mentioned by Goodale, Kuratko, and Hornsby (2008:670): ‘’In professional service firms, the managers have the role of defining professionals’ task boundaries and of managing coordination between the administrative core, thus guiding them to act in the best interest of the firm’’. This is more complex in criminal justice chain organizations since the external controls of professionals in criminal justice organizations mentioned above, have a minimizing effect on the influence of managers in professional service organizations (Lewis & Brown, 2012), which also holds for the public professional organizations in the criminal justice chain.

(12)

12

organizations than in other (public) professional service organizations. The fixed roles and duties create silo thinking and have a restrictive effect on co-operation (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2012).

The criminal justice chain characteristics mentioned might have influence on internal integration of the processes performed by the Public Prosecution. An overview of these criminal justice chain characteristics is given in table 1.

2.3 Supply Chain Integration

A lot of research has been done about supply chain integration (Frohlich & Westbrook, 2001; Vickery, Jayaram, Droge, & Calantone, 2003). Most earlier literature reveals that supply chain integration leads to better supply chain performance, because it reduces costs and creates value for a company (Bagchi et al., 2005). However, some researchers argue that supply chain integration and close collaboration do not always lead to better performance (Bagchi et al., 2005; van der Vaart & van Donk, 2008), because the level of integration is determined by business conditions (Bask & Juga, 2001; van der Vaart & van Donk, 2008). Examples of business conditions are dominance versus balanced power in the supply chain, the degree of competition in the industry, the maturity of the industry and the nature of the products (Bagchi et al., 2005). For example a high degree of competition in an industry makes supply chain integration an important determinant to maintain a competitive advantage over competitors (Otchere, Annan, & Anin, 2013).

(13)

13

example might be a barrier to internal integration since law does not always permit information sharing.

2.4 Dimensions of internal integration

The following sub sections will discuss three dimensions of integration based on the research of Leuschner (Leuschner et al., 2013) as well as influencing factors to these integration dimensions. These three dimensions are chosen because these dimensions contain the main elements of internal supply chain integration. These dimensions will be used in an internal context for this research, as this research aims to reveal the influence of the criminal justice chain characteristics on internal integration.

2.4.1 Informational Integration

(14)

14 Table 2 Elements of internal integration

Informational integration elements (Leuschner et al., 2013)

Definition/Explanation Coordination of information

transfer/sharing

‘’The coordination of information sharing attempts to make relevant, accurate and timely information available to the decision-makers’’ (Simatupang et al., 2002:296).

Sharing information/ collaborative communication

‘’Collaborative communication is the contact and message transmission process among supply chain partners in terms of frequency, direction, mode, and influence strategy’’ (Cao & Zhang, 2011:166)

‘’Within organizations, there is a trend to encourage groups to share information and

knowledge’’ (Yang & Maxwell, 2011:165).

Supporting information technology

‘’Information technology (IT) such as the Internet, intranet, software application packages and decision support systems can be applied to facilitate information sharing with customers and partners, and optimization of supply chain performance’’ (Simatupang et al., 2002:296).

Operational integration elements

(Leuschner et al., 2013)

Collaborative joint activity development

‘’Supply chain collaboration has been defined as the formation of close, long-term partnerships where supply chain members work together’’(Cao & Zhang, 2011:166). Coa and Zhang (2011), mentioned the importance of planning activities, integrating cross-functional processes, coordinating the supply chain, setting supply chain goals and establishing information sharing parameters.

Work processes A process is “a structured and measured set of activities designed to produce a specific output for a particular customer or market”(Lambert & Cooper, 2000:76). “The structure of activities within companies is a critical cornerstone of creating unique and superior supply chain performance”(Håkansson & Snehota, 1995; Lambert & Cooper, 2000: 76).

Coordinated decision making ‘’Decision synchronization refers to the process by which supply chain partners orchestrate decisions in supply chain planning and operations that optimize the supply chain benefits’’(Simatupang et al., 2002:166; Cao & Zhang, 2011)

Relational integration elements

(Leuschner et al., 2013)

Adoption of a strategic connection between members in the chain characterized by trust

‘’The greater the mutual trust, the greater the IT customization, and the greater the strategic information flows’’(Prajogo & Olhager, 2012:516)

Commitment ‘’Participants in collaboration must be prepared to commit resources as any initiatives in this area are likely to be resource intensive in the early stages of their development and over the longer terms as collaboration is rolled out across relevant suppliers and customers’’ (Barratt, 2004:38).

(15)

15

2.4.2 Operational Integration

The second dimension of integration is operational integration. ‘’Operational integration refers to the collaborative joint activity development, work processes and coordinated decision making among firms in the supply chain’’ (Leuschner et al., 2013:38). A definition or explanation of these dimensions of operational integration is given in table 2. The definitions will be applied to internal chain partners within organizations in this research, because it can also be used among separate functional areas within an organization.

Internal operational integration can be achieved by for example real-time searching for operating data or integration of activities in different functional areas (Barratt, 2004; Zhao et al., 2011). Barratt (2004) mentioned the importance of operational integration for achieving internal collaboration within a supply chain network. For example poor integrated planning practices between partners within an organization can lead to failing internal plans, because these plans are not in line with each other (Barratt, 2004). This means that operational integration problems can arise from incomplete access to information or incomplete information (Barratt, 2004; De Blok et al., 2014), which can be prevented by informational integration. Another example of a barrier to operational integration mentioned by Barratt (2004) is the internal resistance if employees feel alien with collaboration practices. Important facilitators to operational integration are programs that support collaborative initiatives (Barratt, 2004). In addition, Barratt (2004) also mentioned the importance of support and commitment of senior management, needed for the alignment of work processes for better collaboration and coordination between internal partners and for the implementation of collaboration practices. Another facilitator for achieving operational integration often mentioned in recent literature is the implementation of cross-functional teams. As mentioned by Vickery et al. (2003:526): ‘’the objective of cross-functional teams is collaboration, the forging of linkages among people and departments (who may have competing interests) to reach win-win outcomes’’ Decision-making is decentralized by means of lateral decision making to speed up the decision process and increase cooperation Vickery et al. (2003).

2.4.3 Relational Integration

The third dimension of integration distinguished in this research is relational integration. Relational integration refers to the adoption of a strategic connection between firms in the supply chain characterized by trust, commitment and long-term orientation (Leuschner et al., 2013). A definition or explanation of these dimensions of relational integration is given in table 2.

(16)

16

professionals are important and more flexible instead of standardized working processes are needed, trust and hierarchical relationships play an important role in the coordination of work carried out by various chain partners (De Blok et al., 2014).

A lack of trust between internal partners is a main barrier to relational integration. As mentioned by Yang and Maxwell (2011:167): ‘’People are only willing to share their knowledge when they feel that they are protected against opportunistic people. Hence, in sharing information and knowledge, trust between the involving individuals is critical’’. A related facilitator to relational integration are social networks. As mentioned by Yang and Maxwell (2011:167): ‘’social networks are important for the promotion of sharing of information and knowledge between members of an organization’’. Social networks include individual and group contacts, communications, and interactions that foster relationship and trust to enhance sharing behaviours’’. This importance of relationships is mentioned by Leuschner et al. (2013): only firms/departments that have a long-term relationship will be able to attain such a level of integration that is positively correlated with performance.

An overview of the examples of influencing factors, which have a positive (+) or negative (-) effect on the three different dimensions of internal integration according to earlier literature, is given in table 3.

Table 3 Influencing factors to internal integration

Dimensions of internal integration

Examples Influencing factors to internal integration

(+)= positive influencing factor/facilitator (-)=negative influencing factor/barrier

Informational integration • Lack of integration between IT and business model (-)

• Lack of coordination because of incomplete information of decision makers (-) • Poor IT infrastructure (-) (Gunasekaran & Ngai, 2004; Simatupang et al., 2002) • The formal hierarchical structure of bureaucracy (-) (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) • Open, frequent, balanced, two-way, multilevel contacts and message services

(+) (Cao & Zhang, 2011)

Operational integration • Internal resistance if employees feel alien with collaboration (-) (Barratt, 2004) • Programs to support collaborative initiatives (+) (Barratt, 2004)

• Build support and commitment from senior management (+) (Barratt, 2004) • Cross-functional teams (+) (Vickery et al., 2003)

Relational integration • Lack of trust (-) (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) • Social networks (+) (Yang & Maxwell, 2011)

(17)

17

The influencing factors mentioned in table 3 are examples from earlier literature of factors that might have effect on dimensions of internal integration and hence on overall internal integration.

It seems that such influencing factors have a stronger or weaker influence on internal integration within the criminal justice context, because the specific criminal justice chain characteristics identified from earlier literature as shown in the beginning of this chapter might make these influencing factors stronger or weaker. For example the complex hierarchy in criminal justice organizations is expected to have a weakening effect of the support and commitment from senior management (a facilitator to operational integration), because of the lack of clarity about the responsibilities of senior managers.

2.5 Conceptual Framework

This theory chapter started off by explaining the criminal justice chain and especially the explaining characteristics of organizations (as the PPS) and professionals acting in the criminal justice chain. The growing importance of efficiency, in terms of money, effort and time of the processes performed within this chain is stated in the beginning of the introduction. Internal supply chain integration is a tool that can improve supply chain processes (for example through the improvement of information sharing, collaboration, coordination or relationship between internal chain partners), which can contribute to for example a more efficient supply chain, better cooperation of chain partners, a higher quality of the handling of cases etc. Thereby contributes internal supply chain integration to the performance of the chain as a whole. (Frohlich & Westbrook, 2001; Lee et al., 2007). That is why the theoretical background of supply integration and especially internal integration is explained in section 2.3 and 2.4. Internal integration enables better supply chain performance (Frohlich & Westbrook, 2001; Lee et al., 2007), as shown in the lower box of the conceptual model as shown in figure 1. The positive relationship between internal integration and better supply chain performance is assumed in this study, as shown by the dotted arrow in the lower box of figure 1.

(18)

18 Figure 1 Conceptual Model

(19)

19

3. Methodology

3.1 Case study research

As mentioned by Eisenhardt (1989:534), ‘’the case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings’’. Case study research has several advantages that contribute to answering the main research question of this study. The first advantage of case-study research is that the phenomenon can be researched in its natural setting (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). This is important for this research, as the confiscation process needs to be studied in the natural setting to find out the main problems of these processes and to find influencing factors to internal integration of the confiscation process. Furthermore, the questions how integration takes place within confiscation cases and what the influencing to integration are, fit with case research because this method allows for how and what questions to be answered (Voss et al., 2002).

An important choice that has been made is the type of case study that was most suitable for this research (Voss et al., 2002). A single case study within a single organization was most suitable for this research since it made this research more in-depth. Besides that, the different influencing factors on internal integration in the criminal justice sector were unknown. Therefore a case study research appeared to be most suitable for this research. The PPS organization involved in this research is the PPS in Groningen. The unit of analysis of this study is the confiscation process since the focus in this research is on the confiscation process. This confiscation process will be explained in the next section.

The two sections following elaborate on how the data is collected and analysed. The last section of this chapter assesses the quality of the data.

3.2 Explanation confiscation process

The main goal of the confiscation process is to ensure that profits that convicted persons earned with criminal activities will be taken from those convicted persons. The target of the PPS in Groningen is to take away 12 million euro from convicted persons yearly. The exact amount of confiscation cases in Groningen is unknown, but it involves more than 100 cases yearly. Most cases are executed, but in many cases could things as efficiency, progression of the cases, and cooperation between internal partners go better. In some cases profits should have been taken away from criminals, but it has not been done, because of mistakes in the confiscation process. An example of such a mistake is that a case has been expired.

(20)

20

section, employees of the court preparation section and employees of the confiscation cases execution section.

The confiscation process is a complex process, with different ways to execute confiscation cases. Four sub-processes deal with confiscation cases that are not settled via the court (sub processes on dismissing confiscation cases in a different way) The other sub-process in this case study research is the confiscation sub-process that deals with confiscation cases that are dealt with by means of a court session. All these execution possibilities are part of the confiscation process that is performed by the PPS. This compete confiscation process is the single-case study in this research.

The confiscation process starts when crimes are recorded by the police. The crimes are recorded into a police report, which will be sent to the PPS. Usually this file contains a criminal benefit calculation. This benefit consists of the illegal money, cars, houses etc. earned by the suspect. This file is registered by the general administration of the PPS. The general administration creates a confiscation file. The general administration will send this confiscation file to a public prosecution secretary of the PPS. The public prosecution secretary subsequently assesses both the main criminal case, and the confiscation case. The public prosecution secretary has five options, four assessment options regarding finishing the confiscation case in an different way. These five ways of finishing the confiscation process will be explained now in more detail. The complete confiscation process is shown in figure 2.

The first way of finishing the confiscation process is dropping the case. As also mentioned by Jehle and Wade (2006), the public prosecution secretary (sometimes after agreement with the public prosecutor) can decide to end further prosecution without imposing any condition. The confiscation case will be finished directly by the public prosecution secretary.

The second way of finishing the confiscation case is a compromise that can be offered to the suspect to avoid a confiscation as a consequence of a court session. This arrangement is often initiated by the adviser of the suspect and needs to be signed by the suspect and the public prosecutor. This arrangement (‘schikking’) needs to be registered by the general administration of the public prosecution and the arrangement will be sent to the Central Judicial Collection Agency (CJIB) for execution.

(21)

21

trial is avoided and that the transaction is not registered in his criminal record’’. The transaction should be registered by the public prosecution secretary and subsequently transmitted to the CJIB. The confiscation case will be closed when the collection is paid by the offender. If the offender refuses to pay, the concerning confiscation case will still brought to court.

The fourth and last different way of finishing the confiscation case is by means of an imposed sanction plus confiscation. This option exists, but is still not used by the PPS in Groningen.

(22)

(23)

23

3.3 Data collection

Data has been collected at the Public Prosecution Service in Groningen. In order to ensure triangulation, two methods have been used to study the confiscation process (Voss et al., 2002). The first method that has been used in this case study is semi-structured interviews. Ten different employees are interviewed. These are all employees of the PPS. The list of interviewed employees, with the reason why they are interviewed can be found in appendix A of this thesis, along with specific information about each interview. Different public prosecutors are interviewed. This is because a public prosecutor is the functional leader in the confiscation case and determines normally what will be done in a specific confiscation case from the perspective of the PPS. All ten persons that are interviewed are dealing with the confiscation process to a certain extent. A senior manager was contacted to put forward the names of these employees, who fit the requirement of dealing with the confiscation process (Voss, 2009).

The interview script that is used for these interviews is given in Appendix B. In order to make the different concepts stated in the conceptual model operational, questions are asked about the specific characteristics (i.e. process characteristics, professionals and policies and regulations) of the criminal justice chain. In order to find out how these characteristics have influence on the different dimensions of (internal) integration, questions were asked about different elements of these dimensions of (internal) integration. A tape recorder is used to record the conducted interviews, in order to provide an accurate rendition of what has been said. In this way it is exactly transcribed what is said by the respondents.

(24)

24 Table 4 Overview Workshops

Workshops

Main questions during workshop

Date

Time

Workshop 1

Define the

confiscation process

What are the main tasks in the confiscation process related to cases via the court and related to cases dismissed in alternative ways? How the process looks like?

25-11-2015 120 min

Workshop 2

Define the (main) barriers to integration

What are the barriers to integration in the confiscation process and sub-processes (via court and alternative ways)?

9-12-2015 150 min

Workshop 3

Overcoming barriers to integration

What are the main barriers to integration and what causes the main barriers to integration?

How to overcome the main barriers to integration of the confiscation process and sub-processes (via court and alternatively)?

6-1-2016 120 min

3.4 Data Analysis

The data analysis of this research is based on a three-stage procedure as explained by Miles and Huberman (1994), as shown in table 7 on page 36.

The first stage of this procedure is data reduction, which helps the investigator to cope with a deluge of data (Eisenhardt, 1989). Data in this study was reduced by sticking quotes from the interviews and workshops to related criminal justice chain characteristics, dimensions of internal integration and influencing factors, all based on extant literature. As mentioned by Su et al. (2014:6), ‘’the relevant literature will be incorporated at this stage to conceptually understand the emerging concepts’’. Quotes that seem to have a relation with a criminal justice chain characteristics or influencing factors other than the ones identified from extant research, were stuck on the category ‘others’ in the code tree. From the quotes stuck on the groups ‘other’ are new specific criminal justice characteristics and influencing factors related to this context indentified.

In the second stage, all the criminal justice chain characteristics (i.e. the ones from extant research which shows influence on internal integration in this study and the new ones found in the data of this study) and influencing factors (i.e. again from extant research and new ones) , are indentified as second order concepts. The second order concepts that seem to have a relation with each other were grouped.

(25)

25

3.5 Data Quality

(26)

26

4. Results

In this result section will be explained, based on the results found in the case study, how the three internal integration dimensions turned out in this internal part of the confiscation process and how different influencing factors have influence on the elements of the three dimensions of integration (i.e. informational integration, operational integration and relational integration). Furthermore, will be shown how the criminal justice chain characteristics have influence on these influencing factors and hence on the internal integration dimensions. The last section of this chapter will elaborate on four main themes that seem essential requirements for achieving internal integration within the criminal justice context.

4.1 Internal informational integration in the confiscation process

(27)

27

4.1.1 Effect of influencing factors and criminal justice chain characteristics on informational integration

Four influencing factors on informational integration are found in this research, see figure 3. These influencing factors are effected through characteristics that are typical for criminal justice chains (i.e. specialized knowledge of professionals, high amount of internal chain partners and complex hierarchical vs. functional lead in criminal justice organizations).

Figure 3 Effect of criminal justice chain characteristics and influencing factors on informational integration

(28)

28

prosecution secretaries is strengthening incomplete information of internal partners more downward in the internal confiscation process chain’’.

The second influencing factor is lack of open, two-way, balanced contact between internal partners. The professionals (i.e. public prosecutors) have the functional lead regarding confiscation cases, as further explained in sub section 4.2.1. This ensures that communication is often one-way and unbalanced. As mentioned by the head of the investigation department: ‘’public prosecutors position themselves as leader in confiscation cases, so other internal partners (e.g. all sections of the administration) often listen to the information that is shared or asked by the public prosecutors. Public prosecutors do regularly not listen to information that is shared by these other internal partners’’, which means that the complex hierarchical and functional lead in criminal justice organizations hampers balanced information sharing and hence informational integration.

The third influencing factor on informational integration is a lack of information technology. As mentioned earlier, two information systems are used. A lack of information technology is a barrier to two informational integration dimensions (i.e. information sharing and supporting information technology), because not all information regarding confiscation cases is given by the same information system. It is impossible for employees at the moment to retrieve an overview of all confiscation cases in order to see the state of all the different cases. The PPS is affected by information technology implementation problems, which forms the reason behind this lack of IT. The lack of IT is not influenced by specific criminal justice chain characteristics.

The fourth influencing factor on informational integration is close ties with internal partners. Close ties between internal partners enables sharing information, because close ties make the transmission of information more accessible. In this research is found that the high amount of chain partners within criminal justice organizations makes it difficult to hold close ties with internal chain partners. As mentioned by the public prosecutors, ‘’we do not exactly know with whom to share and what information exactly to share’’. The high amount of internal chain partners causes ignorance about the need for information of each internal partner.

4.2 Internal operational integration in the confiscation process

(29)

29

definitions about how it needs to be done are missing, which means that clear confiscation work processes and sub-processes are missing. As mentioned by the business advisor: ‘’there are no standard work processes, people do not know exactly what they have to do’’. It is also not clear who is responsible for different tasks in the confiscation process. As mentioned by all the respondents ‘’it is possible for the public prosecutor to announce a confiscation case during the court session of the main criminal case. The Public Prosecution has two years to do actually something with the announcement done by the public prosecutor. But there are no clear responsibilities after this announcement’’.

4.2.1 Effect of influencing factors and criminal justice chain characteristics on operational integration

Four influencing factors (i.e. cross-functional teams, lack of responsibility, support of senior management and resistance to change current work processes/tasks) on operational integration are found in this research, see figure 4. These influencing factors are effected through characteristics that are typical for criminal justice chains (i.e. specialized knowledge of professionals, autonomous working professionals high amount of internal chain partners and complex hierarchical vs. functional lead in criminal justice organizations).

Figure 4 Effect of criminal justice chain characteristics and influencing factors on operational integration

(30)

30

the confiscation process, which has a positive influence on operational integration. This cross-functional team has also a positive influence on coordinated decision-making. This cross-cross-functional team hardly focuses on the decisions regarding for example the design of work activities or how collaboration in the confiscation process chain takes place. A typical criminal justice characteristic that has a positive influence on the creation of cross-functional teams is the need of specialized knowledge. The confiscation cases team consist mainly of professionals (i.e. public prosecutors) with specialized expertise. As mentioned by the public prosecutor during the interview: ‘’the confiscation cases team has the control regarding the content of the confiscation cases that needs to be handled. Internal partners (for example the public prosecution secretaries) can ask people of the confiscation cases team if they need specialized expertise regarding certain confiscation case’’. These specialized professionals (i.e. public prosecutors) are relatively autonomous working professionals. As mentioned by the old public prosecutor: ‘’we have our own administration regarding the different confiscation cases, we decide what we do and when we do something concerning a confiscation case’’.

A second influencing factor that has a negative effect on collaborative joint activity development and hence operational integration is the lack of responsibilities and clarity of responsibilities within the confiscation process. As mentioned, the public prosecutors are responsible for each confiscation case, as defined by regulations. This research found that the public prosecutors are in practice not responsible for the in pre-court session and post-court session tasks in the confiscation process. All the respondents mentioned that it is not clear who is responsible for which work processes and tasks in the confiscation process. For example as mentioned by the advisor on confiscation cases: ‘’a lot of cases fall between two stools, because nobody feels responsible for those cases’’. This has a negative influence on coordinated decision making. As mentioned by the advisor of confiscation cases during the second workshop: ‘‘a list of the cases that has fallen between two stools is retrieved from the IT system and I will look what still needs to be done regarding these cases’’. The high amount of internal chain partners is strengthening this clarity of responsibilities even more, because different internal partners might be held accountable for certain tasks in the confiscation process.

(31)

31

influenced by the complex hierarchical and functional lead in criminal justice organizations. As mentioned by the head of department during the interview: ‘’we as head of departments have the hierarchical lead and try to ensure better collaboration and clear work processes between internal partners (i.e. public prosecution and administration parts) in the confiscation process. That is complicated, because the public prosecutors have the functional lead in the confiscation process, but often they take the hierarchical lead over people of the administration section, which hampers collaboration between these two internal partners (i.e. public prosecutors and people of administration sections)’’.

The fourth influencing factor found in this research is the resistance to change current work processes and work tasks in the confiscation process. Confiscation cases have increase importance in recent years, because crime should not be beneficial. But the main focus of the older generation professionals is mostly on the main criminal cases. As mentioned by a young public prosecutor during the workshop: ‘’for the young public prosecutors is a confiscation case a standard part of the whole criminal case, but the older generation of public prosecutors have grown up with a writ of summons (‘dagvaarden’) and punishments. The professionals work relative autonomously, which means that it remains possible to handle each case in their own way. Awareness of the growing importance of the related confiscation cases comes gradually. Their work processes needs certain change towards embedded focus on both the main criminal case, as well as the confiscation case. The support from senior management is again difficult, because of the functional lead of the public prosecutors, as explained in the previous paragraph.

4.3 Internal relational integration in the internal confiscation process

(32)

32

internal partners are incorporated in this relationships created by the confiscation cases team, for example not all sections of the administration department.

4.3.1 Effect of influencing factors and criminal justice chain characteristics on relational integration

This study reveals that there are also influencing factors and criminal justice chain characteristics that have influence on the dimensions of relational integration. Three influencing factors on relational integration are found in this research (i.e. lack of responsibilities, lack of standard processes and support of senior management), as shown in figure 5. The results show also for this dimension of integration that there are some characteristics typically found in criminal justice organizations that have influence on the influencing factors and hence on relational integration.

Figure 5 Effect of criminal justice chain characteristics and influencing factors on relational integration

(33)

33

The lack of responsibilities has also a negative influence on commitment, because internal partners feel not committed to their tasks regarding confiscation cases if they are not made responsible for these tasks. As mentioned by the advisor on confiscation cases during the second workshop: ‘’information about tasks that still need to be done is retrieved from the information system sometimes, and I have to send an e-mail to different internal partners based on this information that these internal partners still have to perform some tasks. If internal partners feel responsible or are made responsible for certain tasks in the confiscation process, they feel more commitment with the confiscation process and they will use more of their resources (i.e. knowledge, time etc.) to perform their tasks’’ This commitment of internal partners leads to establishment of relationships with other internal partners needed to perform the tasks. Without the establishment of these relationships, a lot of tasks regarding the confiscation process cannot be performed and hence all the resources of the internal partners put into the process will be worthless. Without the creation of these necessary relationships is it also impossible to build long-term relationships, therefore the lack of responsibilities in the confiscation process has also a negative influence on long-term relationships.

The second influencing factor on relational integration is a lack of standard processes. This influencing factor has a negative influence on the adoption of strategic connections between internal partners, because standard processes make standard strategic connections between internal partners necessary, otherwise all the tasks of the internal partners cannot be performed. The lack of standard processes regarding confiscation cases has also a negative influence on commitment, because internal partners will not perceive the confiscation tasks as standard part of their work tasks and hence feel not committed to these processes. The lack of standard processes has also a negative influence on long-term relationships, because standard processes make the establishment and keeping of relationships necessary in order to perform the standard processes regarding the confiscation cases. The lack of standard processes is strengthened by the high amount of internal chain partners in criminal justice organizations, because each confiscation case is different and needs support of different internal partners in order to dispatch a confiscation case. As mentioned by a public prosecutor during an interview: ‘’sometimes I need additional information or support from an internal partner, but from whom depends on the concerning confiscation case’’.

(34)

34

4.4 Overarching themes influencing integration

This section will introduce four overarching themes found in this research that seem important for achieving internal integration within the criminal justice chain. First, an overview of all the influencing factors on internal integration in this criminal justice chain process is given in table 5. An overview of all criminal justice chain characteristics (i.e. based on extant research, as well as the ones found in this research), that have influence on internal integration in the criminal justice chain is given in table 6.

Table 5 Influencing factors to internal integration in the confiscation process Dimension of

internal integration

Influencing factors to internal integration in the confiscation process

(+)= positive influencing factor/facilitator (-)=negative influencing factor/barrier

Informational integration

• Incomplete information of internal partners (-)

• Lack of open, balanced, two-way communication between internal partners (-)

• Lack of information technology (-) • Close ties with internal partners (+) Operational

integration

• Lack of responsibilities/ lack of clarity of responsibilities (-) • Resistance to change current work processes/ work tasks (-) • Support of senior management (+)

• Cross-functional teams (+) Relational

integration

• Lack of responsibilities/ lack of clarity of responsibilities (-) • Lack of standard processes (-)

• Support of senior management (+)

Table 6 Criminal justice chain characteristics influencing internal integration in the confiscation process Dimension of

internal integration

Criminal justice chain characteristics that have influence on internal integration in the confiscation process

(+)= positive influence on internal integration (-)=negative influence on internal integration

Informational integration

• Specialized knowledge of professionals (-) • High amount of internal chain partners (-)

• Hierarchical vs. functional lead in criminal justice organizations (-) Operational

integration

• Autonomous working professionals (-) • High amount of internal chain partners (-)

• Hierarchical vs. functional lead in criminal justice organizations (-) • Specialized knowledge of professionals (+)

Relational integration

• Autonomous working professionals (-) • High amount of internal chain partners (-)

(35)

35

(36)

(37)

37

5. Discussion

The four themes that seem relevant in relation to internal integration in the criminal justice context will be discussed now in more detail. After that the influence of criminal justice characteristics on internal integration will be discussed with reference to the conceptual model introduced in chapter two.

5.1 Transparency

This study showed the importance of transparency for achieving internal supply chain integration in a criminal justice context. Different influencing factors and criminal justice chain characteristics found in this study can be related to transparency. Akkermans, Bogerd, and Van Doremalen (2004) already mentioned the importance of supply chain transparency for decision making. This study showed that supply chain transparency is especially important in the criminal justice chain. Because internal integration in the criminal justice chain and hence performance of this chain is highly dependent on information sharing between internal partners. The importance of open, balanced, two-way communication, which leads to transparency in information sharing, was mentioned by Cao & Zhang (2011). The complex hierarchical and functional lead in criminal justice organizations hampers supply chain transparency, because information sharing is often directed by autonomously working professionals (i.e. public prosecutors). These autonomously working professional define what information and how much information will be shared, which hampers transparency of information sharing. The lack of clear responsibilities and roles also hampers supply chain transparency. This influencing factor has a high influence internal integration within the criminal justice context. Transparency about responsibilities and roles seems to facilitate internal integration and hence supply chain performance. Earlier research of Pekkanen and Niemi (2012) mentioned the high-regulated activities and procedures, which suggest that all responsibilities and roles are clearly defined in justice organizations. However, this study showed a lack of transparency about responsibilities and roles within criminal justice organizations.

5.2 Standardization

(38)

38

with specialized knowledge needed to perform their tasks in the process. These professional processes are not standardized, because these processes are variable based on the amount of judgment work. As was already mentioned by Lewis and Brown (2012:9): ‘’‘professional’ processes can be designed or re-designed to be more capital intensive, use more embedded knowledge, deploy fewer fully qualified staff, and therefore be easier to control, more productive, etcetera’’. However, this study showed that not the high variable professional processes hampers standardization, but the resistance of professionals to standardize the knowledge intensive criminal justice processes. The support of senior management to act against this resistance to change seems needed to achieve more standardization in criminal justice processes, which ultimately contributes to internal integration.

5.3 Coordination

A third theme that emerged from the results of this study is coordination. Supply chain coordination is defined as ‘‘the act of managing dependencies between entities and the joint effort of entities working together towards mutually defined goals’’ (Arshinder, Kanda, & Deshmukh, 2008:318). This seems an important theme regarding internal integration in criminal justice organizations. The results of this study show the importance of employee participation in supply chain integration practices, because without the collaboration of the professionals in the confiscation process is it difficult to work towards more internal integration. The study of Huo et al. (2015) mentioned that the improvement of supply chain integration requires support from the employees. However, this study shows that it difficult for the professionals and other internal partners to coordinate and implement the supply chain integration practices, because of incomplete information of internal chain partners. As mentioned by Goodale et al. (2008:670) ‘’In professional service firms, the managers have the role of defining professionals’’ task boundaries and managing coordination between the administrative core, thus guiding them to act in the best interest of the firm’’. However this study showed that a coordinating role for managers is complicated in criminal justice organizations, because managers (i.e. head of departments) do only have the hierarchical lead and not the functional lead. The joint efforts of internal partners working together towards mutually defined goals depends on the individual efforts of the internal partners. In criminal justice organizations this depends often on the efforts of the professionals that have the functional lead in these organizations.

5.4 Formalization

(39)

39

and rules, every professional can and probably will perform criminal cases in their own way. Pekkanen and Niemi (2012) mentioned that fixed roles and duties creates silo-thinking and have a restrictive effect on co-operation. However, this study shows that without formalized roles and duties of internal partners, co-operation hardly occurs, because of a lack of responsibilities for the tasks that need cooperation.

5.5 Adapted theoretical model

As mentioned in the introduction, contingency theory says that internal integration can be achieved within a specific chain as the criminal justice chain, but it depends on specific chain contextualities. This research showed that in a context, as the criminal justice chain, certain contextualities have a strong complicating influence on internal integration. The high amount of relative autonomous working professionals in criminal justice organizations complicates the internal integration practices within this supply chain. In addition, these professionals often have highly specialized knowledge. This specialized knowledge ensures that these professionals take the functional lead in criminal justice organizations, although they do not have the hierarchical lead. This complicates achieving internal integration in the criminal justice chain even more. The criminal justice chain characteristic that have effect on influencing factors to internal integration are shown in the adapted theoretical model in figure 6. The original conceptual framework given in section 2.5 showed three groups of criminal justice characteristics (i.e. process characteristics, organizations & professionals and policy & regulations). From the results of this study are no criminal justice chain characteristics under the header ‘policy and regulations’ found that showed an effect on influencing factors to internal integration. Lewis and Brown (2012) mentioned the externally regulated and controlled body of knowledge of professionals. However, this study shows that these regulations do not have an determined effect on influencing factors to internal integration in this context.

The four overarching themes identified in this research and discussed in the previous sections (i.e. transparency, standardization, coordination and formalization) have influence on the criminal justice characteristics (i.e. the organizations & professionals characteristics), given figure 6. These four themes seem essential requirements for achieving internal integration within the criminal justice context.

(40)

(41)

41

6. Conclusion

This research provides insight into how internal supply chain integration takes place in a process within a specific context as the criminal justice context. The criminal justice chain has certain characteristics (i.e. high amount of internal partners, autonomous working professionals, complex hierarchical vs. functional lead and specialized knowledge of professionals) that have influence on achieving internal supply chain integration.

The high amount of chain partners makes it difficult to define the responsibility of each internal chain partner and makes it difficult to hold close ties with other internal partners to which information about confiscation cases should be shared. In this study is showed that this criminal justice chain characteristic has a complicating influence on internal integration, because of difficulties with information sharing, collaboration practices and hold the necessary relationships with internal partners.

The second main criminal justice chain characteristic found in this research, which has also a complicating influence on internal integration are the relatively autonomous working professionals. A great part of the internal chain partners within the confiscation process consist of professionals (i.e. Public Prosecutors and Public Secretaries). The results show that in criminal justice chain processes, the professionals have the opportunity to handle criminal cases in their own way. Most of the professionals have arranged the sub processes within the whole criminal justice chain process in their own way. Autonomous working professional have negative influence on internal integration, because it hampers integration in different ways as explained in this research (e.g. information sharing, collaboration, building long-term relationships)

The third main criminal justice chain characteristic that have a hampering influence on internal integration is the complex hierarchy in criminal justice chain processes. In this research is an important distinctions found between the functional lead within the confiscation process and the actual hierarchical lead in the confiscation process as explained in the results of this thesis. This complex hierarchical structure has a negative influence on integration, because this hierarchical structure makes it difficult to define tasks and responsibilities regarding internal integration practices.

(42)

42

integration, because differences in knowledge hampers balanced, two-way information sharing and collaborative communication.

This study shows that these four criminal justice chain characteristics have mainly a strengthening effect on the influencing factors. These influencing factors have influence on the dimensions of internal integration as explained in section 4. The answer on how to overcome the effect of the criminal justice characteristics on the influencing factors that have influence on internal integration is given in section 6.3.

6.1 Main research findings

This section will elaborate on three main findings of this research.

The first main finding of this research is that internal supply chain integration is influenced by characteristics of a specific context. As was mentioned by Bagchi et al. (2005), understanding contextual influence would enable better internal integration. In this study is found that these contextual factors complicate internal integration through their influence on influencing factors to integration.

The second main finding of this research is that the influence of contextual factors on internal integration is defined by the degree to which certain concepts (i.e. transparency, standardization, coordination and formalization) do exist within in a specific supply chain.

The third main finding of this research is that commitment of all people involved in a process or chain is required for internal integration. The study of Huo et al. (2015) mentioned that the improvement of supply chain integration requires support from the employees. In contrast to the study of Goodale et al. (2008), that mentioned the lead of managers regarding supply chain coordination. This study contributes to these earlier findings that supply chain integration requires effort from both (i.e. managers and lower level employees).

6.2 Theoretical implications

This study contributes to research on internal supply chain integration in two different ways.

(43)

43

Second, in earlier research are the roles regarding supply chain coordination discussed. Huo et al. (2015) mentioned in earlier research that the improvement of supply chain integration requires support from the employees. In contrast Goodale et al. (2008) mentioned the leading role of managers in supply chain coordination. However this research contributes to this extant theory that internal supply chain integration in organizations with high amount of professionals requires effort from both managers and lower level employee (i.e. public prosecutors or employees of the administration section) on equal basis, because otherwise functional lead of professionals will hamper integration practices.

Third, this research contributes to extant research about internal supply chain integration by adding essential conditions (i.e. transparency, standardization, coordination and formalization) for achieving internal integration within the criminal justice context.

6.3 Managerial implications

The findings of this study seems useful for the managers of Public Prosecution organizations. This study showed which criminal justice characteristics have influence on internal integration practices. Managers of Public Prosecution organizations should take these into account when striving for an integrated internal supply chain, which ultimately contribute to better performance. The role of the professionals in the internal process chain has a determining influence on internal integration of this chain. The criminal justice characteristics identified all are related to the professionals working in the confiscation process. Clear standard (sub) processes are needed to overcome the influence of these characteristics on integration. This means that the roles and responsibilities of all the internal partners in the process should be standardized and formalized. This makes the confiscation process chain more transparent and hence makes it clear who is responsibility for what tasks and practices that ultimately contribute to internal integration. More transparency (i.e. by means of standardized processes and formalized responsibilities ) enable a better control of the internal process for managers.

6.4 Limitations and future research

(44)

44

have effect on internal integration practices also exist in other supply chains. In addition, it is impossible to draw conclusions on the relation between internal integration and performance based on this research.

Integration of confiscation processes within the criminal justice chain