Achieving dependability in service provision:
a multiple case study within the victim supply chain
Master’s thesis
by
Daniël N.M.M. Hack
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Achieving dependability in service provision:
a multiple case study within the victim supply chain
ABSTRACTThe victim supply chain provides service to the victims of crimes. As problems are faced regarding the dependability of service provision within the victim supply chain, this research focused on how dependability in service provision can be achieved. Dependability is making sure that delivery promises are kept towards customers, but achieving dependability is hard because there is not yet a clear bottom line. Literature shows the importance of service delivery system design choices in achieving certain performance. Choices regarding technology, processes and external integration will be researched. This research’s results are based on a multiple-case study within the victim supply chain. Ten semi-structured interviews served as the data for this research. The results show that choices regarding digitalization, feedback, useful technology, joint processes, responsibilities, process agreements, evaluation, joint meetings and chain perspective are key in achieving dependability. Theoretical implication of this research is that insights are provided in the under researched topic of achieving dependability. Managerial implications are that concrete choices are given that can achieve dependability in processes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 2
1 INTRODUCTION ... 4
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
2.1 Service supply chain and criminal justice supply chain ...6
2.2 Dependability ...8
2.3 Service delivery system design choices ...9
2.3.1 Structural ...10
2.3.2 Infrastructural ...11
2.3.3 Integration ...12
2.4 Service delivery system design choices and performance aims ...13
2.5 Conceptual model...14
3 METHODOLOGY ... 15
3.1 Research design ...15
3.2 Case selection and context characteristics ...16
3.3 Data collection ...16
3.4 Data analysis ...17
3.5 Validity and reliability ...20
4 RESULTS ... 21
4.1 Context, the victim supply chain ...21
4.1.1 Heterogeneity of customers ...21
4.1.2 Need of objectivity ...21
4.1.3 Interdependency in processes ...22
4.1.4 Forced supply chain ...22
4.2 Service delivery system design choices to achieve dependability ...23
4.2.1 Relationship choices and dependability within the three cases ...23
4.2.2 Technology choices to achieve dependability ...24
4.2.3 Process choices to achieve dependability ...25
4.2.4 External integration choices to achieve dependability ...26
5 DISCUSSION ... 28
5.1 Service delivery system design choices to achieve dependability ...28
5.2 Technology choices to achieve dependability ...29
5.3 Processes choices to achieve dependability ...29
5.4 External integration choices to achieve dependability ...30
6 CONCLUSION ... 31
6.1 Answering the main question ...31
6.2 Managerial and theoretical implications of this research ...32
6.3 Limitations and future research ...32
REFERENCES ... 33
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 37
APPENDIX II: CASE SUMMARIES ... 40
Case 1...40
Case 2...41
Case 3...43
Schadefonds ...44
Police ...45
1 INTRODUCTION
The criminal justice supply chain within the Netherlands focuses on the detection, prosecution and trial of suspects, and after someone has been proved guilty also on execution of the punishment (Kalidien and de Heer-de Lange, 2013). Kalidien and de Heer-de Lange (2013) also found that, in the Netherlands, the court completed 96.000 felony cases in 2012, in 90% of these cases this led to a conviction, varying between monetary punishment till jail. Many crimes also mean that many people have been victims of these crimes. The victim is a person that is harmed, injured or killed as result of a crime (Ministry of Safety and Justice, 2013). Service provision towards the victim and those left behind is provided by, among others, victim support, the police, the public prosecution service (in Dutch: openbaar ministerie, from now on PPS) and harm fund violent crimes (schadefonds geweldsmisdrijven, from now on the Schadefonds). The Dutch Ministry of Safety and Justice (2013) stated that the importance of the victim in the criminal justice supply chain policies increased as of 1980 till now. But victims nowadays still feel that there is more attention for the culprits than for them (Ministry of Safety and Justice, 2013). To improve the perceived service provision, victims stress the need of dependable information provision towards them (Ministry of Safety and Justice, 2013). Victims want information on their case to be available. Moreover, this information needs to be reliable. Dandurand (2014) showed that information provided towards victims is frequently not sufficient in terms of availability, timeliness and reliability. The Ministry of Safety and Justice (2013) showed that this is caused by ineffective information sharing within the criminal justice supply chain. The victims’ need of available and reliable information means that there should be a proper information flow. To achieve this, seamless and well-designed processes, both within and between organizations in the chain, should be in place. Trigger for this research is to investigate how the organizations around the victim design their service/information delivery in order to provide dependable and high quality services to victims.
Even though service system design needs to be based on a particular performance objective, literature on service delivery system design lacks in taking dependability into account as performance measure (Gunasekaran, Patel and McGaughey, 2004). Service delivery system design has focused on quality, flexibility and cost (Zhou and Benton, 2007; Pires and Aravechia, 2001; Gunasekaran et al. 2004). However, even though dependability is so important for public services such as victim support (criminal justice supply chain), to the best of the authors’ knowledge research has not been conducted already on how to design a service delivery system to achieve dependability. Moreover, generally the service delivery design choices are focussing on the processes within a company rather than on processes between companies in a supply chain Roth and Menor (2003), even though services in public settings are increasingly provided in a chain. Because of this it is currently unknown how to embed dependability in structural, infrastructural and integration choices of a service delivery system. As can be seen in the Netherlands, the criminal justice supply chain faces problems with the dependability of its service provision. Consequences for customers will be that the service provision might not be dependable, for the service providers in the criminal justice supply chain this will mean that customers will not be satisfied with the obtained service. Therefore the following research question will be addressed during this research:
How can the criminal justice supply chain be designed to achieve dependable service delivery?
The research question will be answered using a multi-case study within the criminal justice supply chain. The theoretical contribution of this research will be that knowledge is added on a little exposed (Gunasekaran, Patel and McGaughey, 2004) performance measure, namely dependability. The research shows that dependability can be achieved by making certain choices regarding technology, processes and external integration. Next to that knowledge will be added on the design of a service delivery system taking a criminal justice supply chain vies. When contextual supply chain factors come in play, decisions have to take these factors into account. The managerial contribution will be that the knowledge about how technology, processes and external integration choices can be used in the criminal justice supply chain to achieve dependability.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section will provide insights in the theoretical topics of this research. Section 2.1 will address the criminal justice supply chain and the service supply chain. Section 2.2 focuses on dependability. The focus of section 2.3 lies on the service delivery system design choices, more specifically: structural, infrastructural and integration. The last section, 2.4, explains the conceptual model of this thesis.
2.1 Service supply chain and criminal justice supply chain
A service supply chain has a bidirectional character meaning that information and process flows go both directions. Because of this character an interactive process between entities within the service supply chain takes place (Sampson, 2012). Sampson (2012) therefore defined the service supply chain as a not linear supply chain. A linear supply chain is a supply chain that has product flows from upstream to downstream parties. Service supply chains consist of different processes according Ellram et al. (2004). The processes are depicted in Figure 3. The service delivery system, which will be elaborated upon in section 2.3, in single service organizations is closely related to the service delivery management between organizations within a supply chain (Ellram et al. 2004). This because both focus on receiving and executing of customer orders in order to meet the needs of the customers.
Figure 1: Service supply chain processes (Ellram et al. 2004)
Table 1: Different characteristics of the criminal justice supply chain compared to other public service supply chains (Pekkanen and Niemi, 2013)
Characteristic Example Result
Heterogeneity of customers
Customers are for instance: suspects, victims, witnesses, general public, etc.
Within the service provision towards all customers’ different processes,
objectives and performance measures need to be taken into account.
Need of objectivity
Objectivity within processes is key in the criminal justice supply chain because
objective decisions have to be made.
This need causes restrictions towards improvement of processes. It makes that restrictions exist regarding
cooperation between parties within the chain when executing processes. Unpredictability
in processes
Due to ineffective information exchange supply chain partners are not able to start their process.
Frictions will exist within the chain because parties cannot work together properly.
Forced supply chain
Parties within the criminal justice supply chain are forced to work together.
2.2 Dependability
Slack and Lewis (2002) describe dependability as doing work in a timely manner according to the delivery promises to customers. By measuring delivery dependability processes can be designed in a way that delivery performance can be maintained. Zhou and Benton (2007) showed that delivery dependability would be measured in terms of reliability and availability of the delivery. The article of Zhou and Benton (2007), part of operations management theory, thus links dependability towards deliveries of products. Cai (1996) on the other hand defines dependability as the avoidance of failures in a system. Especially avoidance of the failures that have a high impact on performance or that occurs on a more frequent basis, these failures are unacceptable for the users of a system. Theory regarding technological systems, like the article of Cai (1996), divides dependability in concepts as availability, reliability, safety, integrity, confidentiality and maintainability (Avizienis, 2001; Wattanapongsakorn and Levitan, 2000; Ardagna, Jhawar and Piuri, 2015; Kostic and Arandjelovic, 1995). Avizienis (2001) argues that integrity, confidentiality and availability can be captured as security because the concepts are closely related. As such, reliability and security are the main concepts related to dependability.
In the criminal justice field, Dandurand (2014) stated that a failure within the criminal justice supply chain would take place when the chain is not able to meet the requirements of their customers like for instance the victims and the suspects. These requirements of the victims and the suspects are fairness, timeliness and transparency (elements of dependability). As such the requirements of the customers of the chain can be captured under achieving reliability. That is why this research will build upon the attributes of dependability of Avizienis (2001). This because these attributes can be related towards the criminal justice supply chain as can be found in the requirements of customers given by Dandurand (2014). Avizienis (2001) argues that integrity, confidentiality and availability can be captured as security. As Dandurand (2014) shows, reliability can be defined as fulfilling the expectations of fairness, timeliness and transparency towards customers. Figure 2 visually shows the attributes that are captured under dependability in this research.
In addition to studies that emphasize dependability within organizations, supply chains strive for dependability by making sure that delivery promises towards parties in the chain and customer are kept (Sengupta et al, 2006). Zhou and Benton (2007) also showed that supply chains achieved dependability by on-time deliveries and perfect order fulfilment. These supply chain oriented studies show that striving for dependability within supply chains has to do with promises towards customers. This can be related towards the attributes that were chosen to represent dependability in this research (figure 2).
2.3 Service delivery system design choices
The performance strived for by a chain or system, such as dependability, should be translated into every element of that system (Ponsignon, Smart and Maull, 2011; Berry, 1995)). Roth and Menor (2003) state that each service system consists of three main elements, namely: the target market (who are the customers), the service concept (what is offered) and the service delivery system design choices (how to deliver the service). This research focuses on the service delivery system design choices because it translates how the service concept (what is offered) and the required performance can be delivered to the customer (Ponsignon et al. 2011). The service delivery system design choices consist of three kinds of choices: structural, infrastructural and integration. Figure 3 shows the architecture for service delivery systems provided by Roth and Menor (2003). This is because this research will focus at the choices that have to be made to strive for dependability. The three strategic design choices will be elaborated upon in the next section.
2.3.1 Structural
Structural design choices are those concerning the physical aspect of the service delivery. Table 2 shows the different structural design choices, as can be seen in figure 2, and its definitions.
Table 2: Structural design choices
Structural design choice Definition
Facilities and layout Choices to design the service encounter. Important in product based service design, where customers need to visit all parts of the facility to complete the service delivery (Armistead, 1990)
Technology and equipment
Choices concerning the service delivery through persons or equipment. Within service organizations choices regarding information technology systems to strive for performance. (Roth and Menor, 2003; Armistead, 1990) Aggregate capacity
planning
Choices to balance supply and demand, important in high customer contact services. This because the high variation that customers cause while participating in the process (Crandall and Markland, 1992)
Service product-process interfaces
Choices regarding the appearance and the ease of navigation through product and process technology (Roth and Menor, 2003)
The structural design choices above do not equally fit this research. Bigdeli, Kamal and Cesare (2013) stressed the importance of the use of information and communication technology within public service supply chains. Using technology will enhance the efficient and effective interaction with the customers of the public service supply chain. Technology and equipment have already proved to relate towards dependability following Avizienis (2001). This implies that the limited interaction with customers (Pekkanen and Niemi, 2013) in the criminal justice supply chain (table 1) should be dependable. Technology also enhances the service delivery from a supply chain perspective (Palmisano, 2006). The use of technology makes it possible to transform information and services to standardized entities to enable service provision all over the world and between parties in the chain. Baltacioglu, Ada, Kaplan, Yurt and Kaplan (2007) stressed that technology is critical to service supply chains as it can enhance improvements in availability and delivery accuracy of the service delivery. Technological systems need to be in place within the service chain to create customer satisfaction in terms of dependability towards the customers. If no technological systems are in place between the chain partners, excessive rework needs to be dealt with causing delays in the service provision towards the customers, thus affecting dependability (Ellram et al. 2004). Therefore focus will be on the structural design choices regarding technology and equipment.
technology-facilitated deliveries are useful when striving for quality, speed and flexibility, technology-assisted deliveries are useful for service systems striving for reliability and availability (Armistead, 1990). This because technology-assisted service deliveries can make sure that failure in processes, affecting dependability, can be eliminated (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons, 2006). To strive for dependability in the criminal justice supply chain technology-assisted service deliveries should be in place. The supporting character of this technology has shown to achieve dependable service provision and thus will be taken into account.
2.3.2 Infrastructural
The infrastructural choices are related to the people, policies and practices, processes and performance systems of the service delivery design system (Roth and Menor, 2003) and are defined in table 3.
Table 3: Infrastructural design choices
Infrastructural design choice Definition
People Choices about how employees should be trained and
which empowerment certain employees should have (Roth and Menor, 2003).
Policies and practices Choices about how the service should come out of the service delivery system, consists of defining quality management, service standards and
performance measurement (Roth and Menor, 2003).
Processes Choices about how processes will be used to achieve certain performance (Roth and Menor, 2003).
Performance systems Choices about how business performance will be reviewed, which systems should be in place (Roth and Menor, 2003).
Because process choices concern decisions to achieve a certain performance to the end customer, being dependability in this research, process choices can be considered key in infrastructural design choices. Next to that, Pekkanen and Niemi (2013) showed that unpredictable processes characterize the criminal justice supply chain, when partners are not able to start their processes, dependability can be affected by this characteristic. Therefore the design of process choices will be focused on in the remainder of this thesis.
2.3.3 Integration
The last area of design choices is that regarding integration. Figure 2 shows design choices regarding integration that can be divided into three main topics of choices following Roth, Johnson and Short (1996). The choices will be given in table 4. Table 4: Integration design choices
Integration design choice
Definition
Internal Concerns choices about the strategic fit between infra structural and structural choices, between functional areas and between business and operational performance (Roth and Menor, 2003).
External Choices on how relationships with suppliers and customers will be developed (Anderson and Morrice, 2000).
Adaptive mechanisms
Choices about system knowledge, training and employees that are important to certain service delivery (Roth and Menor, 2003). Pekkanen and Niemi (2013) showed that the parties within the criminal justice supply chain form a forced supply chain, which means that partners are not able to choose each other but have to work together. Therefore this research will focus on the external choices within the integration design choices.
External integration choices contain decisions with respect to the supply chain. How will relationships be managed with suppliers and customers? Logistic and production management literature defines external integration as the integration of activities across the boundaries of the organization (Gimenez and Ventura, 2005). To achieve a certain performance between different companies in the supply chain it is important to design towards joint objectives, shared information and joint responsibilities following Gimenez and Ventura (2005). Droge, Jayaram and Vickery (2004) mention that from an operations management perspective collaboration with suppliers and customers will enhance the timely responsiveness of the organization. Baltacioglu (2007) addressed in his article the importance of external integration when parties need to work together in a chain that strives for performance (dependability).
2.4 Service delivery system design choices and performance aims
Table 5 shows a comparison between the service delivery system design choices and the different performance aims that are mentioned throughout the theoretical background section. It shows that for instance for quality the bottom line is that the wishes of the customer have to be integrated. Therefore all decisions regarding the service delivery have to be in line with the wishes of the customer as table 5 shows. The table also shows the bottom line of other performance aims: cost, flexibility, speed and dependability. The bottom line of choices regarding dependability is however not entirely clear, and therefore this is a gap in literature. Some clues were found in literature, and showed in the table, but at the same time the choices regarding dependability are not described in great detail.
Table 5: Service delivery system design choices and performance aims
S er vi ce d el ive ry s ys te m d es ign c h oi ce s Performance aims
Quality Cost Flexibility Speed Dependability
Te ch n ol ogy Technology facilitated service deliveries, replace employees by technology (Fitzsimmons and Fitszimmons, 2006; Bitner and Germler, 2010) Transform information and services to standardized entities to enable service provision all over the world (Baltacioglu et al. 2007) Technology facilitated service deliveries, replace employees by technology (Fitzsimmons and Fitszimmons, 2006; Bitner and Germler, 2010) Technology facilitated service deliveries, replace employees by technology (Fitzsimmons and Fitszimmons, 2006; Bitner and Germler, 2010)
Technology assisted service deliveries, employees make use of technology to support the service delivery (Fitzsimmons and Fitszimmons, 2006) P roc es se s Activities have to be carried out together with the customer (Acona and Caldwell, 1992) Responsibilities should be at one employee (Metters and Vargas, 2000) Customer contact should be avoided as much as possible within the activities regarding service provision (Zomerdijk and de Vries, 2007) Responsibilities should be shared among different employees (Metters and Vargas, 2000) - Responsibilities should be shared among different employees (Metters and Vargas, 2000) Ex te rn al in te gr ati
on Integrate client in processes by giving the opportunity to give feedback (Droge, Jayaram and Vickery, 2004) Collaboration with chain partners that aims for joint objectives, shared information and joint responsibilities (Gimenez and Venture, 2005) Collaboration with chain partners that aims for joint objectives, shared information and joint responsibilities (Gimenez and Venture, 2005) Close collaboration with supplier and customers (Droge, Jayaram and Vickery, 2004)
2.5 Conceptual model
The gap that can be found in literature is that research towards how to design a service delivery system to achieve dependability has not yet been conducted. The characteristics of the criminal justice supply chain (Pekkanen and Niemi, 2013) have been taken in account during the theory section. The characteristics influenced the identification of the most important choices that were made regarding the structural, infrastructural and integration choices that are important for this research. The conceptual model in figure 4 shows the three service delivery system design choices within the criminal justice supply chain. Research about technology and equipment, processes and external integration is very diverse but lacks in general in defining how to design towards dependability as a performance measure, to the best of the authors’ knowledge. Therefore this research will link the three service delivery system design choices towards dependability by using a case study. This to gain insights in how dependable service provision in the criminal justice supply chain can be achieved.
3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design
Gold, Horman and Thorpe (2002) show that case studies are highly relevant for research that seeks for an in-depth interpretation of data. Meaning that a detailed and thorough analysis of the data will be performed. This thesis has been based on a multiple case study. A case study is used to study a certain phenomenon in its natural setting with as purpose theory building (Voss in Karlsson, 2009). Suitable for this thesis because, that made it possible to research the service delivery system design choices that have to be made to achieve dependability in the criminal justice supply chain (natural setting). Voss, Tsikriktsis and Frohlich (2002) show that case study research is powerful in the development of theory. As this research focused on a gap that was recognized to be under researched the case study method is very suitable, this because its purpose is theory building. Focus of a case study is also to understand why certain dynamics are present within certain settings following Eisenhardt (1989). To this research this means that a case study made it possible to study how certain service delivery design choices are made within the dynamic criminal justice supply chain, consisting of parties that are forced to work together, and how the choices are designed to achieve dependability. Next to that Voss et al. (2002) argue that ‘how’ questions are answered by case studies by providing understanding of the phenomenon. As this research is based on a ‘how’ question the case study method suited best.
Multiple case studies enhanced this research because it made the results wider in explanation and it provided a greater elaboration on theory. The choice for multiple cases was also made because of the fact that this research method was able to provide more generalizable and testable results compared to a single case study (Eisenhardt and Greabner, 2014). The generalizable character of multiple case studies creates external validity of the research following Yin (1994). Voss et al. (2002) show that multiple case studies help against observer bias. Eisenhardt (1989) stated that case studies without clear focus would not be able to obtain data that is clearly on the research topic. That is why a conceptual model visually backs up the research question of this research.
Figure 5: The victim supply chain
3.2 Case selection and context characteristics The cases that were selected for this
research are all victim counters, this because these are local parties that make separate decisions. The victim counters can be seen as small local supply chains that are formed out of employees from the police, the PPS and the victim counter (figure 6). This made it possible to research different small local supply chains that could be compared. Cases were selected applying theoretical replication (Voss, 2009), the researcher strived to research cases that varied in terms of their
perceived dependability achievements but were comparable in all other aspects. In order to carefully select the cases the knowledge of the client was used in a face-to-face meeting. The client perceived case 1 as a case that achieves dependability in their service provision; this case is a so-called ‘good practice’. The client perceives case 2 and 3 as not achieving dependability in their service provision, problems are faced with chain partners and these cases are therefore ‘bad practices’. By selecting cases that differ in achieving dependability in their service provision, this research expects to find underlying mechanisms that have to be in place to achieve dependability. Next to the cases the police and the Schadefonds were used to research the characteristics of the victim supply chain on a national level.
3.3 Data collection
Data was collected from the earlier mentioned cases within the victim supply chain, by conducting structured interviews. Following Yin (1999) making use of semi-structured interviews makes it possible to obtain data that is focused on the topic of research. Data gathering has been done in a period from April 21st 2016 to May 18th
2016. Multiple sources of evidence, multiple interviews per case and multiple interviews to research the context were used to create construct validity by means of data triangulation (Yin, 1994). The semi-structured interviews gained insights into the different choices that have to be made regarding the service delivery system design to achieve dependability. The concepts that are visualized within the conceptual model
were integrated within the interview guide, this in order to operationalize the main concepts and to support the reliability of the research Yin (1994). The interview guide consisted of questions regarding general topics (How many cases treat on a daily/weekly basis?), dependability (What do you do to guarantee dependability in your service provision?), strategic design choices (How does technology /processes/external integration support dependability?) and about the victim supply chain (Are there shared project/goals/decisions between the chain partners?). The interview guide can be found in Appendix I. Ten interviews were held in person. Table 6 shows the details of the interviews and to which case they belong. Interviews were conducted in Dutch, recorded and afterwards transcribed. The transcriptions were then summarized per organization and send back to the interviewees so that they could validate the collected data (Voss et al. 2002).
Table 6: Cases and interviews used in this research
Cases and interviews
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Interview 1
Organization: Victim counter 1 Victim counter 2 Victim counter 3
Job description: Manager Manager Manager
Date: 26-04-2016 28-04-2016 28-04-2016
Duration: 33 minutes 34 minutes 34 minutes
Abbreviation: I1 I3 I3
Interview 2
Organization: Victim counter Victim counter Victim counter
Job description: Employee Coordinator Coordinator
Date: 17-05-2016 11-05-2016 11-05-2016
Duration: 31 minutes 26 minutes 29 minutes
Abbreviation: I2 I4 I5
General interviews with chain partners of all cases
Organization: Job description: Date: Duration: Abbreviation:
Schadefonds Employee 21-04-2016 31 minutes I6
Schadefonds Manager 21-04-2016 35 minutes I7
Schadefonds Employee 21-04-2016 33 minutes I8
Police Coordinator 03-05-2016 30 minutes I9
Police Expert 04-05-2016 38 minutes I10
3.4 Data analysis
Table 7: Deductive categories definitions and codes
Category Sub-category Description Code
Service delivery system design
choices
Technology
All statements that refer to the choices concerning the service delivery through equipment and information technology.
SDC_TEC
Processes
All statements that refer to the choices about how processes will be used to achieve certain performance.
SDC_PRO
External integration
All statements that refer to the choices about how relationships with suppliers and customers will be developed.
SDC_EXT
Dependability
Reliability Statements regarding the reliability of the service provision. DEP_REL
Security
Statements regarding the integrity,
confidentiality and availability of the service provision. DEP_SEC Criminal justice supply chain characteristics Heterogeneity of customers
All statements about a chain that serves
multiple customers. CJS_HET
Limited interaction with customers
Answers in relation to the fact that customers
are not present at the transformation process. CJS_LIM
Need of objectivity Statements regarding the objective decisions
within the chain. CJS_OBJ
Unpredictability in processes
Descriptions and answers related to
unpredictable processes. CJS_UNP
Forced supply chain
All statements about the parties in the chain
that are forced to work together. CJS_FOR The descriptive codes used were there to provide the opportunity to the researcher to develop second order categories, themes that were derived from the coded data, on the data that was gathered. This has been done per case resulting in the within case analysis. Following Voss et al. (2002) this makes it possible to study new insights that were found after data coding. And was achieved by making use of descriptive coding (summarizing basic topics) and cycle coding (develop themes from data) (Miles and Hubarman, 1994). Figure 6 shows an example (excerpt) of the within case analysis coding process that has been applied regarding technology at case 1, the full within case-analyses can be found in Appendix II and III. The data was first related towards a descriptive code that it applied to, in this figure towards technology. Cycle coding thereafter made it possible to derive themes from the descriptive coding process. As can be seen from figure 7 there are three underlying themes that were important regarding the technology choices. ‘Digitalization’, ‘feedback’ and ‘human factor’ were found to be underlying themes in case 1. Case 2 and 3 were analysed in the same way, the themes ‘digitalization’ and ‘human’ factor were for instance found in both cases. ‘Cooperation’ was found as a differing theme in case 2 and ‘useful technology’ was found to be a differing theme in case 3. The last step was to make the connection between the themes and dependability. In order to make a link the quotes were analysed on elements of dependability, in this way the themes could be linked towards these element. For instance in figure 7, the three themes all were linked towards reliability (timeliness, speed and quality). The link towards speed was for instance made because of the quote: ‘’Able to search and send information faster to
the Schadefonds. We do not have to send information via post and in has not to be searched physically anymore.’’ (I1). The other concept of dependability is ‘security’,
have a relationship with ‘security’; underlying elements of security (confidentiality and availability) were found in the quotes regarding processes. In this way it became clear why and how certain choices achieve dependability.
Figure 7: Excerpt within case analysis coding process technology, case 1.
First the within case analysis was done to research patterns of data. A summary per case has been drawn up in Appendix II; these were made using data from the interviews. The relationship between the three separate service delivery system design choices and dependability was scored from + to – in table 9, where + means that there is a positive relationship, +/- means that there is a positive and a negative relationship and – means that there is a negative relationship. A positive (+) relationship was found when all quotes showed that elements of dependability were achieved, for instance in case 1: ‘’Information can be searched and shared faster because of technology.’’ (I1). A negative (-) relationship was found when all quotes showed that
elements of dependability were not achieved, for instance in case 2:‘’If I look at the Schadefonds, we have no idea if we fulfil their requirements, if we answer all their letters, when we answer them, we do not have any shared processes.’’ (I3). If quotes
3.5 Validity and reliability
Across the methodology section the actions to guarantee validity and reliability are formulated. Table 8 provides an overview of the actions and tactics used in this research.
Table 8: Validity and reliability of this research
Test Tactic used Execution of tactic
Construct validity Multiple sources of information
Making use of multiple interviews per case and multiple interviews to research the context. Review of case summaries The interviewee reviewed case summaries.
Internal validity Data analysis technique First within case analysis were performed followed by cross-case analyses.
Recording interviews Interviews are recorded.
External validity Multiple case study This tactic was used to support the generalizability of the research.
Reliability Interview guide Semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct the interviews.
4 RESULTS
Three cases will show how the victim counters as parties in the chain design their service delivery and how they strive for dependability. Section 4.1 will describe the context of this research to provide insight into the characteristics of the chain that have an influence on the three cases. Section 4.2 will present the cross-case analysis. Based on the three service delivery system design choices (technology, processes and external integration) the cases will be compared to see how dependability can be achieved.
4.1 Context, the victim supply chain
The interviews with the police and the Schadefonds confirmed that difficulties in cooperation with the victim counters arise because of the characteristics of the victim supply chain. Four characteristics influence the victim supply chain.
4.1.1 Heterogeneity of customers
The victim supply chain serves several customers. The chain is not only serving the victim, some partners in the chain also need to focus on other customers: ‘‘We are
one of the few victim-orientated organizations in our country. A lot has changed and organizations are more and more working towards serving the victims. But the main task of the organizations in the chain is to catch and serve criminals and the victims are sometimes simply ignored.’’ (I8). The heterogeneity of customers can cause that
some organizations within the chain are not able to perform their daily processes:
‘’Timeliness of information sharing is very important for us. The faster we get information the faster we can perform our daily processes in order serve the victim. Disadvantage in the chain is that the police and the PPS are working suspect orientated, ignoring the service provision towards the victim.’’ (I7). Since the
partners in the chain are not all faced in one direction customers are all served in another way.
4.1.2 Need of objectivity
The victim supply chain strives for objectivity within the processes. Objective decisions have to be taken to execute processes in a proper way. When organizations are designed to provide objective information, frictions between organizations arise when subjective information is requested: ‘’In some cases the Schadefonds has
already been provided with all the information we have, then they ask us to give an interpretation whether the victim is a real victim. To me this is not objective anymore but rather subjective.’’ (I10). The quote shows that organizations within the victim
4.1.3 Interdependency in processes
Within the victim supply chain partners can sometimes only start their daily processes when other partners provide input. This means that partners cannot always work properly together: ‘’At the moment that we do not share information regarding the
interest of the investigation, frictions occur. The consideration of sharing information causes irritation at partners in the chain.’’ (I9). This quote shows that when
information is not shared within the chain, other partners are not able to start their processes. The interdependency in processes can also be caused due to ineffective communication between partners: ‘’We share information and assume that the
information is correct when we do not get a reaction back. We do not get any feedback from the Schadefonds so we assume cooperation works well.’’ (I10). When
communication between partners in the chain is insufficient the unpredictability in processes will not be solved.
4.1.4 Forced supply chain
Unlike other supply chains where parties in the chain are chosen by each other, the parties within the victim supply chain are forced to work together: ‘’The products that
we deliver satisfy several minimum requirements. Parties within in the chain have to deal with these requirements. We do not have extra elements that we take into account for the Schadefonds for instance, they need to work with the products that are already there.’’ (I10). The quote shows that organisations need to deal with each other. There
are no adaptions made towards other organizations because the partners are forced to work together. Privacy regulations also seem to have an influence at the perception of working within a forced supply chain: ‘’At the moment that the Schadefonds has
access to our information systems, we lose the confidentiality of the information system. I trust them but it is more about the responsibility for the information that we have.’’ (I9). The quotes show that the partners are not seemingly working together.
4.2 Service delivery system design choices to achieve dependability
Choices regarding technology, processes and external integration to achieve dependability are compared between the cases. This paragraph will show the cross-case analysis per choice (technology, processes and external integration).
4.2.1 Relationship choices and dependability within the three cases
Table 9 shows the relationship between the service delivery system design choices and dependability in the three cases, the information in the table comes from appendix II and III.
Table 9: Within case analysis (+: positive relationship, +/- positive and negative relationship and -: negative relationship
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Technology used to achieve dependability
Used to share information faster to partners, for
instance with digital documents via e-mail.
Used to share information faster to partners, for
instance with digital documents via e-mail.
Used to share information faster to partners, for
instance with digital documents via e-mail. Reminders from system to
provide information in time.
Systems used are not useful without adaptions.
The technology used needs to be adapted by the
organization.
Dependent on information system, when it is not
working there is not service provision.
+ +/- +/-
Processes used to achieve dependability
Clear process agreements
to create transparency. No process agreements. requests for information, No registration of so no idea about
timeliness. Evaluation of processes to
achieve confidentiality. dependability in processes Priorities not at but at problems that have
national support. Clear division of responsibilities to create transparency + - +/- External integration used to achieve dependability
Two meetings a year with chain partners to improve
collaboration. No joint activities to improve collaboration in the chain. No joint activities to improve collaboration in the chain. Clear agreements with
chain partners to create transparency in the chain.
Lack of communication with chain partners to achieve dependability.
Service provisions to chain partners are seen as secondary processes (not
in scope of primary service provision process towards victim), therefore no joint agreements about
dependability.
+ - -
4.2.2 Technology choices to achieve dependability
Table 10: Cross-case analysis: technology choices to achieve dependability
Technology Quote (Descriptive coding) Theme (Cycle coding) Dependability elements Case 1
‘’It supports in finding and sharing information regarding a case. It has no drawback on the service provision.’’ (I2) ‘’Information
can be searched and shared faster because of technology.’’ (I1). Digitalization
Timeliness
‘’Request for information goes to two employees per mail. When information sharing takes more time the employees will give feedback by mail to the partner that is asking for information.’’ (I1)
Feedback Transparency
‘’Technology is serving dependability insufficient. This is
because the human factor can cause mistakes.’’ (I2) Human factor Reliability
Case 2
‘’We have supporting information systems to see which cases are
still open and what activities needs to be done.’’ (I3) Digitalization Timeliness ‘’We have many information systems but they are not all working
well. Systems need to work and to connect to our service provision, implementation should also be easy.’’ (I4) ‘’Communication is bad when looking at the connection of technology towards our service provision.’’ (I3)
Useful
technology Transparency
‘’Technology supports dependability for 99.9%, but a human always needs to check the information in the information
system.’’ (I4) Human factor Reliability
Case 3
‘’We use technology at every question or request that comes in.’’ (I5) ‘’Without the use of technology it is not possible to process
questions or request fast’’ (I5) Digitalization Timeliness Technology cannot guarantee dependability. There is always a
human factor in using technology, think for instance about typing errors.’’(I5) ‘’A human always needs to check the information that enters the information systems’’ (I3)
Human factor Reliability
Table 10 shows the relationship between technology and dependability in the three cases. All cases use technology to achieve some elements of dependability. Digitalization is a theme that was found in all three cases. Digitalization achieves timeliness in the service provision: ‘’Supports in the speed of delivery of information
to the Schadefonds’’ (I1). Every case also showed that technology is mainly used as a
supportive function to provide the service to the customers. This is explained by the cases using the theme ‘human factor’. The supportive function of technology is there because the human factor always plays a role. Case 2 says: ‘’There is always a human
factor in using technology, think for instance about typing errors.’’ (I5). The
reliability of information provision towards other partners is thus not only achieved by technology. It is the combination of humans and technology that ensures the dependability of the service provision.
Besides the similarities, differences were found. Case 2 shows the theme ‘useful technology’, following this case technology needs to be adapted towards the service provision of the organization. The communication about which technology should be bought and implemented that suits specific service provision is bad, leading to technology systems that has to be adapted towards the service provision in case 2:
‘’Communication is bad when looking at the connection of technology towards our service provision.’’ (I3). Case 1 shows that feedback is an interesting theme in
4.2.3 Process choices to achieve dependability
Table 11: Cross-case analysis: process choices to achieve dependability
Processes Quote (Descriptive coding) Theme (Cycle coding) Dependability elements Case 1
‘’Making clear agreements about responsibilities is core to why
the cooperation with the Schadefonds works this good.’’ (I2) Responsibilities Transparency, timeliness ‘’If the file contains of more than 100 pages, an employee from
the Schadefonds can come to us to see the file. This is because of privacy and because it is a waste of paper if we need to copy the file.’’ (I1)
Joint processes Confidentiality, availability
‘’Our processes work very well because we have clear
agreements and periodical evaluations of our processes’’ (I1) Evaluation Reliability
Case 2
‘’Every employee at the victim counter has the same tasks and responsibilities, there is no distinction in responsibilities per
employee.’’ (I4) Responsibilities Timeliness ‘’If I look at the Schadefonds, we have no idea if we fulfil their
requirements, if we answer all their letters, when we answer them,
we do not have any shared processes’’ (I3) Joint processes Timeliness ‘’I know that the Schadefonds is not satisfied with our service
provision. That is a pity, but it is one of the fifteen problems that I have. Only if there is a national convenant, I can try to solve the problem’’ (I3)
Priorities and
national support Timeliness
‘’We do not have any KPI’s’’ (I3) ‘’We do not measure any data,
that is why cases sometimes take some time to answer.’’(I3) agreements Process Timeliness
Case 3
‘’Every employee answers the victim counter telephone. So the
one who answers the phone is responsible for that request.’’(I5) Responsibilities Reliability ‘’The department Intake is specialized in the law ‘justitiële en
strafvoderlijke gegevens’. Because of this department we can always share reliable information.’’ (I5) ‘’We do not register requests from the Schadefonds, so we can not evaluate them.’’ (I5)
Process agreements
Timeliness, reliability
Table 11 shows the relationship between process choices and dependability. The cross-case analysis showed that ‘responsibilities’ as a theme can be found at all cases. Case 1 achieves timeliness and transparency, as elements of dependability, because of the process choices that they make. Responsibilities are shared within case 1, there are two employees who are responsible for the service provision towards the Schadefonds: ‘’Per mail the request for information from the Schadefonds comes in at
the two responsible employees at the victim counter’’ (I1). This means that two
employees are permanently responsible for the service provision towards the Schadefonds, resulting in more transparency between the Schadefonds and the victim counter. Case 2 and 3 have no clear responsibilities per employee. The employees have the same tasks and responsibilities and the one who answers the phone needs to deal with the request. Then it is up to the employee whether he has the time to answer the request: ‘’A request for information comes in at an employee, then it is up to that
employee whether he has time, motivation and space to handle the request.’’ (I3) This
makes that dependability in terms of timeliness is too dependent on individual actions. Thus, choices regarding responsibilities are shown to have a relationship with timeliness, transparency, confidentiality, reliability and availability as elements of dependability.
‘Process agreements’ is a theme that can be found in case 2 and 3. The two cases also have no idea about what is happening in their processes. When requests for information from the Schadefonds come in, they are not registered: ‘’We do not
measure any data, that is why cases sometimes take some time to answer.’’(I3). This
achieved. Compared to this case 1 describes the theme ‘evaluation’ as being an important theme in achieving dependability by having clear process agreements that are periodically evaluated on their performance.
4.2.4 External integration choices to achieve dependability
Table 12: Cross-case analysis: external integration choices to achieve dependability
External integration Quote (Descriptive coding) Theme (Cycle coding) Dependability elements Case 1
‘’Two times a year meetings with the PPS and the Schadefonds to improve cooperation’’ (I1) ‘’Cooperation between the police, PPS and victim support to make sure that victim is served good in one time’’ (I2)
Joint meetings Transparency
‘’Clear agreements within the chain are important to serve the victim in a proper way. We always want to know who does what and when.’’ (I2) ‘’When the Schadefonds comes to us with a clear and concrete question we can share information to them faster and better.’’ (I1) Joint agreements Transparency, timeliness, speed
‘’Agreement is agreement; the delivery of information within a period of time. When we can not deliver within that period, we
will give feedback to the receiver.’’ (I1) Feedback Transparency
Case 2
‘’There are no joint projects, meetings or goals between us and our chain partners.’’(I3) ‘’At this moment there is no cooperation
between the victim counter, the police and the Schadefonds.’’ (I4) Joint meetings Transparency There is no feedback about whether a request is accepted or
rejected. The Schadefonds will find out when they receive the
information.’’ (I3) Feedback
Transparency, timeliness
(I3) ‘’Information sharing is a secondary process, our primary
process is to serve the victim within our victim counter.’’ (I3) perspective Chain Transparency
Case 3
‘’There is no cooperation between the PPS, the police and the Schadefonds regarding the use of the same information system.’’ (I3) ‘’To have access to the information systems we have employees of the police and PPS with whom we work together.’’(I5)
Shared technology
Timeliness, transparency
‘’We had a conversation with the Schadefonds about new agreements. But next to this conversation we did not have any
shared meetings, projects or goals’’ (I3) Joint meetings Transparency ‘’We do not arrange anything in cooperation with the
Schadefonds, they are a secondary step in our process.’’ (I3) perspective Chain Transparency
Table 12 provides the cross-case analysis regarding external integration in relationship with dependability. All cases showed a returning theme: joint meetings. While case 1 uses joint meetings to evaluate processes, performance and cooperation, case 2 and 3 do not make any use of joint meetings. The joint meetings have a relationship to transparency, timeliness and speed in case 1, in case 2 and 3 the relationship towards dependability can be found in not achieving dependability. This is because joint meetings are not held at case 2 and 3. The meetings are used in case 1 to discuss collaboration with chain partners, to make agreements about future collaboration and to provide each other with feedback about collaboration.
Case 2 and 3 have a common theme: chain perspective. The cases do not have any shared meetings, projects or goals with their supply chain partners. Leaving them with low dependability in their service provision. The lack of chain perspective can be captured in a quote from case 2 and 3: ‘’I did not know that timeliness was that
important for the Schadefonds. They do not express that to us, this is maybe the point were the cooperation is being distorted.’’ (I3) and ‘’We need to know what is crucial for our chain partners to do their jobs. But they need to be aware of the fact that we need to take laws and regulations into account.’’ (I5). These quotes show that there is
important for their partners and are focussing on their own interests. Case 1 has the chain perspective already included because of the joint meetings and joint processes with their chain partners.
5 DISCUSSION
The conceptual model that is explained in the theoretical background section provided three choices that are of importance when designing service delivery systems. Technology, processes and external integration are the three elements where choices need to be made upon (Roth and Menor, 2003). The multiple case study investigated the characteristics of the victim chain as well as what choices regarding technology, processes and external integration were made in order to achieve dependability. Within the victim supply chain all three elements of choices seem to have a relationship towards dependability. The choices that were found to have influence on achieving dependability will be discussed in this section and will be linked towards the characteristics of the criminal justice supply chain.
5.1 Service delivery system design choices to achieve dependability
Table 13 shows what choices form the bottom line to achieve dependability. The table compared table 5 with the results of this research. Table 5 showed the bottom line when organizations strive for quality, cost, flexibility and speed. Bottom line seems that the choices in table 13 have to be made. Paragraph 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 will discuss the three elements of design choices in greater depth and will link them towards the characteristics of the victim supply chain.
Table 13: Choices to achieve dependability
Choices to achieve dependability in service provision
Literature (table 5) Addition from this research
(bottom line of dependability) Technology Technology assisted service deliveries,
employees make use of technology to support the service delivery (Fitzsimmons and Fitszimmons, 2006)
- Use of information systems that measure if agreements are actually kept;
- Create possibilities to give feedback towards chain partners via systems when service provision is delayed/lower of quality/not possible;
- Communication with the users of technology has to be sufficient. Technology should be useful for the service provision.
Processes Responsibilities should be shared among different employees (Metters and Vargas, 2000)
- Make clear agreements about responsibilities of employees that provide service;
- Make use of joint processes like regular visits from customers to join the processes; - Plan evaluation sessions to improve internal processes;
- Set priorities to make it able to achieve dependability.
External integration
- - Use joint meetings to improve collaboration
between chain partners;
- Joint agreements between partners in the chain have to be made;
- Plan evaluation/feedback moments between the partners in the chain to measure collaboration;
5.2 Technology choices to achieve dependability
This research found that technology is mostly used to share information in a fast manner, so timeliness and speed are achieved by technology. The choices that the cases took regarding technology where not especially made to achieve dependability but more to improve their own working processes: ‘’It supports in finding and sharing
information regarding a case’’ (I2). Following Armistead (1990) the
technology-assisted service deliveries are useful when striving for reliability and availability, which is justified by this research because technology is used to support employees. A theme that was found in all cases is that the human factor plays a big role in technology. As technology is used in a supportive way, the human factor in the use of technology is very important. The other side of technology-assisted service deliveries is thus that dependability can only be achieved if the person using the technology is also doing that in a good manner. Technology as a supportive function, supporting employees in their processes, thus achieves some elements of reliability (timeliness and speed). Choices regarding the use of human factor, feedback about technology and useful dependability can be achieved.
Shared technology between partners in the victim supply chain is a difficult topic. As Pekkanen and Niemi (2013) already found, the partners within the criminal justice supply chain are forced to work together. Because the partners work with privacy sensitive information it is found to be hard to share information systems with other partners: ‘’At the moment that the Schadefonds has access to our information systems,
we lose the confidentiality of the information system’’ (I9). This is mainly caused by
different interests, for instance the police, a partner that works suspect orientated, do not want to share information about investigations with other partners, that work victim orientated, because that can harm the investigation. It is thus justified that the victim supply chain is not able to get the most optimal dependability out of technology.
5.3 Processes choices to achieve dependability
Processes were found to achieve several elements of dependability: timeliness, confidentiality, transparency and quality. One case managed to achieve dependability due to choices regarding processes. This research found that making clear agreements about responsibilities, joint processes and evaluation of processes is key in achieving dependability. The cases that did not pay any attention to these were not able to achieve dependability. Cases did not pay any attention to these because of reasons like a lack of capacity or a lack of priority: ‘’I know that the Schadefonds is not
satisfied with our service provision. That is a pity, but it is one of the fifteen problems that I have. Only if there is a national convenant, I can try to solve the problem’’ (I3).
The interdependency in processes described by Pekkanen and Niemi (2003) seems to have an influence on achieving dependability. This was justified by the fact that a case was not able to achieve dependability in its processes because of other priorities and a lack of external pressure. The priorities were towards dealing with under capacity than achieving dependability: ‘’I know that the Schadefonds is not satisfied
with our service provision. That is a pity, but it is one of the fifteen problems that I have. Only if there is a national convenant, I can try to solve the problem.’’ (I3). Next
5.4 External integration choices to achieve dependability
Choices regarding external integration have a high influence on achieving dependability in the criminal justice supply chain following this research. Key topics that were found to have an influence on dependability are: joint meetings, joint agreements and chain perspective. Gimenez and Ventura (2005) already mentioned these topics that are important in designing a supply chain towards dependability. This research thus justified the research of Gimenez and Ventura (2005). To achieve dependability in the service provision within the victim chain it is important to work closely together with the supply chain partners. Pekkanen and Niemi (2003) found that the criminal justice supply chain is a forced chain, with heterogeneity in customers and with a need of objectivity. This research shows that the characteristics barriers can be overcome by having joint meetings, agreements and a chain perspective.
6 CONCLUSION
This section will provide the answer to the research question that was addressed at the beginning of this thesis:
How can the criminal justice supply chain be designed to achieve dependable service delivery?
6.1 Answering the main question
6.2 Managerial and theoretical implications of this research
The managerial implication of this research is that it gives managers of organizations within the victim supply chain a reasoning of where the focus should be when aiming to achieve dependability in service provision. This research showed several decision areas in which choices can be taken to support the achievement of dependability. Choices that managers have to take to achieve dependability in their service provision can be found in table 13. These choices can be used for service supply chains in general because the elements included also imply for those chains.
The theoretical implications of this research can be found in that it expands the literature about the service delivery system design choices of Roth and Menor (2003). The three areas of strategic design choices are researched in relation to dependability. This research adds that the strategic design choices are assessed in a way to see how the choices can support in achieving dependability as a performance measure. Next to this the research provided insights in the characteristics of the criminal justice supply chain (Pekkanen and Niemi, 2013) that are also in play in the victim supply chain, which justified their research. The characteristics were linked to the three strategic design choices of Roth and Menor (2003) adding to literature by combining the criminal justice supply chain literature with the service supply chain literature. This made that the influence of the characteristics on achieving dependability could be described in the discussion section.
6.3 Limitations and future research
The research has some limitations. A limitation is that per case only two interviews were conducted. Nut because the interviews were held with employees from different functions it might be assumed that they were knowledgeable enough to give all specific answers. The cause of this limitation is the time frame in which the research had to be done. This influenced the time the researcher had to perform the interviews. Second limitation is that this research was done within a specific context. The victim supply chain has specific characteristics that may negatively influence the generalizability of this research. It is true that the generalizability of results that are linked to the specific supply chain is less generalizable.
