1
Master thesis, MSc. Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen, Faculty Economics and Business
Drivers for integration practices in the Criminal
Justice Chain
A case study at two judicial districts
Jelmer ter Avest Moesstraat 18-22 9717JW Groningen jelmerteravest@gmail.com Student number: s2186926 Final version Date: 10-7-2017 Supervisor: A.P. Seepma Co-assessor: prof. dr. D.P. van Donk
2
ABSTRACT
Historically supply chain integration has been mostly studied within processing and manufacturing industries. This research explored supply chain integration from a public service supply chain perspective, specifically within the criminal justice chain. The research focused on three interfaces of the public prosecution; namely with the police, probation services and NIFP. Results were drawn from semi-structured interviews, reports and quantitative data analysis within two judicial districts. Results suggest that organizations within the criminal justice chain do integrate with each other on the dimensions of relational, operational and information integration. There is no evidence that there is a limit to the extent to which criminal justice chain can integrate on the relational dimension. However, the environment of the criminal justice chain limits the extent to which information and operational integration are fully possible within the chain. This is caused by the highly institutionalized and regulated setting. Furthermore, the reasons are because the chain experiences high process variability and a productivity trade-off.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2017 committee ‘Van den Emster’ commissioned by the public prosecution in the Netherlands, concluded that there is an increase in complexity and pressure on handling cases in the criminal justice chain (Toekomst strafrechtspleging, 2017). The committee advised that the criminal justice chain needed to invest more in collaboration and integration with the goal to provide justice and safety to society. This conclusion was drawn based on findings that integration and logistics were not fine-tuned between the public prosecution and other independent chain partners (Toekomst strafrechtspleging, 2017). When a severe crime is conducted, the police, public prosecution, probation services and the Dutch Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP) are likely to be involved in investigating the case. Therefore, the chain consists of multiple independent organizations that take part in the process of sentencing and bringing a case to court. These organizations did not choose each other, yet they form a chain; they originate from the ‘trias politica’ principle. Under this principle, the judiciary power of a country operates entirely separately from the legislative power and the executive power. This means that these justice organizations are forced to work together to handle criminal cases, yet need to remain independent under ‘trias politica’. This by law required independency makes the chain complex and different from traditional supply chains.
5
to understand this, since literature on public services have focused on intra-organizational processes and theory is derived from practices in the manufacturing sector. Literature has therefore failed to understand inter-organizational processes in a public service supply chain (Osborne, Radnor and Nasi, 2012). This research focuses on inter-organizational processes of a public service supply chain; the criminal justice chain.
Understanding integration practices and the extent to which integration is possible in the criminal justice chain can have managerial and theoretical implications. The practical contribution for justice organizations are to expose the characteristics of the chain that influence integration. This can help managers to organize and restructure their processes with chain partners to overcome these characteristics. Regarding theoretical implications, it will add to existing theory on public management and service research. Since there is still not much literature on public service operations in operations management research (Karwan & Markland, 2006, Machuca, Gonález-Zamora & Aquilar-Escobar, 2007). Therefore, it will help to better understand supply chain integration in a public service supply chain. To the best of this research knowledge, no attention has been giving to the context of the criminal justice chain. Thus, this research aims to better understand integration in the context of the criminal justice chain. Therefore, this research will provide an answer to the following research question:
If and how do criminal justice organizations integrate? Which characteristics do influence the extent of integration?
6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review aims to provide an overview of the context of the criminal justice chain and supply chain integration. The review will start with an elaboration on the criminal justice chain. This to get a better understanding in which context it is operating. The review will then continue to address supply chain integration and the contingency approach towards it. Then the literature review will discuss the integration types of Leuschner et al., (2013). These integration types will be linked with characteristics of the criminal justice chain, which might have an influence on supply chain integration. Lastly, the theory of these different sections will be summarized in a conceptual framework.
2.1 The criminal justice chain
The criminal justice chain is a public service supply chain which is triggered by a criminal act (Feeley, 1972). Since it is a public service supply chain, it shows characteristics of a public organization, yet also from a professional service perspective. Therefore, this section will be divided into two parts. The first part focuses on the criminal justice chain from a public perspective, the second part will continue from a professional service perspective.
2.1.1 Public organization perspective
Public organizations that are generally part of the chain are the police, the courts, public prosecution and probation services. Iannacci, Seepma & de Blok (2015) mention that these criminal justice organizations together enforce the law, they share a common goal to thrive for justice to the public (Brock and Alon, 2009). The chain deals with the ‘trias politica’ principle, where judiciary, legislative power and the executive power work separately from each other. This means that courts are independent and cannot be controlled by politics. Consequently, criminal justice organizations must follow the law and are subject to rules and procedures. They are forced to work together to handle criminal cases, yet need to be independent under this separation of powers principle. This shows that the chain must follow regulations and laws, which is in line with Tyworth (2009) who characterized the chain as institutionalized and regulated.
7
a greater good for society. This is different compared to traditional supply chains, which are more market-driven and do not necessarily need to benefit and transparent to the public (Christopher, 2011). In recent years, public organizations have been criticized for their productivity and their effectiveness (Karwan & Markland, 2006). Dandurand (2014:388) argues that “efficiency improvement measures must not compromise the effectiveness of the system or the ‘quality of justice’ it delivers.” Thus, productivity of the chain is mostly measured by achieving justice and not necessarily by how fast a case is brought to court. Therefore, public service organizations struggle to combine internal productivity goals with inter-organizational goals because in practice the organizations are individualistic of nature and egocentric (Osborne, Radnor and Nasi, 2012). There is a productivity trade-off that continuously needs to be made within the chain.
2.1.2 Professional service perspective
Most of the organizations in the criminal justice chain are professional service organizations. Professional services organizations have several characteristics. Such as, the high service customizations and the flexible processes which require low capital, but high labor intensity. This high labor intensity results into a strong professional workforce (Lewis and Brown, 2012). Literature discusses several more characteristics of professional services, Lewis & Brown (2012) found that professionals in operations “adhere to explicit external codes of ethics and implicit norms that guide appropriate ‘professional’ behavior.” (Lewis & Brown, 2012:2). Work of professionals in the criminal justice organizations is “mostly externally regulated and controlled in its content and application” (Nordenflycht, 2010 in Lewis & Brown, 2012:2). Furthermore, professional services are characterized as autonomous and require self-supervision (Goodale, Kuratko & Hornsby, 2008). Consequently, for criminal justice organizations, this need for autonomy and objectivity could result into a negative attitude towards improvement of processes (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2013). Pekkanen & Niemi (2013), stress that justice organizations have a dualistic nature. This means that they can behave as traditional manufacturing firms. This means that cases flow between organizations and can wait in queues at an organization waiting to go to another organization. However, they are also characterized by highly, skilled and independent working professionals.
8
that the processes in professional services have a lack of tasks standardization. Moreover, there are also “limited repetitive learning opportunities” (Lewis and Brown, 2012:3), which makes the assignments more complex. The length of a case “varies considerably depending on the nature and complexity of the case” (Dandurand, 2014:393). Besides, the cases have a high degree of unpredictability, since it is never known what or which crime will be committed next (National Audit Office, 2016). This is supported by Pekkanen and Niemi (2013), who state that unpredictability increases with heterogeneity of cases. The nature of the product and service in the criminal justice chain increases the unpredictability and process variability of the service delivered.
Overview of characteristics criminal justice chain
A summary of the specific characteristics of the chain are provided in an overview in table 1. From the contingency approach of Flynn et al., (2010) it is known that that methods and theory on supply chain integration cannot be applied to all environments and organizations. Therefore, it is expected that these characteristics of the chain have an influence on the practices and extent of integration in the chain.
Criminal Justice Chain Characteristics
Public Organization Perspective Professional Service Perspective
High institutionalization High process variability Productivity trade-off Low standardization tasks
Highly regulated High autonomous working professionals Table 1: Overview characteristics chain from two perspectives
2.2 Supply chain integration
9
effectiveness and efficiency for many organizations (Zhao et al., 2008). External supply chain integration is defined as “the degree to which a manufacturer partners with its external partners to structure inter-organizational strategies, practices and processes into collaborative, synchronized processes (Stank, Keller & Daugherty, 2001: in Zhao, et al., 2011:58). To provide dimensions to integration, Van der Vaart & Van Donk (2008) has proposed three categories; attitudes, practices and patterns. These were distinguished when assessing multiple studies on integration and performance. Practices are tangible activities or technologies; patterns refer to the interaction of the firm with its relations and attitudes to the behavior of buyer and suppliers towards each other (Van der Vaart & Van Donk, 2008). In addition, Leuschner, Rogers and Charvet (2013) took this research as its base and defined three types of integration that facilitate the linkages between processes, namely information, operational and relational integration. These three researches (Leuschner et al., 2013, Van der Vaart & Van Donk, 2008, Zhao et al., 2011) provide dimensions to relate supply chain integration to the contextual characteristics of the environment of an organization. This research took the most recent study by Leuschner et al., (2013) as its starting point for further research on integration. This review will continue with the contingency approach to supply chain integration.
2.3 Contingency approach to supply chain integration
The contingency approach to supply chain integration states that the environment in which an organization operates determines the organizations structure and processes (Flynn et al., 2010). An environment where uncertainty is high for an organization, can lead to a higher need for supply chain integration (Wong & Boon-Itt, 2011). However, a higher need does not necessarily mean that integration will work. There is no consensus in literature on what the best way is to design an organization (Flynn et al., 2010). This means that methods and theory on integration cannot be applied to all organizations, it depends on the environment and contextual factors.
10
and relational supply chain integration (Leuschner et al., 2013) and their relation to the characteristics of the criminal justice chain.
2.3.1 Information integration
Information integration refers to the “coordination of information transfer, collaborative communication and supporting technology among firms in the supply chain” (Leuschner et al., 2013:38). Several studies have focused on the importance of sharing information between buyer and supplier, as an antecedent for a partnership (Narasimhan & Nair, 2005; Carr & Kaynak, 2007). Yang & Maxwell (2011) argue that the values, norms and culture of organization influence the information sharing. Bureaucratic and government organizations may be unaware of which information can be shared or retrieved from other organizations. These organizations tend to have different procedures, mechanisms of control, work flows and conflicting interests which negatively affects information sharing (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Furthermore, Zhao et al., (2011) argue that external information sharing is more likely when there is an availability of internal systems and capabilities within an organization. Carr and Kaynak (2007) support this by stating that internal information sharing positively affects external information sharing. Therefore, a supporting infrastructure will positively affect information integration.
Some research (De Blok, Seepma, Roukema, & van Donk, 2014, Iannacci et al., 2015) has been done to the role of digitalization in information sharing within the criminal justice chain. Organizations upstream in the chain need to understand that their partners downstream should meet certain information requirements which they too should contribute to (De Blok et al., 2014). From literature, it is known that criminal justice organizations adhere to norms, values and regulations (Lewis & Brown, 2012). From the theory of Yang & Maxwell (2011) this tends to negatively affect the information sharing of the criminal justice chain. Additionally, the criminal justice chain consists of independent government organizations, which could affect the extent to which information sharing is possible regarding privacy issues or legislation.
2.3.2 Operational integration
11
under-developed. Literature does not know how operational integration works in inter-organizational interfaces (Harvey, 2016). From a manufacturing view, it is known that there is a need for cross-functional teams, which allows decentralized decisions and speeds up the process of operational integration in the chain (Vickery et al. 2003). Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2011) state that a synchronized planning, can positively affect the facilitation of operational integration. Operational integration is also defined as product and process integration between organizations to understand scope and complexity of the processes (Ireland and Webb, 2007).
Yet from literature it is known that the criminal justice chain has a high process variability (Lewis and Brown, 2012) and deals with the heterogeneity of cases (Dandurand, 2014). Therefore, there could be limitations to the extent to which product and process integration is possible. Furthermore, Tyworth (2009) concluded that institutionalization could form a barrier to integrate the chain effectively. This institutionalization could negatively affect the decentralized decision making because of the ‘trias politica’ principle. This principle shows that all organizations are independent and have a different culture. Harvey (2016), suggests that flows between different organizational cultures with different resource allocations create bottlenecks in a professional service supply chain. In addition, Braunscheidel, Suresh & Boisnier (2010) argue that the dependent structure on each other in the chain could affect operational integration. Therefore, the extent to which integration is possible might be limited by the organizational dependent structure.
2.3.3 Relational integration
Relational integration focuses more on trust, commitment and long-term strategic relationships between firms (Leuschner et al., 2013). This is also closely related to the attitude category of Van der Vaart & Van Donk (2008). Research suggests that for organizations to work in an integrated way it is important that they create a shared vision (National Audit Office, 2016). Leuschner et al. (2013) states that only organizations who commit to long-term relationships will be able to attain relational integration. However, this does require a high level of management effort and reasons for investment must be visible to the organization (Leuschner et al. 2013). When trust and dependence are lacking between chain partners, relational integration will be hard to accomplish (Fawcett, Magnan & McCarter, 2008).
12
environmental uncertainty and increases openness and transparency among partners (Wang, Yeung & Zhang, 2011). This is supported by Zhang & Huo (2011), who believe that in inter-organizational relationships trust and dependence are essential. Therefore, organizations should view dependency as a positive opportunity to gain trust from its supply chain partners and integrate with them. Evidence is found by Zhang & Huo (2011) that trust acts as a mediator between dependence and integration. From the criminal justice chain, it is known that they are ‘forced’ to work together under the ‘trias politica’, yet they are interdependent. It is expected that this dependency can therefore lead to trust and long-term relationships.
2.3.4 Conceptual framework
The literature review has shown us the contingency approach to supply chain integration (Flynn et al., 2010). This means that it is expected that characteristics of the criminal justice chain influence integration of the chain. Yet it remains unknown, which characteristics of the chain determine which integration dimension. This brings this research to the following conceptual model, based on the literature review above.
13
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology section will be structured as follows. First it is described how this research was designed. In the next section an overview of the research setting is given. Followed by the explanation of data collection, data analysis, and the operationalization of the concepts. Lastly, this research explained how quality was guaranteed.
3.1 Research design
The main aim of this research was to address the characteristics of the criminal justice chain that influence the extent and way of supply chain integration. This research made use of a multiple case study. This approach was found to be a suitable research strategy when exploring how and which characteristics are present in integration practices in the two judicial districts. This because it allows for an in-depth analysis of the integration practices and the characteristics of the chain. The ‘how’ question of this research confirms that the study focuses on exploration. As a case this research defines the supply chain of a judicial district. The supply chain of the criminal justice chain that is explored is illustrated in figure 2. In figure 2 the abbreviation NIFP stands for National Institute Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. The court will not be included in the interfaces of this research, due to a lack of data, however the court will be mentioned a couple of times.
14
A multiple case study was chosen for the allowance of generalizability. The advantage of a multiple case study is that it can enhance external validity and helps prevent against observer bias. Limitations of a multiple study is that it limits the in-depth analysis of the cases (Karlsson, 2016).
3.2 Research setting
Two judicial districts in the Netherlands were chosen as research sites. The setting included processes between the public prosecution and police, NIFP and probation services. In Appendix D, a process diagram can be found to get an illustration of how the processes between the chain partners flow. The days left and terms differ per case, this is only an example to illustrate. The unit of analysis are the interfaces of the criminal justice chain as illustrated in table 2. There are 6 cases in total. There is literal replication within the same interface between the two districts. This means e.g. that for interface public prosecution – police, there is literal replication with case 1 and 4. Furthermore, there is theoretical replication within the same district between the three interfaces. This means that e.g. for Judicial District A that there is theoretical replication with cases 1, 2 and 3. The two districts will remain anonymous.
Interfaces Judicial District A Judicial District B
Public Prosecution - Police Case 1 Case 4 Public Prosecution - Probation Services Case 2 Case 5 Public Prosecution - NIFP Case 3 Case 6
15
3.3 Data collection
Data was gathered at two judicial districts. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews on multiple levels within the organizations. People from the police, public prosecution and NIFP were interviewed. Table 3 will provide an overview of the 24 interviewees per case. Experience is based on years in function.
Respondent Organization Function Exp. Protocol Cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Public prosecution Head of public prosecution >10 Tactical X X X 2 Public prosecution
Head team public prosecutors
>10 Tactical X X X
3 Public
prosecution
Head team public prosecutors
>10 Operational X X X
4 Public
prosecution
Head team public prosecutors
>10 Operational X X X
5 Public
prosecution
Public prosecutor >10 Operational X X X
6 Public
prosecution
Public prosecutor 5-10 Operational X X X
7 Public
prosecution
Public prosecutor 5-10 Operational X X X
8 Public
prosecution
Public prosecutor <5 Operational X X X
16 15 Public prosecution Head administration >10 Operational X X X 16 Public prosecution Administration >10 Operational X X X 17 Public prosecution Administration >10 Operational X X X 18 Public prosecution Administration >10 Operational X X X 19 Public prosecution Administration 5-10 Operational X X X 20 Probation services
Department head >10 Tactical X X
21 NIFP Head medical
administration
>10 Operational X X
22 NIFP Department head >10 Tactical X X
23 Police Investigation dept. >10 Operational X
24 Police Operational
expertise
5-10 Operational X
Table 3: Overview of the interviewees per organization and case
17
Table 4: Overview of the documents used per case
The quantitative data included more specific processes regarding the handling of criminal cases. This data was used as support to the results and helped to assess and explore the different characteristics of the criminal justice chain. It shows a representation of the variety of criminal cases.
3.4 Operationalization of concepts
The concepts involved were information, operational and relation integration, definitions are provided by Leuschner et al., (2013). In table 5 an operationalization for all three concepts was developed. There are integration mechanisms which operationalize the three dimensions of integration.
18
For every concept, there was a set of questions within the interview protocol. The concepts are operationalized by questions in the interview protocol, these can be found in appendix A and B
3.5 Data analysis
To analyze the data, the interviews were recorded. After the interview was conducted, the interviews were transcribed in a document as fast as possible. After the transcribing, data could be coded. Coding and data reduction was done in three stages as described by Miles and Huberman (1994). The first stage is data reduction, where all data obtained from the transcription has been reduced and organized. This was done by using quotes from the interviews and relate them to criminal justice chain characteristics and the three dimension of Leuschner et al., (2013). This first coding cycle is called descriptive coding. The second stage involved pattern coding, these pattern codes were used to identify an emergent theme, this is a useful method to develop themes from data (Miles and Hubarman, 1994). The last stage was thematic coding, where codes were linked to the dimensions of Leuschner et al., (2013) and to the criminal justice chain characteristics. Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij (2012) state that cross case analysis enhances internal validity. Therefore, within the case analysis this research looked for patterns in the three integration dimensions and characteristics. After this process a cross case analysis was conducted to observe cross-case patterns on the two judicial districts to look for generalizations or differences. Appendix C shows an example of a full coding tree.
3.6 Data quality
19
Table 6: Clarification of how data quality of this research was guaranteed
4. Results
20 Figure 3: Variety of criminal cases in percentages
Figure 3: Reasons for delay cases at trial in percentages
Figure 3 shows that are many different criminal cases, the concept of other includes many other cases, which were too small to get an own concept. The figure shows that robberies and drugs trafficking/smuggling dominate the criminal cases. However together they do not even make up 20% of all criminal cases, and within these concepts there is a difference between the types of drugs and robberies. This suggests that there is a high process variability within the chain. The quantitative data further suggests that standardization is limited due to this process variability because the felonies differ so much. Furthermore, figure 4 shows the reasons why trials are delayed, the main reason seems to be because investigations are taking too much time.
I N T E R N E T T H R E A T S C A R J A C K I N G D R U G S P R O D U C T I O N D R U G S T R A F F I C K I N G A N D S M U G G L I N G B U S I N E S S B U R G L A R Y C H I L D P O R N H U M A N T R A F F I C K I N G C A R / B I K E J A C K I N G T R A F F I C A C C I D E N T S E X U A L A B U S E F R A U D C A P I T A L O F F E N C E I N C E N D I A R I S M P U B L I C V I O L E N C E D O M E S T I C V I O L E N C E H O M E B U R G L A R Y S H O P L I F T I N G R O B B E R Y O T H E R 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
VARIETY CRIMINAL CASES IN PERCENTAGES
D O S S I E R N O T I N T I M E S U S P E C T U N A W A R E O F T R I A L M U L T I P L E S U S P E C T S N E E D E D O N T R I A L D O S S I E R I N C O M P L E T E P R O F O R M A , L A C K O F T R I A L C A P A C I T Y D O S S I E R N O T I N T I M E F O R L A W Y E R T R I A L T A K E S T O O L O N G L A W Y E R D I D N O T S H O W , V A L I D R E A S O N S U S P E C T D I D N O T S H O W R E F E R R E D T O E X A M I N G J U D G E N I F P / P R O B A T I O N R E P O R T M I S S I N G P R E - T R I A L R E V I E W P R O F O R M A , R E S E A R C H N O T C O M P L E T E D 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
21
What these figures show regarding integration between the interfaces, will be discussed further in the specific interfaces.
The results will continue to discuss the six cases and show the similarities and differences between Judicial District A and Judicial District B. Links will be made with the three integration dimensions; relational, operational and information and the characteristics of the criminal justice chain that influence it. This section will start with the interface of the public prosecution - police followed by the interface public prosecution - probation services and lastly the public prosecution-NIFP interface is discussed.
4.1 Interface public prosecution – police 4.1.1. Judicial District A (Case 1)
The interface of the public prosecution and police appears to be complex. This because both organizations experience each other as colleagues, yet formally they are not and operate independently. Regarding relational integration practises found in this interface, it appears that respondents from both judicial districts perceive the relation between the public prosecution and police as strong. From the public prosecution’s side, people experience good relations and working atmosphere. This is illustrated by the following quotation.
R9: “The atmosphere is good, I cannot say it is wrong, also not between the organizations. It is never an issue, that is why it is important to keep informing each other, also when things go wrong we must keep talking.”
22
Concept Citations
Continuous feedback
R9: “It happens that we tell the police, come on you should have asked further, we really need it, it is of importance. Those things are immediately put on the table, its essential.”
R10: “You should tune with each other, what to do and not to do. You are continuously switching on what to do exactly and how to manage it”
Feeling like colleagues
R10: “We are like colleagues, we do have different functions, but more a colleague than a formal partner, that’s also because you visit the police department often.”
R6: “Police are just colleagues, because of the frequent contact.”
Table 7: Overview of citations per concept
This continuous feedback and the feeling of colleagues seems to come from the dependency in the criminal justice chain. Organizations realize that they are dependent on each other to finish cases and must value each other’s opinion. However, the responsibility always lies with the public prosecution and this is also perceived that way, illustrated by the following quotation;
R6: “I feel very responsible and I feel like the leader of the investigation. I try to guide the police as much as I can, I furthermore try to involve them in my decision-making. Of course, I
will make the decision in the end, but I do hope they see room for discussion when they disagree.”
When problems occur, the contact starts to shift. The public prosecution appears to then go into a more responsible role within the investigation and handling of a case. This sense of responsibility shifts the informal contact into a more formal way of contact. The public prosecution tries to guide the police in their way of working. This seems to be initiated by the institutionalization and adherence to regulations and responsibilities that the two organizations have by law. This shows characteristics of a public service supply chain.
23
integration. However, multiple delays are experienced within an investigation, as seen in figure 4. More than half of all trials are delayed because the investigation is not ready. One of those reasons is that information does not always reach the right persons. Although the results show the allowance of feedback and frequent contact. This is because the culture and structure of the police differs to the public prosecution. Within the police organization there is a lot of shifting between teams, this affects the way of working. Consequently, the public prosecution must continuously work with different teams. Therefore, information does not always reach the right place, which results in repeated mistakes. Thus, although there are almost no restrictions on information sharing, there is a lack of information integration, caused by the organizational structure and culture of the police.
To understand the results further, a distinction must be made between detention and non-detention cases. Priority within the criminal justice chain almost always lies with non-detention cases. Detention cases are restricted to legal terms and therefore have priority over non-detention cases. The following quotation explains this priority based on urgency.
R9: “When someone is detained, then we are stuck to terms, we have to handle this case first. When someone is not detained anymore it is called a non-detention case, which means we are not restricted to terms anymore. Then there are many delaying factors, such as police officers who still need to finish their reports, sometimes we don’t even know who handled that case.
Or we are dependent on police capacity, since they also have urgency for detainees.”
24
lower in non-detention cases because of a lack of legal terms. However, relational integration does not seem to be affected since there is still the common goal to bring a case to court and there is still a collaboration going on between the organizations. However, there is no urgency and pressure anymore to when exactly this goal is reached.
4.1.2 Judicial District B (Case 4)
The interface of the public prosecution and the police in district B, seems to show some similarities when it comes to the relational integration. In Judicial District B, the public prosecution perceives the police as colleagues as well. This is confirmed from the police perspective;
R23: “You sit around the table with each other and you spread out all the information, just as colleagues.”
Besides the feeling of colleagues there is also allowance for discussion and room for feedback within the organization as shown in table 8. This seems to be initiated by the same characteristic as in Judicial District A, namely the dependency on each other.
Concepts Citation Public Prosecution Citation Police
Continuous feedback
R11: “When I need something and I will call and tell them that we also have deadlines. Then there is a mutual understanding and acceptance. They will then make sure it is delivered.”
R23: “We advise the public prosecution, sometimes they agree, sometimes they don’t. We keep the discussion going and that is needed”.
Table 8: Continuous feedback between public prosecution and police
25
guides and directs the police wherever possible. This is a mechanism which supports operational integration and comes from a perceived dependency. Concerning the difference between non-detention and detention cases, there seems to be much delay within non-detention cases. This is demonstrated perfectly in the next quotation:
R11: “The contact with the police is easy and when I need something I call and it gets done immediately, however when it comes to non-detention cases, I can keep mailing and calling.
However, it does not come, for example I am still waiting for a police report of a felony committed three years ago,”
The public prosecution experiences a lack of time to pursuit these cases, besides the cases seem to get lost somewhere in the process at the police. These seem to be the same factors as in District A, lack of capacity and capabilities that influence operational integration. There is a clear lack of system at both sides to keep control on these cases. Regarding information integration, there is a perceived lack of quality by the public prosecution concerning the police. No agreements on operational level about the quality and timeliness of reports are found in the analysis of the interviews and reports. Therefore, there seems sort of contradiction within the district. On the one hand, there is a perceived continuous feedback-loop with the police, on the other the hand they experience a lack of quality and timeliness, with no communication about it. This lack of communication is caused by the culture of the police and the acceptance of the public prosecution that this is hard to change as referred to by an interviewee.
R13: “It goes right for a year, we tell them please improve on this and this and then a new class graduates and comes to work and we have to re-do the whole process. It is tiring.”
26
R1: “This can be achieved by exchanging information quicker and to handle cases at the ‘front’ side. ……… We should be involved earlier in the process, to select cases that the organizations will handle together. This will improve the operations and information, since
processes are more aligned”.
This is obstruction is caused by the productivity trade-off and the egocentric attitude the organizations have. Due to the lack of agreements and involvement in the selection of cases the operational and information integration between both organizations is limited. This seems to be caused by the way agreements and protocols are established, this is mostly done nation-wide and not always per region.
To conclude this section, table 9 shows an overview of the most important differences and similarities of this interface. District B seems to differ in the relational and information integration, by having more a shared vision and working area-bounded.
27
4.2 Interface public prosecution – probation services 4.2.1 Judicial District A (Case 2)
The relation between the public prosecution and the probation services is mostly based on reports that the public prosecution requests on detention or non-detention cases, again this distinction is important. Results show that after the public prosecution requests a report on a detainee, probation services are restricted to legal terms. These legal terms put pressure on the organizations, which results in a higher need for operational and information integration with detention cases. With non-detention cases this is different, probation services will only start on a report when a court date is known, this because detention cases have priority. The planning of the court dates causes delay, because probation reports need to be present at trial. The following quotation explains arising issues because probation services only start a when a court date is known. Besides court dates are not communicated well, there is no synchronized planning and therefore it is communicated manually, which obstructs the information integration.
R9: “This causes issues for us, sometimes these requests stay at probation services because they do not have a court date, but we do have one and do not have a report yet. Then we panic, panic is a great word, but we sometimes cannot manage it. That’s problematic and
stressful.”
28 Concept Citations Only communication about problems R6: “Probation services only call when there are problems or we need to make agreements regarding the report.”
R9: “Normally, when a report is requested and we need to make agreements or there is something wrong, then the mail or call us.
Conflicting goals R6: “Probation services look different towards cases, most of the times they want to give detainees a second chance, when we think no it is over.”
Table 10: Concepts that arose from the interviews
The public prosecution feels that the probation services are distant from them and have conflicting goals. Probation services are more eager to give extra chances to suspects, where the public prosecution feels more for prosecution. This is caused by the productivity trade-off in the criminal justice chain. The probation services need to produce and are financed by reports. Furthermore, there is not a lot of contact with the same persons because there is too much shifting within probation services. This restricts the relational integration between both organizations, since they are less tempted to give feedback to new people. This furthermore does not allow for well-developed relationships and there is no creation of a shared vision.
29
4.2.2 Judicial District B (Case 5)
The relation between the public prosecution and the probation services is perceived by interviewees as strong. Concerning relation integration, the suggestion is made that probation services and public prosecution listen to each other and have well-established contacts between the organizations. Since a few years there is intensive contact with the probation services within the district and there is one contact person within the public prosecution for them. This means that when there are issues between both organizations, this contact person will be first to address these issues. They hold regular meetings with each other, of every probation service there is a manager at the table and the contact person of the public prosecution is present. Within these meetings agreements are made regarding work processes and terms of reports, these are then put on paper for everyone to read. The interface seems to be highly regulated and respondents seem to adhere to the values of the chain. The following quotation gives an overview of what is discussed.
R19: “What we do in these meetings is agreeing on processes and how contact between our organizations should flow. Lots of things are being adjusted in these meetings, firstly because
there were no clear agreements and because both organizations were doing double work. Now there are clear agreements on the table which are visible and clear to everyone.”
Both organizations have tried to align work processes and cross-organizational teams were established. This shows that some operational integration mechanisms are already available in this interface. Furthermore, the information exchange goes through one system and there is good communication. However, the terms remain an issue, the timeliness of reports before a court date from probation services are lacking. The document ‘Normtijden Levering Reclasseringsadvies (2015)’ shows that the public prosecution must request a report at least 10 weeks before trials. This should then be handed in two weeks before trial by the probation services. Yet, these reports are requested too late by the public prosecution. On the other hand, this is caused because the probation services do not start with a report before a court date is known. This is the same issue as arose in judicial district A, which influences the operational integration.
30
to know, which agreements or terms are exactly developed, although the documents are available to everyone. The leading factor that drives the employees is timeliness. If it is on time, the terms and agreements are not of importance. There is also no need to understand each other’s way of working, this is caused by high autonomy in this interface.
R7: “I don’t know how it works at the probation services and I don’t need to know. If I get the reports and if they are in time.”
Thus, integration on operational level is not perceived as important on the work floor. The work floor does not know about integration mechanisms that are put in place on tactical level. Regarding the extent of integration, although mechanisms are put in place, it seems that integration is only possible to a certain extent due to organizational structure. The following quotation shows insights about the readiness for integration;
R4: “It is a complex issue with the probation services, we as public prosecution are not designed yet to be in the network of the probation services. We have a lack of knowledge
when it comes to integration of the chain”.
Meaning that the extent to which integration is possible between the two is limited. The structure of the public prosecution does not allow for full integration with probation services. From the probation services perspective, this is confirmed, not only the structure of the public prosecution is not ready yet, probation services are not either. This is caused by the way the probation services are financed and how they structured themselves. They consist out of three organizations who operate independently, but share a budget.
R20: “The probation services are now only looking from their own perspective, three organizations with three different goals. We are all looking from our own pillar and to the budget that hangs over it. We are guided by money too much, we should be more focused on the social impact we need to deliver. That can be arranged much more efficiently, but we need
the public prosecution in that process.”
31
To conclude this section, table 11 shows an overview of the most important differences and similarities of this interface. District B seems to have implement more supply chain integration mechanisms than District A. Districts B makes already use of cross-organizational teams and some synchronized planning, which supports integration between the organizations.
Table 11: Analysis of the two districts in interface Public Prosecution - Probation Services
4.3 Interface public prosecution - NIFP 4.3.1 Judicial District A (Case 3)
32
Concept Citation
Formal culture R9: “The differences lie in the fact that the NIFP is more formal, more on a distant level with us.”
R10: “There are only terms and agreements with the NIFP.”
No need for communication
R10: “There is no frequent contact with NIFP, only when there is a problem and that never happens.”
Table 12: Concepts in the interface of Public Prosecution – NIFP
This seems to obstruct the relational integration, because the public prosecution experiences this formal contact as an obstruction to search for more communication with the NIFP. However, questions can be raised if relational integration is relevant in this interface since the public prosecution experiences no need for communication with the NIFP. The results give an impression that the interface of the public prosecution and the NIFP is only based on a transaction; that of the report. On operational integration, agreements were made and the terms are well understood from both sides and are in most cases met. The only communication is when there is a problem or when the terms are not being met. This last scenario, does raise some issues in the interface. The NIFP faces a lack of capacity concerning psychiatrists, the public prosecution implies that in some cases that they rather opt for a psychological report where a psychiatrist report is desired. However, there is no quantitative data that supports this claim and whenever a psychiatrist report is requested, the NIFP is legally obliged to make the report. Yet consequently, requesting psychiatrist or double reports, terms might not to be met due to capacity issues. Figure 4 however shows that reports only count for 6% of the total delay. Furthermore, the results suggest that the difference between detention and non-detention does not play a major role in this interface. Besides, the extent to information integration seems to be limited because of rules and regulations regarding privacy laws. Psychologists and psychiatrists of the NIFP are not allowed to see all the information that the public prosecution has.
4.3.2 Judicial District B (Case 6)
33
The results do suggest that there seems to be a lack of understanding of the NIFPs work. When the concept of quality was analysed, interviewees made references that they do not examine the report to its fullest but mostly read the conclusion. The documents used in the analysis, do also not include anything about agreements between both organizations, other than the legal terms that are restricted to a report.
R13: “Most of the times when reading a report, it is sort of abracadabra for me. We only look at the conclusion and I trust that the quality of it is good.”
There is no significant quality check on the report, there is a blind trust that the advice given is well-argued. This might be perceived due to the autonomy within the organizations. From the perspective of the NIFP this is perceived differently.
R22: “The dullness where things move from top to down differs per organization. I believe we know more of the public prosecution than they know of us.”
The NIFP seems to have a clear understanding of the work of the public prosecution and what is expected from them. This is not felt the other way around, which is confirmed by the public prosecution. The root cause of this lies in the institutionalized and regulated setting of the chain. The public prosecution requests reports and the NIFP must legally obey, since they have a monopoly as a national institute on the reports. For the public prosecution, the conclusions of these reports are the most important, yet for the NIFP it must make sure that the quality is endured and therefore needs to know what is expected. The relationship seems rather reactive to each other, information is exchanged when problems occur and there are no meetings on work processes.
34
R22: “People should come and look at us. Make sure you have people in your organization that know how we operate and vice versa. Make sure that on operational level you as public prosecution know what this capacity issue, where it comes from and anticipate on it. It makes
work easier and you know exactly how to address us. There should be more insights on work processes, capacity and fluctuations. They also have no view on the differences in their own
organization which we need to anticipate on.”
The suggestion is made that there should be more knowledge sharing and information exchange on operational level. Try to understand the root cause for the capacity issues and make sure that the dependency on it is reduced. This allows for better operational and information integration between both organizations, which could reduce the delays perceived concerning the terms.
To conclude this section, table 13 shows an overview of the most important differences and similarities of this interface. There does not seem to be a difference between the two districts in this interface. This might be caused because the NIFP works more nation-wide than probation services and police do.
35
4.4 Cross case analysis
Table 9, 11 and 13 have already shown some differences and similarities between the two judicial districts. However, there are a couple insights which are similar in both districts. There seems to be a tendency by referring to ‘shorter’ lines between the organizations. Meaning that the contact and relation between the organizations should be easier and better organized. However, the way organizations structure things do not benefit this. Budget decisions are more focused on their own organization and not on integration of the entire chain. Cited from one of the documents;
Rapport Prestaties in de Strafrechtketen (2012:26) “The strategy of the criminal justice chain is specifically focused on independent organizations (on production and priorities) and less
on the entire criminal justice chain.”
36
5. Discussion
Results show that criminal justice organizations do integrate with each other, however there are limitations to the extent to which this is possible. Three themes that are the most relevant for causing this limitation will now be discussed in more detail.
5.1 Structure of inter-organizational goals
The results show the importance of the organizational structure of organizations in the criminal justice chain on supply chain integration. This importance is related to the way the criminal justice organizations are currently structured and financed. Literature has shown that the environment in which organizations operate, shape the structure and processes of the chain (Flynn et al., 2010). Furthermore, the chain was characterized as highly institutionalized and regulated (Tyworth, 2009). The results confirm that organizational structure of the chain is formed by this institutionalized and regulated setting, which determines the strategy for the chain. The result is that financing of the criminal justice organizations is focused on the independent organizations. Nationwide protocols are established without understanding the differences across regions. Therefore, the productivity goals of the public prosecution, police, probation services and NIFP are conflicting. This because the organizations designed independently. This current organizational structure and environment therefore limits the extent to which operational integration is possible. From public service supply chain theory, it is known that organizations are self-seeking and individualistic and struggle to accomplish inter-organizational goals (Osborne, Radnor and Nasi, 2012). Currently, the nature of organizations is indeed individualistic regarding setting inter-organizational goals. Results are therefore in line with theory, public service supply chains need to structure more on inter-organizational processes instead of intra-organizational processes (Osborne, Radnor and Nasi, 2012).
5.2 Adherence to values and regulations
37
be able to fully integrate with each other on information integration due to the regulated characteristic of the chain. There will always be limits to the information sharing because the organizations are designed to be independent by law. This is different from current literature on information integration, which takes the perspective that internal information structure will facilitate external information sharing (Carr and Kaynak, 2007, Zhao et al., 2011). However, because criminal justice organizations are in- and externally regulated and must adhere privacy laws, they can never, in its current form, facilitate external information sharing.
5.3 Relational integration in the criminal justice chain
38
6. Conclusion
In this research, an explorative data analysis was conducted to better understand supply chain integration within the criminal justice chain. Literature was currently lacking to understand supply chain integration in a public context and a professional service, both settings were addressed. Using interviews, documents and quantitative data an attempt was made to find the characteristics that influence supply chain integration on three dimensions; namely relational, operational and information.
This research aimed to answer the following research question; If and how do criminal justice organizations integrate? Which characteristics do influence the extent of integration?
Criminal justice chain organizations integrate on all three dimensions of supply chain integration. Information, relational and operational mechanisms are in place which allow for supply chain integration. The six criminal justice chain characteristics which were conceptualized are all visible in the integration process of the criminal justice chain. However, they do not all influence the extent to which supply chain integration is possible. There are limits to the extent to which integration is possible, information integration is never fully possible due to the highly-regulated setting. This is furthermore due to the adherence to laws and institutionalization. Furthermore, operational integration is limited because of the high process variability and productivity trade-off the chain makes. The productivity trade-off causes organizations to be structured and financed independently. These characteristics cause a lack of standardization and the inability for synchronized planning. In general, it can be concluded, that the organizational structure of the organizations within the criminal justice chain are not designed for full information and operational integration. Lastly, concerning relational integration there does not seem to be an extent to which this is possible. There are obstructions caused by institutionalization between organizations, however these obstructions do not limit the extent to which integration is possible. There is just a lack of need and relational mechanisms in place to overcome this characteristic.
6.1 Theoretical implications
39
helps understand that the extent of integration is obstructed by various factors within the criminal justice chain. It shows that the criminal justice chain will never fully integrate on all three dimensions because of the environment in which it operates.
6.2 Managerial implications
Managers and employees in criminal justice organizations are advised to get a better understanding of the chain partners that they are working with. Moreover, results suggest that knowledge sharing with chain partners about your own organization and the issues that arise with it, could make chain partners aware of their responsibilities. Also, given the need for mutual understanding in the chain, it is advised to implement employees from other chain partners within your own organization. This would ensure that you have the knowledge internally and it allows for a better sense of two-way communication between chain partners.
6.3 Limitations
First, findings are mostly based from the perspective of the public prosecution. Although interviews were conducted at all the chain partners, there was a lack of data from the perspective of the police, probation services and NIFP. Therefore, these finding could have a potential lack of external validity. Second, the data was gathered at only two judicial districts, there are in total eleven judicial districts, therefore it remains unknown if the same issues arise at the other judicial districts. Third, time was lacking for a longitudinal study, it would have been better to gather data over a longer period, since it could potentially lead to more trustworthy results. Lastly, this research has failed to consider the influence supply chain integration has on the performance of the criminal justice chain.
6.4 Suggestions further research
40
7. REFERENCES
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. & Stank, T.P., (1999). 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply
Chain Integration a Reality. Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. & M.B., (2002) Supply Chain Logistics Management. McGraw-Hill.
Braunscheidel M, J., Suresh N, C., & Boisnier A, D., (2010) Investigating the impact of organizational culture on supply chain integration. Human Resource Management. Vol 49. Iss. 5 pp 883-911.
Brock M., Alon I., (2009) Internationalization of professional service firms. International Business: Research Teaching and Practice. 2009, 3(1).
Carr, A.S., Kaynak, H., 2007. Communication methods, information sharing, supplier development and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27 (4), 346–370.
Christopher, M., (2011). Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks. Prentice Hall Financial Times, Pearson Education, Harlow, England.
Dandurand, Y., (2014) Criminal Justice Reform and The System’s Efficiency. Criminal Law Forum 25: 383-440
De Blok, C., Seepma, A., Roukema, I., & van Donk, D. P. (2014). Applying supply chain logic to criminal law enforcement. In Proceedings 21st EurOMA Conference, Operations management in an innovation economy. Palermo: EurOMA.
De toekomst van de strafrechtspleging (2017) Ambities voor gezamenlijke versterking; Een oproep aan het nieuwe kabinet. Politie, Openbaar Ministerie, Rechtspraak.
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., & McCarter, M.W. (2008). The bridges, barriers, and benefits to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13(1) 35–48.
Feeley M, M., (1972) Two Models Of The Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1971.
41
Goodale, J.C., Kuratko, D.F., & Hornsby, J.S. (2008). “Influence-Factors for Operational Control and Compensation in Professional Service Firms,” Journal of Operations Management, 26 (5): 669-688.
Harvey, J., (2016) Professional service supply chains. Journal of Operations Management. 42-43. Pp. 52-61
Huo B., Han Z., Chen H., and Zhao, X., (2015) The effect of high-involvement human resource management practices on supply chain integration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Iss 8 pp. 716 - 746
Iannacci, F., Seepma, A. & de Blok, S. (2015) Coordinating criminal justice: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of inter-organisational information sharing across four EU Member States. 22nd International Annual EurOMA Conference.
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (2), 482–497.
Karlsson C., (2016) Research Methods for Operations Management. Second Edition. Routledge.
Karwan, K, R., & Markland R, E., (2006) Integrating Service Design Principles and Information Technology to Improve Delivery and Productivity in Public Sector Operations: The case of the South Carolina DMV. Journal of Operations Management 24: 347-362
Laing, A., (2003) Marketing in the public sector: Towards a typology of public services. Sage Publications. Volume 3 (4): 427-445
Leuschner R., Charvet, F, and Rogers S, D., (2013) A Meta-Analysis of Supply Chain Integration and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, Volume 49-2.
Lewis M, A., and Brown A, D., (2012) How different is professional service operations management. Journal of Operations Management. Vol 30, 1-11.
42
Mellat-Parast, M., & Spillan, J. E. (2014). Logistics and supply chain process integration as a source of competitive advantage: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Logistics Management, The, 25(2), 289–314.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks
National Audit Office (2016). Efficiency in the criminal justice system. Ministry of Justice. February 2016.
Narasimhan, R, Nair, A., (2005) The antecedent role of quality, information sharing and supply chain proximity on strategic alliance formation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 96 (3), pp. 301–313
Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z. and Nasi, G., (2012) A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. American Review of Public Administration. 43(2)
Tyworth, M., (2009) Institutional and Organizational Influences on the Design of Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems. I Conference.
Pekkanen, P., and Niemi, P., (2013) Process performance improvement in justice organizations-pitfalls of performance management. Int. J. Production Economics 143: 605-611
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B., Daugherty, P.J., 2001. Supply chain collaboration and
logistical service performance. Journal of Business Logistics 22 (1), 29–48.
Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students Cambridge University Press.
Van der Vaart, T., & Van Donk, D, P., (2008) A Critical Review of Survey-based Research in Supply Chain Integration. Int. J. Production Economics 111 (2008) 42-55.
Vickery, S., Jayaram, J., Droge C., Calantone, R., (2003) The effects of an integrative supply chain strategy on customer service and financial performance: an analysis of direct versus indirect relationships. Journal of Operations Management. Vol 21, 523-539.
43
Wang, L, J, H, Y, Yeung, and M. Zhang. (2011) ‘The Impact of Trust and Contract on Innovation Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Uncertainty,’ International Journal of Production Economics, (134:1), pp.114-122.
Wong C.W. & Boon-Itt, S., & (2011). The Moderating effects of technological and demand uncertainties on the relationship between supply chain integration and customer delivery performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(3), 253-276.
Yang T. and Maxwell, T. (2011) Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government information quarterly. Vol 28, 164-175.
Zhang M., & Huo, B., (2011) The impact of dependence and trust on supply chain integration. International Journal of Psychical Distribution & Logistics Management. Vol. 43 (7). 544-563.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B.B., Yeung, J., (2008). The impact of power and relationship
commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a supply chain. Journal of Operations Management 26 (3), 368–388.
44
APPENDIX A- Interview protocol operational level
Dit interview zal gaan over de karakteristieken en integratieprocessen binnen de strafrechtketen Het interview zal beginnen met wat inleidende vragen gevolgd door meer specifiekere vragen over uw ervaringen van de strafrechtketen en integratieprocessen.
Voorstellen • Naam
• Functie (OvJ) en rol
• Inhoud en verantwoordelijkheden van de functie • Hoelang in deze functie
• Hoelang werkende met HIC/MK-zaken Koppelvlakken in kaart brengen
• Op welke momenten is er sprake van contact met andere partijen over het dossier? En hoe is er contact?
• Met welke partijen is er contact? Door wie en hoe lang is het contact? Hoe wordt dit contact gelegd?
• Wat is de reden/het doel van contact? (bijv. inhoudelijke informatie uitwisseling, uitvoeren van procedures, afstemming planning)
• Welke activiteiten worden uitgevoerd ten behoeve van andere partijen? • Welke activiteiten worden uitgevoerd in samenwerking met andere partijen? • Welke activiteiten worden uitgevoerd door andere partijen t.b.v. de focuspartij?
Integratie
Informatie integratie
• Welke informatie wordt er met elkaar gedeeld?
o Informatie (inhoudelijk) over de strafrechtszaken o Informatie over status van zaken?
o Informatie over planning?
• Op welke manier wordt deze informatie gedeeld?
• Hoe vaak delen jullie informatie? Is het delen van info op vaste momenten in tijd? Vaste beslismomenten? Of continu inzichtelijk voor beide partijen?
• Wat zou er volgens u kunnen verbeter op het gebied van informatie-uitwisseling? Operationele integratie
• Aanwezigheid van cross-organizational interaction/meetings/teams? Op welk niveau werken jullie samen met het OM(strategisch/tactisch/operationeel)?
• In hoeverre is er sprake van gecoördineerde besluitvorming over de processen tussen politie en OM?
• Waar ervaart u vertraging/versnelling in de besluitvorming en processen? Welke factoren spelen hierin een rol?
• In hoeverre hebben jullie een gedeelde planning? Hoe stemmen jullie instroom/uitstroom op elkaar af? Wie neemt hierin de leiding?
Relatie integratie
