The role of the Technostructure: Implementation levers that play a role during the introduction of an organization- wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes

The role of the Technostructure:

Implementation levers that play a role

during the introduction of an

organization-wide program that is set up to standardize

policy-making processes

Master Thesis MSc BA - Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business

August, 2014

Word count excluding tables and references: 14.155

Acknowledgement:

2

ABSTRACT

This study examines the role of the technostructure during the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. By conducting a qualitative, single-case study at a public organization, the role of the technostructure during the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes was investigated. More specificially, factors were identified (called implementation levers) that affected the introduction of an organization-wide program, introduced by the technostructure. As to these factors which, in general, affect the introduction of new organization-wide programs, distinctions were made between three seperate types: change

process related (example: the interest of different parties to the program), change content

related (example: ease of use of the program), and change context related factors (example: users' feeling of being listened to by the technostructure).

This study was conducted with sixteen organizational members who were users of the introduced organization-wide program or manager of the technostructure. The results showed that all implementation levers had their impact on the introduction of an organization-wide program. Furthermore, the results of this study found four additional implementation levers that were derived from the outcomes of the interviews. All implementation levers tended to facilitate the introduction of an organization-wide program as well as to hinder it, they showed both a positive impact and a negative impact. Managing, optimizing and overseeing the introduction of organization-wide programs and thereby taking into account the factors that either facilitate or hinder the introduction is therefore one of the tasks of the managers of the technostructure.

Keywords: Technostructure, introduction of organization-wide programs, implementability,

3

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9

2.1 The Technostructure 9

2.2 Organization-wide programs that are set up to standardize policy- 10 making processes

2.3 Implementation levers in the hands of the technostructure 11

2.4 Implementation levers 12

Program adaptability 13

Program embeddedness 14

Program simplicity 15

Participative program development 16

Attention to organizational politics 17

Gradualness of introduction 18

Co-workership role of the technostructure 19

Accessibility of the technostructure 20

2.5 Research Question 21

3. METHODOLOGY 22

3.1 Data collection 22

3.2 Data analysis 26

3.3 Reliability and validity 27

4. RESULTS 28

4.1 Implementation levers 29

Program adaptability 29

Program embeddedness 31

Program simplicity 32

Participative program development 33

Attention to organizational politics 35

Gradualness of introduction 37

Co-workership role of the technostructure 38

4

Program reliability 41

Learning by doing 42

Cooperative relationship between the users of the program and the

technostructure 43

User capability 44

4.2 Outcomes of the results 45

5. DISCUSSION 46

5.1 (Concretized) Implementation levers 46

5

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper we will discuss the role of the technostructure of an organization during the introduction of new organization-wide programs. More specifically, the focus of the study presented in this paper is the role of the technostructure during the introduction of a particular type of program, namely an organizational program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. These programs can be considered as tools which consist of standards that are beneficial to the simplifying and standardizing policy-making processes. Especially in public organizations these programs are developed in order to raise the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of policy decision-making processes. Finally, managers of the technostructure need to make sure that the introduced programs will indeed be used by other organizational members.

The term ‘technostructure’ is one of the main concepts of this paper. The term found its origin in the work of Mintzberg (1979). He defined the term as a staff department consisting of analysts employed by the organization. They affect and influence other organizational members in their work. The primary role of the technostructure is to develop tools for other organizational members, train people and standardize work-processes (Mintzberg, 1979).

As the technostructure develops tools, the other organizational members, in particular line managers are the consumers of the technostructure services. However, according to the existing literature the technostructure and line managers are in continuous and unending conflicts with each other (Dalton, 1950; Browne & Golembiewski, 1974; Nystrom, 1986; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999; Caldwell, 2003). This may due to the fact that there has been a move towards shifting responsibilities for a long period (Mintzberg, 1979; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999; Mcguire, Stoner, & Mylone, 2008; Emans, Boeve, & Postema, 2011). This means that line manager and other managers are now made accountable for technostructure related tasks, such as the opportunity to engage in day to day decision-making processes, facilitating the core-work, or carrying out business ethics. As a consequence, the role of the managers of the technostructure shifted to a more indirect role: providing other organizational members with tools for carrying out technostructure-duties and making sure that the other organizational members will use the tools effectively.

6 what constitutes the adequateness and what the main responsibilities are for the managers of the technostructure.

Emans et al. (2011) advocate that managers of the technostructure are responsible for well-developed tools, with regard to the content of the tool. Furthermore, tools need to be set up in such a way that those members who want to use the tool feel inclined to really use it and are enabled to do so. We then speak about the implementability of tools that are introduced by the technostructure. If both aspects, well-developed tools and implementability of tools are safeguarded, then it can be said that the technostructure has done well. In the remaining sections of this paper we will elaborate on the second aspect, implementability.

Most of the existing literature merely focusses on what the technostructure is in general (Lunenburg, 2011; Giorgini et al., 2003; Mintzberg, 1979) or simply compare the technostructure to other organizational components (Browne & Golembiewski, 1974; Dalton, 1950; Nystrom, 1986, Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The role of the technostructure during the introduction of new organization-wide programs is yet to be explored in the literature. The discussion about the implementability aspect is the simplest approach for closing the gap (Caldwell, 2004) between prescription and practice, rhetoric and reality or what Khilji & Wang (2006) call: intended and implemented practices. As organizational members, including line managers, are poorly equipped with regard to the introduction of new organization-wide programs, the managers of the technostructure are the ones who are now saddled with the problems of implementations (Bos‐Nehles, Riemsdijk, & Looise, 2013). In other words, it is the role of the managers of the technostructure to solve implementation problems that line managers and other organizational members face. This allows for theory development on the role of the technostructure during the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes, providing the opportunity for finding new insights and propositions.

As to the factors which, in general, affect the introduction of new organization-wide programs, distinctions are made between three seperate types: change process related, change

content related, and change context related factors (Pettigrew, 1987; Armenakis & Bedeian,

7 this paper. For this reason we take the three mentioned types into account and these form the kind of framework for this paper. From here on the term ‘implementation levers’ will be used to denote the factors involved. Once the implementation levers are identified we can contour the tasks of the managers of the technostructure regarding managing, optimizing and securing the implementability of the introduced organization-wide program.

For the purpose of this research, implementation levers that foster the implementability of standardized programs are what we look for. Moreover, the levers need to be manageable by the technostructure rather than simply handed over and being static. We add these criteria to the implementation levers we look for, because we want to get specific insights regarding the role of the technostructure during the introduction of organization-wide programs. Therefore, it is essential that the implementation levers are manageable and that they are in the hands of the technostructure.

So far, we may conclude that the role of the technostructure is important and, to a certain extent, indispensable (Dalton, 1950; Mintzberg, 1979; Browne & Golembiewski, 1974; Nystrom, 1986; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999; Caldwell, 2003; Hailey & Farndale, 2005; Emans et al., 2011). Besides, little is known about the role of the technostructure during the introduction of a new organization-wide program. Hence, it is interesting to take a closer look at the role of the technostructure during the introduction of a new organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes.

As mentioned, this paper focuses on creating insights regarding the role of the technostructure during the introduction of a new organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. This program is being introduced by the technostructure. When we take these two statements into account, we can derive insight from the perspective of implementation levers, that implicitly indicate the role of the technostructure during the introduction of new organization-wide programs (Emans et al., 2011). Finally, it is the task of the managers of the technostructure to continuously manage these implementation levers in order to create an effectively utilized program. All of this leads us to the following research question:

8 This research will contribute to theories regarding ‘Organizational Theory’. More specifically, it will contribute to the ‘Organizational Economics Theory’ by investigating the role of the technostructure regarding the introduction of new organization-wide programs. The 'Organizational Economics Theory' discusses aspects such as 'how to encourage managers and employees to act in the best interests of those who have the authority'. From this paper's point of view, the one that has the authority is the technostructure. Furthermore, during the introduction of an organization-wide program critical success factors making the introduction actually successful could be provided.

The managerial contribution of this paper lies in that managers can use these insights to see what the role of a particular staff department is and see which factors may lead to successful introduced programs or which factors are decisive. Managers may also see struggles or difficulties staff departments have dealing with the tool introduced by the technostructure. This can be taken into account for the next time, when tools are provided to other organizational members.

9

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This section will focus on the most important terms and concepts that are relevant for this paper. The terms and concepts will be further elaborated upon. This will be done by reviewing existing literature. We will go more in-depth and elaborate on the terms that are relevant and that are used in this paper.

Furthermore, we will elaborate on the three types mentioned earlier: process-related, content-related and context-related change factors, which finally collapse into eight implementation levers. We will finish by addressing the eight implementation levers. Each lever will be defined and the perspective from which it is viewed in this paper will be shown.

2.1 The Technostructure

The existing literature provides us with many definitions of the technostructure. Although opinions vary, all definitions have the same rationale. Gillespie, Mileti & Haas (1978) define the technostructure as patterns of activities that are directly related to task roles-division of labor and formalization of work procedures. Mintzberg (1979) states that the technostructure is a staff-department consisting of analysts employed by the organization and affecting others in their work. These people are indirectly connected with the operating work flow by designing, planning and changing it as well as training people and standardizing outputs (Mintzberg, 1979).

Judging from the above it is clear that the role of the technostructure is important and, to a certain extent, indispensable, because they facilitate the core-work and processes of an organization. Hence, it is also interesting to look more specifically to the role of the technostructure. In doing so, we see that the technostructure component of an organization especially is challenged with planning and controlling as well as providing formal and structured knowledge to the organization (Clark et al., 1993; Giorgini, Kolp & Mylopoulos, 2003). Additionally, the technostructure develops planning systems, reward systems and training/development systems (Wright, McMahan, Snell & Gerhart, 2001).

10 information and thus a need for the technostructure staff department. Mintzberg (1979), Nystrom (1986) and Clark et al. (2003) also advocate the indispensability of the technostructure by arguing that by helping the organization adapt to its environment the technostructure adds value to it with their analytical techniques.

Khilji and Wang (2006) found evidence that the introduction of tools provided by the technostructure is more effective when it is appropriately integrated with the environmental- and organizational context. This statement makes it clear that organizations need to make sure that attention is given to the role of the technostructure in order for an organization and its staff departments to be effective. Caldwell (2004) also argues that attention to the role of the technostructure is needed. He states that progressive practices, that is to say practices that aim for better conditions or new policies and that are provided by the technostructure, are beneficial to organizational effectiveness. To achieve this it is crucial for managers of the technostructure to be highly committed to projects and for these managers to fulfill a supportive role. Furthermore, providing clarity, having a clear vision and making use of multiple methods with regard to providing tools are essential elements to relieve respondents of their ambiguity and to create an atmosphere of understanding and acceptance amongst them (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Khilji & Wang, 2006). In summary, it has become evident that opinions vary, but they all deem the role of the technostructure essential and necessary. Several authors argue that the role of the technostructure is essential and indispensable in an organization. Some of them also argue that organizations need to give a high level of attention to the role of technostructure in order for an organization to be effective in its processes. Finally, we may conclude that the role of the technostructure is to facilitate and support the core-work processes of an organization and, secondly, to help organizational members who face implementation-related problems.

2.2 Organization-wide programs that are set up to standardize policy-making processes

The definition of new programs as given by Gagliardi, Brouwers, Palda, Lemieux-Charles and Grimshaw (2011) seems applicable for this paper. They define new programs as the implementation of methods and processes which did not exist yet. Moreover, Gagliardi et al. (2011) argue that the introduction of new programs should foster a better understanding with the users of the program about what should be done in the core-work and is also meant to assist these users. The new programs should function as a kind of guideline and should be aimed at a more frequent use of the program by users.

11 organization-wide program is a new tool that is introduced by the technostructure into the whole organization and that this tool helps organizational members in performing their job. However, this tool was also set up to standardize policy-making processes. Standardization of policy-making processes is about an organization and the policymakers making the policies. In other words, the policymakers make long-term plans, specify ambitions and set goals that should be reached over the years (Jones et al., 2014). As mentioned before, the standardization aspect of the policy decision-making processes can be found in its ‘long-term value thinking’. This means that policymakers do not go for short-term goals and ambitions, but mainly take the longer term into account when making policies.

Furthermore, the standardization aspect can also be found in a kind of norm or construction that is created for the policy-making processes and which will be used for many years. To clarify, in the study of this paper the introduced organization-wide program is the kind of construction that promotes standardization of policy-making processes.

In sum, if we take a look at the organization-wide programs that are set up to standardize policy-making processes, introduced by the technostructure, we may conclude that these program are new tools which consist of standards that are beneficial for policy-making processes due to the fact that these programs create uniformity and continuity over the years. As a consequence, it increases the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of policy- making processes. This may result in stability and simplicity and could make it easier for policy-makers to monitor policies, because the standards do not keep changing over time.

2.3 Implementation levers in the hands of the technostructure

12 Change content related factors have to do with contemporary changes and focus on what is being changed. These factors deal with changes in structure, technology, practices and social issues. For example, the enactment of new competencies by employees when adapting a newly introduced program. Thus, when talking about change content related factors, it is about the way organizational members are affected by the new organization-wide program as introduced by the technostructure.

Lastly, the change context related factors deal with conditions in the internal and external environment of an organization that have impact on the change (Self et al., 2007). A context related factor comprises, for instance, beliefs, behavior and attitudes of employees related to organizational conditions (internal) or when an organization is in a highly competitive environment (external).

In the following paragraphs we will focus more in-depth on the three different types that affect the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy making processes: process-related, content-related, and context-related factors. We will do this by addressing eight implementation levers that arise from the three types.

2.4 Implementation levers

For the study presented in this paper, eight implementation levers were chosen that will be addressed. The selection of the eight implementation levers was based on a similar study, conducted by Emans et al. (2011). In this study Emans et al. (2011) discussed implementation levers that contributed to the implementability of programs. The implementation levers that are discussed the study by Emans et al. (2011) seem relevant for the study presented in this paper also, because the study presented in this paper has a similar subject. In addition, incorporating these implementation levers from the study by Emans et al. (2011) contributes to the validation and generalizability of the outcomes of the study presented in this paper.

13 implementation levers. Each of the levers as well as the perspective from which it is viewed will be presented

FIGURE 1. A framework for guiding organizational change

Context – Internal/External

(Co-workership role of the technostructure, accessibility of the technostructure)

Content Process

(Adaptability, embeddedness, simplicity) (Participative dev., politics, gradualness)

Program adaptability (content)

Program adaptability is defined as the degree to which organizational members, when enacting a program, have freedom with regard to strict rules, or, conversely stated, the degree to which organizational members are bound by strict rules (Emans et al., 2011). As became evident from the literature and as is discussed below, program adaptability is presumably one of the manageable implementation levers that is determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. Managers of the technostructure have a choice in deciding how precise and how detailed to describe how to use the tool. They can decide whether or not to implement strict procedures and structures or, in contrast, letting organizational members self-manage the tool, which means providing room for modifications (Colman & Han, 2007).

14 specific work environment. Emans et al. (2011) also speak about strict procedures and structures regarding the introduction of new programs. They highlight that strict coordination and rules may be beneficial to introduced programs, because the introduced programs promote long term uniform enactment of the program for all organizational members.

If we apply the claims mentioned above to an implementation point of view we may see that detailed tools are beneficial to the uniform enactment of organizational members. Every organizational member who enacts the tool or program will adapt to it the same way. However, if the level of adaptability is too high it can backfire and may have a negative effect on the implementability, because the program does not always fit specific situations. Therefore, we hypothesize that program adaptability has, to a certain extent, a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs.

Program embeddedness (content)

In order to get a relevant definition for program embeddedness, we take it from an implementation point of view and combine the definitions given by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski and Erez (2001) and Emans et al. (2011), because those definition seem to be most relevant for this paper. Program embeddedness is, then, defined as the extent to which new programs match the existing processes. Just like program adaptability, program embeddedness is also presumably one of the manageable implementation levers that is determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program set up to standardize policy-making processes.

The purpose of an implementation, the introduction of a new program, is to add value and to add something new to the existing routines of an organization, thereby elaborating on them. Of course, it is redundant to state that new programs add new things to the existing routines, but the level of program embeddedness is debatable. This gives rise to the question how the degree of program embeddedness plays a role when programs are introduced.

Murray (2013) mentions in his paper that program embeddedness is often unobservable and, hereby, routines of the firm are highly connected to the structure of an organization. This makes it hard for an organization to precisely measure the level of program embeddedness.

15 add it to their existing routines.

The level of effort from organizational members depends on how new a program is for them. In other words, organizational members have to put in effort in order to adapt to new standards and routines and in order for the program to be successfully introduced. Emans et al. (2011) argue that the level of effort from organizational members depends on the extent to which new programs add something essentially new to the existing routines. If the programs add something essentially new to the existing routines then organizational members have to put in a lot of effort while adapting to the new program. If we take this from an implementation point of view, it could be a wise approach to closely match the implementation with the existing routines, so that organizational members do not have to put in a lot of effort. This finally makes it more likely for a new program to be implemented successfully.

Thus, we may assume that if the implemented tool fits with the existing routines and processes, that it is highly implementable, because organizational members have to put in the least amount of effort while adapting to the program. Conversely stated, if the implemented tool does not match the existing routines and processes, organizational members have to put in a lot of effort, which may cause the implementation to be difficult. One reason for this is that there may be resistance amongst organizational members (Rivard & Lapointe, 2012; Offenbeek et al., 2013).

Considering the claims mentioned above, we may hypothesize that program embeddedness has a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs: the more an introduced program fits the existing routines, the more implementable it is.

Program simplicity (content)

The third implementation lever addressed in this paper, which is presumably one of the manageable implementation levers that is determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes, is program simplicity. For this paper, the definition given by Hanna (2012) seems relevant and applicable. She defines program simplicity as the extent to which the program is clear in its function and operation and to which it is easy to learn and remember for an actor. She adds to this by saying that simplicity is the result of logical thinking and one’s ability to empathize with the program.

16 an implementation point of view, this is mainly due to the fact that there is a choice to be made between, on the one hand, striving for simplicity in programs and, on the other hand, adding all kinds of features to new programs (Feldhofer, Wolkerstorfer & Rijmen, 2005; Emans et al., 2011). Feldhofer et al. (2005) and Emans et al. (2011) say that this choice can best be solved by aiming for the simplicity in programs. In other words, the simpler a new program, the more likely it is to be introduced successfully. They argue that if a program is simpler, it is easier for organizational members to adapt to and adopt the program.

Emans et al. (2011) also argue that the content of a program should not be too difficult to grasp for organizational members, which indicates that simplicity should be high. On the other hand, they argue that too much simplicity could be dangerous, because then the program offers too little added value. Hanna (2012) argues that the simplicity should match the expectations of the organizational members, those being affected by the tools. If there is a match they have a clear and straightforward approach to deal with the particular program. For these reasons, we hypothesize program simplicity to have a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs. That is to say, the higher the level of program simplicity, the more implementable it is.

Participative program development (process)

Participative program development is defined as the extent to which people participate in developing programs and to which they are empowered to do so (Campbell & Vainio-Mattila, 2003). As became evident from the literature, participative program development is presumably also one of the manageable implementation levers that is determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes.

In the literature, change strategies as collaboration (Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers & Kirschner, 2006; Boonstra, Boddy & Bell, 2008) and consultative learning (Selart, 2005) are addressed which have the same rationale as participative program development. All of the change strategies incorporate the input of organizational members in order to increase acceptance regarding change and to successfully introduce the change (Offenbeek et al., 2013).

17 successfully, because there is a high level of acceptability and a low level of resistance (Offenbeek et al., 2013)

Furthermore, van den Bossche et al. (2006) argue that managers could use the strategy of ‘collaborative learning’ to alter behavior and to create acceptance amongst organizational members to change. They also say that collaborative learning creates mutually shared cognitions and causes interpersonal relationships which are beneficial to implementations. Selart (2005) adds to the latter statement by saying that consultative learning increases the acceptance for change. Consultative learning may also reduce the amount of conflicts and create a unity, as people have the same goal to strive for. Lastly, Boonstra et al. (2008) found evidence that when there is more support and collaboration among stakeholders, it is more likely for a program or change to be successfully introduced.

Leading, coordinating tasks and decision-making are fundamental activities for managers (Jacobs & Kethers, 1994). Co-decision making goes one step further by actively involving people into the decision making process. Jacobs and Kethers (1994) think that creating a common understanding is essential when having more parties dealing with decision making. They also advocate that knowledge should be commonly shared amongst organizational members in order to create effective decision-making and to get members to be more in favor of change. If we apply this to an implementation point of view, we see that when managers decide to involve people into the decision-making process they tend to increase the acceptance and do-ability of the programs amongst organizational members and, consequently, make it more likely to successfully introduce a new program to organizational members (Emans et al., 2011).

For this reason, we hypothesize participative program development to have a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs. That is to say, the higher the level of participative program development, the more likely it is to have a successful introduction of a new organization-wide program, as it increases the acceptability and do-ability amongst organizational members.

Attention to organizational politics (process)

18 standardize policy-making processes.

Organizations are political fields that face a lot of power relationships. Technostructure-practices are there to institutionalize power relationships and therefore increase the acceptance amongst organizational members (Silvester, 2012). Thus, managers find themselves in an unending political field full of diverging interests, needs and power (Novicevic & Harvey, 2001). For this reason, they have to take each power relationship into account and need to carefully manage this (Silvester, 2008). Cawsey, Deszca and Ingols (2012) even state in their book that a stakeholder analysis is needed for managers in order to successfully change. Managers need to figure out how power and interest is spread amongst different stakeholders (Boonstra, Boddy & Bell, 2008; Cawsey et al., 2012).

From an implementation point of view, we see that ‘attention to organizational politics’ definitely needs to be taken into account when making changes or introducing tools and programs. This is confirmed by, for instance, Boddy and Buchanan (1992). They argue: many implementations fail because power relations are not carefully taken into account when introducing a new program. This makes it, once again, clear that attention needs to be paid to organizational politics while introducing new programs or making changes.

Moreover, if there is lack of accountability for power and interest it may result in a lot of resistance from organizational members. Consequently, an introduction of a new program is likely to fail (Cawsey et al., 2012).

Judging from the claims mentioned above we may hypothesize that programs are more likely to be introduced successfully when there is high attention to organizational politics. Thus, attention to organizational politics is hypothesized to have a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs.

Gradualness of introduction (process)

19 and strategy.

Rafferty and Simons (2006) found evidence that organizational members are more willing to participate and adapt to new programs if the programs are close to fine-tuning change or, in other words, incremental changes. From an implementation point of view, this indicates that the most gradual one is the one that is most favorable, since it does not mean making radical, major changes. Moreover, the most gradual one fosters more willingness to change and also creates a higher level of acceptability amongst organizational members towards the introduction of new programs (Offenbeek et al., 2013).

Thus, we may hypothesize that the more implementable a program, the more it is introduced gradually. For this reason we hypothesize gradualness of introduction to have a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs.

Co-workership role of the technostructure (context)

Co-workership role of the technostructure is defined as the degree to which work is taken-away from organizational members by the technostructure and by which the technostructure is made active and responsible for certain tasks by facilitating and convincing organizational members while they enact to a program (Andersson & Tengblad, 2007; Emans et al., 2011). As became evident from the literature, co-workership role of the technostructure is presumably one of the manageable implementation levers that is determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes.

Daily work has become more important to employees and there is an increase in responsibilities for them. Therefore, managers take on a more supportive and facilitating role. Today, the co-workership role of the technostructure is an organizational aspect that tries to reduce the distance between managers and employees. Co-workership is seen as a situation in which organizational members are active players, are respected, wanting to collaborate and motivated to do the job (Andersson & Tengblad, 2007).

From an implementation point of view, the technostructure can help organizational members by, for instance, taking over some of their tasks. However, the technostructure is, to a certain extent, limited in doing so, because they form part of both the internal- and external context. These contexts are highly influenced by other actors and are potential limitations to the technostructure. Nevertheless, when the technostructure strives for a high level of co-workership it may result in fewer implementation barriers, such as a low level of resistance among employees.

20 the technostructure to have a positive influence on the introduction of organization-wide programs. In other words, when there is a high level of co-workership role of the technostructure involved during the introduction of programs, it is more likely for an organization-wide program or tool to be successfully introduced.

Accessibility of the technostructure (context)

The last implementation lever we will elaborate on is accessibility of the technostructure. Just like the preceding implementation levers accessibility of the technostructure is presumably also one of the manageable implementation levers that is determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. Accessibility of the technostructure is defined as the extent to which the technostructure is of help to organizational members who are dealing with the program, and with regard to their insights and needs (Maatman, 2006).

Emans et al. (2011) state that the technostructure can position itself in such a way that implementation issues can be removed. The goal here is to be very open to other organizational members and help them when those organizational members face issues with regard to the implementation. They could create a situation in which they are easily accessible to and seem approachable to other organizational members. To give an example, the technostructure can function as a desk for support and information which consults for organizational members that face problems with regard to the implementation.

From an implementation point of view, they can take a supportive and facilitating role and help those who have to enact the new program. This may be helpful to organizational members, because they then no longer face implementation-related problems. It may also help an implementation to be successfully and effectively used and introduced, because of the low level of resistance amongst organizational members (Offenbeek et al., 2013).

21

2.5 Research Question

In the preceding section eight implementation levers were addressed. All of the eight implementation levers were hypothesized to foster the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. Together, the eight hypotheses make up the main research question and they were formulated in order to yield a plausible answer to main research question. The main research question, as formulated in the introduction section, reads as follows:

Which manageable implementation levers are determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes, introduced by the technostructure?

22

3. METHODOLOGY

This section will describe the data collection, the data analysis and their procedure more in detail. Also, quality criteria such as reliability and validity will be described and explained.

Furthermore, this research is based on a theory refinement approach in order to examine the earlier stated research question. Qualitative research is quite suitable for trying to understand phenomena within their context, exposing links among concepts and real-life behavior, and generating and refining theory (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

3.1 Data collection

In order to give concrete shape to the research question interviews were set up with people who were involved in the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. These people were invited to speak about their experiences where determinative factors for the (non-) use of the introduced program (see Table 1) became clear.

To collect the relevant data, this study made us of triangulation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Bergsma, 2003): in-depth interviews, observations and notes were used. The observations and notes were collected as the introduced program was actually being used. The researcher kept notes of the observations during the entire research process.

Furthermore, this research was done in a public organization. In this organization a program was set up to standardize policy-making processes. This program was provided by the technostructure staff department to other departments and organizational members.

The amount of interviews is established at sixteen, which meets the minimum of twelve, since the full range of thematic discovery occurs almost completely within the first twelve interviews (Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006). The relevant respondents were chosen via the snowball sampling approach (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). This is an approach in which respondents identify other respondents that would be suitable for the sample (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). For this research, first, managers of the technostructure were identified. These managers were then asked to identify other relevant respondents, which led us to the (intended) users of the introduced program.

23 respondents is presented in Appendix A. Finally, all of the interviews were recorded and transcribed.

For the conducting of the interviews an interview protocol was designed. The interview protocol was followed strictly at each interview. The interview protocol consisted of the following phases: Introduction phas, stage-setting, approach phase, explanation phase and wrap-up. In the paragraphs below, the various phases will be explained.

Introduction

The goal of this phase was to briefly introduce the pending interview to the respondent. Some background information about the research was provided to the respondent and he or she was told how the interview was structured. Furthermore, the interviewer mentioned aspects such as ‘duration time of the interview’, ‘anonymity’, ‘who is recording’, and ‘who has access to the paper’. In this phase no questions were asked of the respondent.

Between the introduction-phase and the stage-setting-phase a specific protocol happened in which the respondent was told why he was the one selected. Also, the interviewer told the respondent that the interviewer would be the one to direct the interview.

Stage-setting

This phase was about starting the interview. A typical ‘warm-up question’ was provided in order to reassure the respondent and ease the respondent gently into the interview. An example question is: In what way were you introduced to the introduced program?

Approach phase

In this phase respondents were asked about their experiences in which determinative factors for the (non-) use of the introduced program (see Table 1) became clear. They were asked to not only give their opinion but also to mention facts. Probing was used by the interviewer in order to encourage detailed answers. Example questions are: What happened in your

situation? Do you have any idea what caused that? Explanation phase

The explanation phase is an offshoot of the previous phase in which the respondent’s situation has been examined. The respondent provided possible reasons for the phenomena to happen in his situation. Probing was used when something relevant was mentioned by the respondent.

24 introduced program. For example, when the respondent did not say anything about program simplicity, the interviewer asked questions concerning program simplicity to make sure that program simplicity is not one of the determinants or, on the other hand, is one of the determinants. Each implementation lever and its definition is shown in Table 1.

The respondent then was asked to indicate which determinants were relevant for the (non-) use of the introduced programs. Once that was done, probing was used in order to get more detailed information about the chosen lever. If respondents did not mention anything about a lever, then he or she was asked to think about it and how he or she experienced it. Finally, all of the implementation levers were addressed. An example question is: The factor

you mentioned before, under what circumstances did it come up? To what extent was it a barrier for you?

TABLE 1: Implementation levers

Determinant/Lever Definition

Program adaptability The degree to which organizational

members, when enacting a program, have freedom with regard to strict rules, or, conversely stated, the degree to which organizational members are bound by strict rules (Emans et al., 2011

Program embeddedness The extent to which new programs match the

existing processes (Mitchell et al., 2001; Emans et al., 2011)

Program simplicity The extent to which the program is clear in

its function and operation and to which it is easy to learn and remember for an actor (Hanna, 2012)

Participative program development The extent to which people participate in developing programs and to which they are empowered to do so (Campbell & Vainio-Mattila, 2003)

25

developing and introducing a program (Emans et al., 2011)

Gradualness of program introduction The degree to which the introduction of a new program consists of discrete micro-step (Traugott & Trousdale, 2010)

Co-workership role of the technostructure The degree to which work is taken-away from organizational members by the technostructure and by which the technostructure is made active and responsible for a certain task by facilitating and convincing organizational members while they enact to a program (Andersson & Tengblad, 2007; Emans et al., 2011).

Accessibility of the technostructure The extent to which the technostructure is of help to organizational members who are dealing with the program and with regard to their insights and needs (Maatman, 2006).

Wrap-up

The wrap-up phase is the last one in the designed interview protocol. A short summary was provided by the interviewer to end the interview. The summary was also used to reduce respondent bias by allowing the respondent to confirm and, if needed, to correct what was being said in the interview. Finally, the respondent was thanked for the willingness to participate.

During the interview, probing was used to ensure that the right, factual information was obtained. Techniques that were used with regard to probing:

 Rephrasing the question

 Summarizing, the giving of feedback

 Undirected, explicit asking (Ask for a more detailed explanation, to elaborate)

26

3.2 Data analysis

After conducting the interviews, multiple steps were taken in order to analyze the data properly. The data was gathered with the consent of the respondents. All of the interviews were transcribed; from audio to text. In doing so, we were able to analyze the answers from the respondents in detail (Baarda, De Goede & Teunissen, 2005).

The next step was to codify the transcriptions in order to enhance the data retrieval. Coding is a qualitative technique for analyzing data and this technique entails linking stories or experiences from the interviews to particular categories that were created beforehand or developed ad hoc (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000; Saldaña, 2012). Codes developed beforehand are the so called deductive codes and these codes are identified and constructed based on the theoretical framework. Ad hoc developed codes are called inductive codes. These codes are derived from the data itself and are identified by the analytical ability of the researcher (Jacoby & Siminoff, 2008). For this research, experiences from respondents in which the impact of an implementation lever became apparent was coded. Eight deductive codes were developed: 'impact of program adaptability ', 'impact of program embeddedness', 'impact of co-workership role of the technostructure', 'impact of accessibility of the technostructure', 'impact of program simplicity', 'impact of participative program development', 'impact of attention to organizational politics' and 'impact of gradualness of introduction'. These codes were based on the eight implementation levers that were discussed in the theoretical framework section and are presented in Appendix B. In addition to the eight codes, several inductive codes were developed during the scanning and analyzing of the transcriptions. These are: 'impact of program reliability', 'impact of learning by doing', 'impact of cooperative relationship between users of the program and the technostructure' and 'impact of user capability'.

Furthermore, each implementation lever will be concretized in the results section. As a result of this concretization new codes are developed. These new codes consist of various mechanisms that have their impact on the introduction of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes, either a positive or a negative impact. Thus, these mechanisms are a result of the concretization of an implementation lever and are related to a single implementation lever only.

27 implementation levers are presented in Appendix B.

3.3 Reliability and validity

Miles and Huberman (1994) say that inductive coding ensures a more open-minded researcher with specific attention to the context. Inductive coding can be advantageous, because it reduces researcher bias (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2007). Thus, using inductive coding we tried to reduce the researcher bias for this research.

As mentioned, during the research triangulation is applied to provide stronger substantiation of the constructs and the hypotheses (Eisenhardt, 1989; Bergsma, 2003). This research made use of multiple-methods to collect data; in-depth interviews, observations and notes. Triangulation can remedy the shortcomings of the instrument and thus reduce the instrument bias (Van Aken et al., 2007).

The respondent bias was reduced by giving interviewees a copy of the transcripts so they could confirm what they had stated. Respondents were guaranteed that this research remained anonymous and confidential.

Respondents with different roles and function, but nonetheless (intended) users of the introduced program, were selected. This led to great variety in roles and functions and improved the reliability of this research (Van Aken et al., 2007).

28

4. RESULTS

In this section the results will be presented of the introduction of an organization-wide program, that is set-up to standardize policy-making processes. In particular, manageable implementation levers that played a role during the introduction of programs were explicitly considered. In Appendix B a coding scheme is presented regarding the implementation levers. In addition, four manageable implementation levers were added, namely: 'program reliability', 'learning by doing', 'cooperative relationship between users of the program and the technostructure' and 'user capability'. These were added to the coding scheme, because the patterns of the answers given by the respondents showed that many respondents explicitly emphasized aspects concerning these four levers and that those aspects played a role during the introduction of the organization-wide program.

The general pattern of the answers given by the respondents tended that there was substantial evidence for each implementation lever to be a determinative factor when organization-wide programs are introduced. However, it is debatable to what extent is the implementation lever played a positive role, because in some situations an implementation lever tended to have a negative impact rather than a positive one.

Moreover, the use of triangulation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Bergsma, 2003) benefited this research. In addition to conducting interviews, the observations and notes complemented to the interview outcomes. For instance, one of the observations by the researcher was that one of the users of the program had a deepening question about the introduced program. That user contacted an organizational members of the technostructure and this organizational member was able to help the user. This showed that a certain level of accessibility of the technostructure was present and that accessibility of the technostructure had an impact on the use of the program. The use of in-depth interviews, observations and notes resulted in findings that were supported by more, and independent, methods of data retrieval (Bergsma, 2003).

29

4.1 Implementation levers

Program adaptability

From the patterns of the answers given by the respondents in the interviews it became clear that program adaptability was one of the implementation levers that was determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that was set up to standardize policy-making processes, introduced by the technostructure. However, one could argue that program adaptability had both a negative- and positive impact. On the one hand, the respondents were not bound to strict rules when using the new program. There was, for instance, room for personalization, which had a positive impact on the use of the introduced program. As several respondents stated: “One of the main reasons I started using the program was because I can

and give it a personal twist". These results indicate that respondents were completely free in

making adjustments and using the program.

Another mechanism that had a positive impact on the use of the introduced program was the impact of strength of the program. As one of the respondents stated: "We use the

program very often for district meetings and community dialogues". This indicated that the

introduced program was used because it was an important tool that helped the users in performing their jobs.

On the other hand, there were also mechanisms that had a negative impact on the use of an introduced program. One example of this is the impact of the strict rules that underlie the program. As stated by one of the respondents: "Sometimes I refuse to use the program and

I just do it the traditional way, because I do not like the fact that you can not make adjustments within the program".

Other mechanisms that had a positive impact (Table 1) or that have a negative impact (Table 2) are shown below. For each mechanism an example, derived from the interviews, is given.

TABLE 2. Coding schema: mechanisms of program adaptability that have a positive impact Category/

codename

Mechanisms that have a positive impact

Example

Impact of program adaptability

Impact of room for personalization

Impact of the strength of the program

"One of the main reasons I started using the program was because I can change settings within the program and give it a personal twist"

30

Impact of the development of common norms for using the program

Impact of the equal treatment of all

organizational members

Impact of the stability of the program, which creates a certainty for users of the program

Impact of the structure of the program

"I find it important and quite handy that there are certain rules for using the program. Without them I would have doubts about using the program" "Every user of the program is treated equally, which persuaded me to use the program. No one is able to manipulate anything"

"The program has some degree of continuity and stability which is very important for the yearly use of it"

"The structure of the program is so well-developed that the use of the program benefits the comparison of annual policies"

TABLE 3. Coding schema: mechanisms of program adaptability that have a negative impact Category/

codename

Mechanisms that have a negative impact

Example

Impact of program adaptability

Impact of strict rules that underlie the program

Impact of bad

communication between the users of the program and the technostructure

Impact of low transparency of the program

Impact of resistance among users of the program through unclear management

Impact of the

incompatibility with local needs

"Sometimes I refuse to use the program and I just do it the traditional way, because I do not like the fact that you can not make adjustments within the program"

"Sometimes we have trouble adding new data to the program, because they [the technostructure] did not tell us where to add the data in the program. So we end up not using the program for a while, until they [the technostructure] tell us what we need to know"

"I do not go beyond the outer edge of the program when explaining it to third parties, because it would be too complex for me then"

"There is no clear top-down management. Consequently, we do not use the program structurally"

31 Program Embeddedness

The results show that program embeddedness turns out to be one of the manageable implementation levers that was determinative for the (non-) use of an organization-wide program that is set up to standardize policy-making processes. From the patterns of the answers given by the respondents it also became clear that program embeddedness had more of a positive impact than a negative impact on the use of the introduced program. Only two of all respondents were somewhat negative due to the non-suitability of the program to the users' daily tasks. This is indicated by the following statement: "The program is an obstacle for me

performing my job because it caused a tunnel vision, so I rarely use it". This indicated that

some users of the program were not always pleased with the introduced program and, consequently, rarely used it.

Nevertheless, most of the respondents had concrete experiences in which the impact of program embeddedness had a positive impact on the use of the introduced program. For example, one of the mechanisms that has a positive impact was the impact of the added value the program offers. As some respondents stated: "I like to use the program, because with this

program you can perform your own tasks and you do not have to depend on what others tell you to do". This indicated that the respondent used the program, because the program had

added value to their daily tasks.

Furthermore, another mechanism of the impact of program embeddedness that has a positive impact on the use of the introduced program was the impact of suitability of the program on the users' daily tasks. The following statement indicates this: "The use of the

program has given me the opportunity to perform well at my job. It is a source of inspiration as well as an aid-tool". This shows that the introduced program was valuable to the users and

that the program closely matched the existing processes.

TABLE 4. Coding schema: mechanisms of program embeddedness that have a positive

impact

Category/ codename

Mechanisms that have a positive impact

Example

Impact of program embeddedness

Impact of the need to use the program for the users' daily tasks.

Impact of the added value the program offers

"I do use the program because it is a nice tool for making appropriate analyses which I need for performing my job"

32

Impact of suitability of the program on the users' daily tasks.

"The use of the program has given me the opportunity

to perform well at my job. It is a source of inspiration as well as an aid-tool"

TABLE 5. Coding schema: mechanisms of program embeddedness that have a negative

impact

Category/ codename

Mechanisms that have a negative impact Example Impact of program embeddedness Impact of non-suitability of the program to the users' daily tasks

"The program is an obstacle for me performing my job because it caused a tunnel vision, so I rarely use it"

Program simplicity

Program simplicity turned out to have mechanisms that have a positive impact on the introduction of an organization-wide program as well as mechanisms that have a negative impact. There were differences among the respondents: one found the program quite easy to use, others found the program hard to use. Nevertheless, it became clear from the patterns that emerged from the answers given by the respondents that program simplicity definitely played a determinative role during the introduction of an organization-wide program.

One of the mechanisms that has a positive impact is the impact of the ease of use of the program. As several respondents stated: "I find the program easy to use. It is nice that I

can get essential information with only one press of the button". This indicates that the ease of

use of the program benefits the actual use of the program. In relation to this, the results also show that the impact of transparency of the program had a positive impact. As stated: "The

transparency of the program ensures that the program is reasonably clear to me and that I can use the program with ease". This indicates that due to a high level of transparency users

are able to use the program frequently and properly.

However, there were also users who experienced the program as highly complex. This is indicated by the following statement: "Sometimes I refrain from using the program,

because I experience the program as very complex and not easy to use". This makes it clear

that some of the respondents experienced the level of complexity of the program as high. As a result, users refrain from using the program.

33 negative impact on the introduction of an organization-wide program: the impact of users' feeling of a program that is too difficult to grasp. As stated by one of the respondents: "I find

the program difficult to use, because it contains difficult language, that is to say 'bureaucratic-language', which I barely understand". This indicates that a high level of

complexity of the program may hinder the actual use of the program, as users find the program difficult to grasp and therefore refrain from using the program frequently.

TABLE 6. Coding schema: mechanisms of program simplicity that have a positive impact Category/

codename

Mechanisms that have a positive impact

Example

Impact of program simplicity

Impact of ease of use of the program

Impact of users

experiencing the program as highly transparent

"I find the program easy to use. It is nice that I can get essential information with only one press of the button"

"The transparency of the program ensures that the program is reasonably clear to me and that I can use the program with ease"

TABLE 7. Coding schema: mechanisms of program simplicity that have a negative impact Category/

codename

Mechanisms that have a negative impact Example Impact of program simplicity Impact of users

experiencing the program as highly complex Impact of users' feeling of a program that is too difficult to grasp

"Sometimes I refrain from using the program, because I experience the program as very complex and not easy to use"

" I find the program difficult to use, because it contains difficult language, that is to say 'bureaucratic-language', which I barely understand"

Participative program development

34 One of the mechanisms of participative program development that has a positive impact on the use of the introduced program is the impact of a positive personal relationship between users and the technostructure, which resulted from participation in the program development. As one of the respondents stated: "Because I was involved in the development of

the program we now have a good connection and the way they [the technostructure] provide me with information is useful for the actual use of the program". This indicates that positive

personal relationships between the users of the program and the technostructure had impact on the actual use of the program, as the relationship fostered the provision of useful information. The impact of positive feelings of users that were involved in the development process also has a positive impact on the use of the program. As stated by one of the respondents:

"The participation in developing the program helped me to better understand the program as a whole and also created a positive attitude towards the use of the program".

Last, the impact of the willingness of users to join the development process was one of the mechanisms of participative program development that had a positive impact. This is indicated by the following statement: "I was highly committed to the development process,

because I saw great benefits and possiblities in using the program and I wanted to participate". This shows that users are willing to participate because they see potential in

applying the program to their jobs.

However, there were also mechanisms of participative program development that appeared to have negative impacts on the use of the introduced program. For instance, the impact of cognitive distance from users, as a result of not participating in the development process. This is indicated by the following statement: "If you do not join in with the

development process, as in my case, you end up having a cognitive distance which makes the program hard to use". This shows that when users did not participate in the developing

process, it is hard for them to actually use the program because they have a cognitive distance. Another mechanism that has a negative impact is the impact of users' feeling of working together. As stated: "I think the need to find each other, and together work on the

program should be greater so that I will actually use the program". This indicates that some