Just integrating or integrating justice?
Seepma, Aline
DOI:
10.33612/diss.128074337
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Seepma, A. (2020). Just integrating or integrating justice? Understanding integration mechanisms in criminal justice supply chains. University of Groningen, SOM research school.
https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.128074337
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
A
Aanestad, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2011). Building nation-wide information infrastructures in healthcare through modular implementation strategies. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(2), 161-176.
Abbott, A. (2001). Time matters. On theory and methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abell, P. (2004). Narrative explanation: An alternative to variable-centered explanation? Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 287-310.
Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236– 248.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2009). Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 57–80.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. a., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 301–319.
Andrade, A., & Joia, L. A. (2012). Organizational structure and ICT strategies in the Brazilian Judiciary System. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), S32-S42. Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., & Wilson, D. (2004). Using and validating the strategic alignment model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(3), 223-246.
B
Baltacioglu, T., Ada, E., Kaplan, M. D., And, O. Y., & Kaplan, Y. C. (2007). A New Framework for Service Supply Chains. The Service Industries Journal, 27(2), 105–124.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2015). The great theory hunt: Does e-government really have a problem?. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 1-11.
Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 30–42.
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 329–342.
Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Baum, C., & Di Maio, A. (2000). Gartner’s four phases of e-government model. Stamford, Ct., Gartner Group, 21, 12–6113.
Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2012). Digitizing government interactions with constituents: An historical review of e-Government research in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(5), 363-394.
Berman, E. M. (2008). Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bhakoo, V., & Choi, T. (2013). The iron cage exposed: Institutional pressures and heterogeneity across the healthcare supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 31(6), 432-449.
Boer, H., Boer, H. E., Demeter, K., & Szász, L. (2017). Towards a contingency theory of Operations Management. In International Conference of European Operations Management (EurOMA) proceedings.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: what’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.
Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organization theory. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can learn form one another: publicness theory as case-in-point. Organizational Studies, 34(2), 169–188.
Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–223.
Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 363–380.
Brandon-Jones, A., Lewis, M., Verma, R., & Walsman, M. C. (2016). Examining the characteristics and managerial challenges of professional services: An empirical study of management consultancy in the travel, tourism, and hospitality sector. Journal of Operations Management, 42–43, 9–24.
Brown, A., Fishenden, J. & Thompson, M. (2014). Digitizing government. Understanding and implementing new digital business models. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
C
Cabinet Office (2015). Open standards principles. [WWW Document] https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-standards-principles/open-standards-principles (Access date: 06/16/2016).
Callender, G. (2011). Alignment of inter-agency supply chains to enhance public sector performance management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(1), 9–23.
Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S., & Choi, T. Y. (2015). Toward the theory of the supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 89–97.
Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34, 15–42.
Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the Internet: “e‐Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16(2), 271-300.
Chan, Y. E., & Reich, B. H. (2007). IT alignment: what have we learned? Journal of Information Technology, 22(4), 297-315.
Chen, H. (2002). Digital government: technologies and practices. Decision Support Systems, 34(3), pp. 223‐227.
Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a theory of supply chain management: The constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management, 22(2), 119–150.
Christopher, M. (2000). The Agile Supply Chain - competing in volatile markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 37–44.
Ciborra, C. U. (2000). A critical review of the literature on the management of corporate information infrastructures. In Ciborra, C. U. & Associates (Eds.). From control to drift: the dynamics of corporate information infrastructures (pp. 15-40). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of information: challenging the wisdom of systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Contini, F. and Lanzara, G. (2009), ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector - European Studies in the Making of E-government, Cromwell Press Ltd, Trowbrdige, Wilthshire, UK
Coolsen, J. P. (2008). From the benches and trenches - case management innovation in a large, urban trial court: the critical importance of legal stakeholder attitudes. The Justice System Journal, 30(1), 70–90.
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. D. (1997). Supply Chain Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Cordella, A. & Bonina, C.M. (2012), A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection, Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520.
Cordella, A., & Iannacci, F. (2010). Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government enactment framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(1), 52–66.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of E-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.
Cousins, P. D., Handfield, R. B., Lawson, B., & Petersen, K. J. (2006). Creating supply chain relational capital: The impact of formal and informal socialization processes. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 851–863.
Criminal Justice System (2014). Criminal justice system digital business model. [WWW Document] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20140910020711/http://cjsdigitalmodel.org/ (Access date: 10/19/2017).
D
Dandurand, Y. (2014). Criminal Justice Reform and the System’s Efficiency. Criminal Law Forum, 25(3–4), 383–440.
Davison, R. M., Wagner, C., & Ma, L. C. (2005). From government to e-government: A transition model. Information Technology & People, 18(3), 280-299.
Dawes, S.S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377-394.
Dawes, S.S. (2009), Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), pp. 257– 264.
De Blok, C. (2015). How public service supply chains achieve integration : findings from five cases. In 22nd international annual European Operations
Management Association conference, 1–11.
De Blok, C., Seepma, A.P., Roukema, I.M., Van Donk, D.P., Keulen, B., Otte, R. (2014) Digitalisering in strafrechtketens. Ervaringen in Denemarken, Engeland, Oostenrijk en Estland vanuit een supply chain perspectief (Eng: Digitization in criminal justice chains. Experiences in Denmark, England, Austria and Estonia from a supply chain perspective). Groningen, SOM research report 14032 / Den Haag, WODC.
De Blok, C., Van Donk, D. P., Seepma, A. P., & Roukema, I. M. (2015). Applying supply chain logic to criminal law enforcement - the case of The Netherlands. In Z. Radnor & D. Upton (Eds.), Public Service Operations Management - a research
handbook. Routledge, 411-428.
Debri, F., & Bannister, F. (2015). E-government stage models: A contextual critique. In 48th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS). IEEE Computer Society, 2222-2231.
Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Sustersic, J., & Zajc, K. (2012). Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: Evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 19–29. Deloitte Research. (2000). At the dawn of e-government; The citizen as customer.
Deloitte and Touche.
Dobrzykowski, D. (2019). Understanding the downstream healthcare supply chain: Unpacking regulatory and industry characteristics. Journal of Supply Chain
Drupsteen, J., van der Vaart, T., & van Donk, D. P. (2013). Integrative practices in hospitals and their impact on patient flow. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 33(7), 912–933.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New Public Management Is Dead — Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.
Dutch Ministry of Safety and Justice (2014). Veiligheidsagenda 2015-2018. Den Haag. Dutch Ministry of Safety and Justice (2016). Brief aan Tweede Kamer: Resultaten
aanpak high impact crime. Den Haag.
E
Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. P. (2007). Report of a workshop on the “History & Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures”.
Edwards, P. N., Bowker, G. C., Jackson, S. J., & Williams, R. (2009). Introduction: An agenda for infrastructure studies. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 10(5), 364-374.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories form Case Study Research. Academy of
Management Reviews, 14(4), 532–550.
Ellram, L. M., Tate, W. L., & Billington, C. (2004). Understanding and Managing the service supply chain. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40(3), 17–32. Estermann, B. (2018). Development paths towards open government–an empirical analysis among heritage institutions. Government Information Quarterly,
35(4), 599-612.
European Commission. (2018). The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard. (European Commission, Ed.). Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. European Commission (2019). The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, European
Commission, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
F
Fath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R. E., & Idri, A. (2014). E-government maturity models: A comparative study. International Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 5(3), 71-91.
Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 438–464.
Fitzsimmons, J. A., Fitzsimmons, M., & Bordoloi, S. K. (2014). Service Management:
Operations, Strategy and Information Technology. (J. A. Fitzsimmons, M.
Fitzsimmons, & S. K. Bordoloi, Eds.) (8th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration
on performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of
Operations Management, 28(1), 58–71.
Flynn, B. B., Koufteros, X., & Lu, G. (2016). On Theory in Supply Chain Uncertainty and its Implications for Supply Chain Integration. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 52(3), 3–27.
Frohlich, M. T., & Westbrook, R. (2001). Arcs of integration: An international study of supply chain strategies. Journal of Operations Management, 19(2), 185–200. Fu, N., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., Morris, T., & O’Regan, P. (2013). Exploring the performance
effect of HPWS on professional service supply chain management. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(3), 292–307.
Fugate, B., Pagell, M., & Flynn, B. (2019). From the editors: introduction to the emerging discourse incubator on the topic of research at the intersection of supply chain management and public policy and government regulation.
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 55(2), 3–5.
G
Galliers, R. D. (2006). Strategizing for agility: confronting information systems inflexibility in dynamic environments. In Desouza, K. C. (Ed.). Agile
information systems: conceptualization, construction, and management, 1-15.
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Galliers, R. D., & Sutherland, A. R. (1991). Information systems management and strategy formulation: the stages of growth model revisited. Information
Systems Journal, 1(2), 89–114.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social
sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Giannakis, M. (2011). Conceptualizing and managing service supply chains. The
Service Industries Journal, 31(11), 1809–1823.
Giannakis, M. (2011). Management of service supply chains with a service-oriented reference model: the case of management consulting. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 16(5), 346–361.
Giannakis, M., Doran, D., Mee, D., Papadopoulos, T. and Dubey, R. (2018), The design and delivery of modular legal service: implications for supply chain strategy.
International Journal of Production Research, 56(20), 6607–6627.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Sayogo, D. S. (2016). Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: Understanding the main determinants of success.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Schneider, C. A., Pardo, T. A., & Cresswell, A. M. (2005).
Interorganizational information integration in the criminal justice enterprise: Preliminary lessons from state and county initiatives. Proceedings of the
38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 118-128, Hilton Waikoloa Village, Island of Hawaii.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational
Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
Gimenez, C., van der Vaart, T., & van Donk, D. P. (2012). Supply chain integration and performance: the moderating effect of supply complexity. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(5), 583–610.
Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: the missing `link in service design research?. Journal of Operations management, 20(2), 121-134.
Goldstein, S. M., & Naor, M. (2005). Linking publicness to operations management practices: a study of quality management practices in hospitals. Journal of
Operations Management, 23(2), 209–228.
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.
Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government.
Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 75–81.
Gottschalk, P., & Solli-Saether, H. (2008). Stages of e-government interoperability.
Electronic Government, an International Journal, 5(3), 310–320.
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133–150. Gualandris, J., & Klassen, R. D. (2018). Emerging Discourse Incubator: Delivering
transformational change : aligning supply chains and stakeholders in non-governmental organizations. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(2), 34–48.
Guijarro, L. (2007). Interoperability frameworks and enterprise architectures in e-government initiatives in Europe and the United States. Government
Information Quarterly, 24(1), 89–101.
Gunasekaran, A., & Ngai, E. W. (2004). Information systems in supply chain integration and management. European Journal of Operational Research,
159(2), 269–295.
Gupta, B., Dasgupta, S. and Gupta, A. (2008), Adoption of ICT in a government organization in a developing country: An empirical study, Journal of Strate,
Greuning, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of New Public Management.
International Public Management Journal, 4(1), 1–15.
H
Hanseth, O. (2013). Developing pan-European e-Government solutions: from interoperability to installed base cultivation. In Contini, F. & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.), The circulation of agency in e-Justice, 33 – 52. London: Springer.
Hanseth, O., & Bygstad, B. (2015). Flexible generification: ICT standardization strategies and service innovation in health care. European Journal of
Information Systems, 24(6), 645-663.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization
Studies, 38, 319–339.
Harland, C., Telgen, J., Callender, G., Grimm, R., & Patrucco, A. (2019). Implementing government policy in supply chains: An international coproduction study of public procurement. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 55(2), 6–25. Harvey, J. (2016). Professional service supply chains. Journal of Operations
Management, 42–43, 52–61.
Heeks, R. (2015). A better e-Government maturity model.
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information
Quarterly, 24(2), 243-265.
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal,
32(1), 4-16.
Henningsson, S., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2011). Inscription of behaviour and flexible interpretation in Information Infrastructures: The case of European e-Customs. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(4), 355-372. Hiller, J. S., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. In
Abramson, M. A. & Means, G. E. (Eds.), E-Government 2001, 162-198. Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield.
Hines, P., Martins, A. L., & Beale, J. (2008). Observations from the Legal Public Sector Testing the Boundaries of Lean Thinking : Observations from the Legal Public Sector. Public Mon, 28(1), 35–40.
HMCPSI-HMIC (2016). Delivering justice in a digital age.
Holguín-Veras, J., Amaya Leal, J., Sánchez-Diaz, I., Browne, M., & Wojtowicz, J. (2018). State of the art and practice of urban freight management: Part I: Infrastructure, vehicle-related, and traffic operations. Transportation
Hood, C. (1995). Contemporary public management: a new global paradigm?
Public Policy and Administration, 10(2), 104–117.
I
Iannacci, F. (2010), When is an information infrastructure? Investigating the emergence of public sector information infrastructures. European Journal of
Information Systems, 19(1), 35–48.
Iannacci, F. (2014). Routines, artefacts and technological change: investigating the transformation of criminal justice in England and Wales. Journal of
Information Technology, 29(4), 1–18.
Iannacci, F., Seepma, A.P., de Blok, C. and Resca, A. (2019), Reappraising maturity models in e-Government research: The trajectory-turning point theory. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(3), 310–329.
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.
J
Jacobs, F. R., & Chase, R. B. (2020). Operations and Supply Chain Management (Fifth Edit). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221-236.
Janssen, M., & Veenstra, A. F. van. (2005). Stages of Growth in e-Government: An Architectural Approach. Electronic Journal of E-Government, 3(4), 193–200. Johnson, J. L., Dooley, K. J., Hyatt, D. G., & Hutson, A. M. (2018). Emerging Discourse
Incubator: cross-sector relations in global supply chains: a social capital perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(2), 21–33.
K
Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2014). Linking collaboration and integration to risk and performance in supply chains via a review. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 19(5/6), 664–682.
Karlsson, C. (2016). Research in operations management. In C. Karlsson (Ed.),
Research methods for operations management2 (Second edi). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Karpovsky, A., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Aligning in practice: from current cases to a new agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 136-160.
Karpovsky, A., Hallanoro, M., & Galliers, R. D. (2014). Process of information systems strategizing: review and synthesis. In H. Topi & A. Tucker (Eds.). Information
Systems and Information Technology, Computing Handbook, Volume II,
66.1-66.28. Chapman and Hall: CRC Press.
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(4), 347–362.
Kauppi, K. (2013). Extending the use of institutional theory in operations and supply chain management research. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 33(10), 1318–1345.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method.
Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240.
Kim, D., & Lee, R. P. (2010). Systems collaboration and strateg collaboration: Their impacts on supply chain responsiveness and market performance. Decision
Sciences, 41(4), 955–981.
Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2009). Realizing joined-up government - Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information
Quarterly, 26(2), 275–284.
Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C., van Donk, D.P. and Zhang, X. (2019), Revisiting the link between ICT and SC integration, Working Paper.
Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Enserink, B. (2009). Public – Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability.
Public Administration Review, 69(2), 284–296.
Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review.
Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20.
L
Laing, A. (2003). Marketing in the public sector: towards a typology of public services. Marketing Theory, 3(4), 427–445.
Lam, W. (2005). Barriers to e-government integration. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 18(5), 511-530.
Lambert, D., & Cooper, M. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial
Marketing Management, 29(1), 65–83.
Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management.
Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 65–83.
Langbroek, P. M., & Tjaden, M. I. (2009). Organising data exchange in the dutch criminal justice chain. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 5(28), 8–26.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Lanzara, G. F. (2009). Building digital institutions: ICT and the rise of assemblages in government. In Contini, F. & G. F. Lanzara (Eds.), ICT and Innovation in
the Public Sector: European Studies on the making of e-Government, 9-48.
Basingstoke: Palgrave
Lanzara, G. F. (2013). The Circulation of Agency in Judicial Proceedings: Designing for Interoperability and Complexity. In Contini, F. & Lanzara, G. F. (Eds.), The
circulation of agency in e-Justice, 3 – 32. London: Springer.
Lasrado, L., Vatrapu, R. & Andersen, K. N. (2015). Maturity Models Development in IS Research: A Literature Review. Selected Papers of IRIS, Issue Nr 6.
Lasrado, L., Vatrapu, R., & Andersen, K. N. (2016). A Set Theoretical Approach to Maturity Models: Guidelines and Demonstration. ICIS 2016 Proceedings. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage
model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
Lee, H. L. (2000). Creating value through supply chain integration. Supply Chain Management Review, 4(4), 30–36.
Lee, J. (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 220-230.
Leuschner, R., Rogers, D. S., & Charvet, F. F. (2013). A meta-Analysis of Supply Chain Integration and Firm Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2), 34–57.
Lewis, M. a., & Brown, A. D. (2012). How different is professional service operations management? Journal of Operations Management, 30(1–2), 1–11.
Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163–172. Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined–up government in the UK: Dimensions, issues and
problems. Public Administration, 80(4), 615-642.
López, L., & Zúñiga, R. (2014). Dynamics of judicial service supply chains. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1447–1454.
Luftman, J. (2000). Addressing business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(14), 1-51.
Lupo, G. and Velicogna, M. (2018), Making EU Justice Smart? Looking into the Implementation of New Technologies to Improve the Efficiency of Cross Border Justice Services Delivery, in Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. (Ed.), Smart Technologies for Smart Governments, Springer, New York, NY, 95–121.
Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589-613.
M
Machuca, J. A. D., González-Zamora, M. del M., & Aguilar-Escobar, V. G. (2007). Service Operations Management research. Journal of Operations Management, 25(3), 585–603.
Madsen, C. Ø., Berger, J. B., & Phythian, M. (2014). The development in leading e-Government articles 2001-2010: Definitions, perspectives, scope, research philosophies, methods and recommendations: An update of Heeks and Bailur. In Janssen, Marijn,J., Scholl, H. J., Wimmer, M. A. & Edward, F. (eds.), Electronic Government, 17-34. Berlin: Springer.
Margetts, H. & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 371/1987.
Markman, G. D., & Krause, D. (2016). Theory building surrounding sustainable supply chain management: Assessing what we know, exploring where to go. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 3–10.
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.
Markus, M. L., & Rowe, F. (2018). Is IT changing the world? Conceptions of causality for Information Systems Theorizing. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 1255-1280.
Martins, A. L., & Crespo de Carvalho, J. (2013). Sliming Lead Times in Courts of Law – A Case Study. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory Applications and Practice, 4(3), 123–130.
Martins, A. L., & Crespo de Carvalho, J. (2015). The dynamics of the entities in the judicial system – their perceived value. In 22nd international annual European Operations Management Association conference, 1–10.
Matt, C., Hess, T. and Benlian, A. (2015), Digital Transformation Strategies, Business & Information System Engineering, 57(5), 339–343.
Matthews, L., Power, D., Touboulic, A., & Marques, L. (2016). Building bridges: toward alternative theory of sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(1), 82–94.
Maull, R., Geraldi, J., & Johnston, R. (1993). Service supply chains: a customer perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(4), 72–86.
Mcpherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in Action : Managing Institutional Complexity in a Drug. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196. Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet
technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113-121.
Meyer, S., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: the missing link in service design research? Journal of Operations Management, 20(2), 121–134.
Mignerat, M. and Rivard, S. (2009), Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 369– 391.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20-30.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage Publications.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Molnar, W. A., Nandhakumar, J., & Stacey, P. (2017). A Paradox of Progressive Saturation: The Changing Nature of Improvisation over Time in a Systems Development Project. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 18(11), 814-836.
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2016). Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 11–27.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
Murray, M. A. (1975). Comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35(4), 364–371.
N
Netchaeva, I. (2002). E-government and e-democracy. A comparison of opportunities in the north and south. International Communication Gazette, 64(5), 467–477.
New, S. (2004). Supply Chains: Construction and Legitimation. In S. New & R. Westbrook (Eds.), Understanding supply chains: concepts, critics and futures, 69–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine. Nograšek, J., & Vintar, M. (2014). E-government and organisational transformation
of government: Black box revisited?. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 108-118.
Nolan, R. L. (1979). Managing the crises in data-processing. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 115-126.
Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Public management: Performance, professionalism and politics. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Noordegraaf, M. (2016). Reconfiguring Professional Work: Changing Forms of Professionalism in Public Services. Administration & Society, 48(7), 1–28. Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing e‐government at the grassroots:
O
O’Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: Paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366.
O’Hara, K. (2014). Enhancing the quality of open data. In Floridi, L. & Illari, P. (Eds.), The philosophy of information quality, 201-215. London: Springer.
Olorunniwo, F. O., & Li, X. (2011). Information sharing and collaboration practices in reverse logistics. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(6), 454–462.
Ostrom, a. L., Parasuraman, a., Bowen, D. E., Patricio, L., & Voss, C. a. (2015). Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context. Journal of Service Research, 18(2), 127–159.
Osborne, S.P. (2010), Delivering Public Services: Time for a new theory?, Public Management Review, 12(1), 1–10.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.
P
Pagell, M. (2004). Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations , purchasing and logistics. Journal of Operations Management, 22, 459–487.
Pagell, M., Fugate, B., & Flynn, B. (2018). From the editors: introduction to the emerging discourse incubator on the topic of research where the focal actor in the network is not a for-profit firm. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(2), 1–2.
Pardo, T. A., Nam, T. & Burke, G. B. (2012). E-Government interoperability: Interaction of policy, management, and technology dimensions. Social Science Computer Review, 30(1), 7-23.
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2010). The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 443–471.
Pekkanen, P., & Niemi, P. (2013). Process performance improvement in justice organizations—Pitfalls of performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 143(2), 605–611.
Pekkanen, P., Puolakka, T. & Pirttila, T. (2018). Analysing courts as a professional service operations management environment. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 29(3), 332-358.
Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724.
Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 167-194. Peppard, J., Galliers, R.D., & Thorogood, A., 2014. Information systems strategy
as practice: micro strategy and strategizing for IS. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(1), 1–10.
Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267-292.
Poeppelbuss, J., Niehaves, B., Simons, A., & Becker, J. (2011). Maturity models in information systems research: Literature search and analysis. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 29(27), 505-532. Pomponi, F., Fratocchi, L., & Tafuri, S. R. (2015). Trust development and horizontal
collaboration in logistics: A theory based evolutionary framework. Supply Chain Management, 20(1), 83–97.
Ponsignon, F., Smart, A., & Maull, R. (2011). Service delivery system design: characteristics and contingencies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(3), 324–349.
Ponsignon, F., Smart, A. and Phillips, L. (2018), A customer journey perspective on service delivery system design: insights from healthcare mation, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(10), 2328–2347. Poole, M. S., Lambert, N., Murase, T., Asencio, R., & McDonald, J. (2016). Sequential
analysis of processes. In Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 254-270). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Pullman, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2018). Emerging Discourse Incubator: The
roles of institutional complexity and hybridity in social impact supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(2), 3–20.
R
Radnor, Z. J., Bateman, N., Esain, A., Kumar, M., Williams, S. J., & Upton, D. (2016). Public service operations management: A research handbook. (Z. J. Radnor, N. Bateman, A. Esain, M. Kumar, S. J. Williams, & D. Upton, Eds.) (1st edition). Abingdon: Routledge.
Radnor, Z., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Lean: A failed theory for public services? Public Management Review, 15(2), 265–287.
Radnor, Z., & Walley, P. (2010). Learning to Walk Before We Try to Run : Adapting Lean for the Public Sector. Public Money & Management, 28(1), 13–20. Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing public and private
organizations. Public Adiminstration Review, 36(2), 233–244.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. B. (2007). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81-113.
Reiling, D. (2012), Technology In Courts In Europe: Opinions, Practices And Innovations. International Journal for Court Administration, 4(2), 1–10.
Renaud, A., Walsh, I., & Kalika, M. (2016). Is SAM still alive? A bibliometric and interpretive mapping of the strategic alignment research field. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(2), 75-103.
Richey, R. G., Roath, A. S., Whipple, J. M., & Fawcett, S. E. (2010). Exploring a Governance Theory of Supply Chain Management: Barriers and Facilitators to integration. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(1), 237–256.
Rodriguez, J. A., Giménez Thomson, C., Arenas, D., & Pagell, M. (2016). NGOs’ initiatives to enhance social sustainability in the supply chain: poverty alleviation through suppier development programs. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(3), 83–108.
Rogers, K., Purdy, L., Safayeni, F., & Duimering, P. (2007). A supplier development program: rational process or institutional image construction? Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 556–572.
Rosenberg Hansen, J., & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying Strategic Management Theories in Public Sector Organizations: Developing a Typology. Public Management Review, 18(1), 1–19.
Roth, A. V, & Menor, L. J. (2003). Insights into service operations management: a research agenda. Production and Operations Management, 12(2), 145–164.
S
Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: Insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 12(2), 179–197. Saeed, K. A., Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (2005). Examining the impact of
interorganizational systems on process efficiency and sourcing leverage in buyer-supplier dyads. Decision Sciences, 36(3), 365–396.
Salomon, I. and Cohen, G. (1999), ICT and urban public policy: does knowledge meet policy? Serie Research Memoranda, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Sampson, S. E. (2000). Customer-supplier duality and bidirectional supply chains in service organizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(4), 348.
Sampson, S. E., & Spring, M. (2012a). Customer Roles in Service Supply Chains and Opportunities for Innovation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(4), 30–50.
Sampson, S. E., & Spring, M. (2012b). Service supply chain: introducing the special topic forum. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(4), 3–7.
Sanchez Rodrigues, V., Harris, I., & Mason, R. (2015). Horizontal logistics collaboration for enhanced supply chain performance: an international retail perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(6), 631–647.
Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2018). Understanding e-Justice and Open Justice through the assessment of judicial websites: toward a conceptual framework. Social Science Computer Review, 1–20.
Schmenner, R. W. (1986). How can service businesses survive and prosper? Sloan Management Review, 27(3), 21–32.
Schmenner, R. W. (2004). Service Businesses and Productivity . Decision Sciences, 35(3), 333–347.
Scott, P. G., & Falcone, S. (1998). Comparing public and private organizations: An exploratory analysis of three frameworks. American Review of Public Administration, 28(2), 126–145.
Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & van Donk, D. P. (2016). Inter-organizational ICT and integration: are public service supply chains that different? In presented ath 5th world conference on Production and Operations Management.
Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & Van Donk, D. P. (2020). Designing digital public service supply chains: four country-based cases in criminal justice. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, forthcoming.
Sengupta, K., Heiser, D., & Cook, L. (2006). Manufacturing and Service Supply Chain Performance : A Comparative Analysis. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 24(4), 4–15.
Seppälä, P., Kerkkänen, A., Pekkanen, P., & Pirttilä, T. (2013). Applying the operations management - approach to reduce process delays in justice courts. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(2), 131–147.
Siau, K. & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing E-Government stage models: A meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(4), 443–458.
Silvestro, R., Fitzgerard, L., Johnston, R., & Voss, C. (1992). Towards a classification of service processes. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 3(3), 62–75.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. (2016). Operations Management (8th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Solli-Sæther, H., & Gottschalk, P. (2010). The modeling process for stage models. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 20(3), 279-293
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. (2008). Contingency research in operations management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 697–713.
Staats, J., Bowler, S., & Hiskey, J. T. (2005). Measuring Judicial Performance in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 47(4), 77–106.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
Steelman, D. C., & Fabri, M. (2008). Can an Italian court use the American approach to delay reduction? The Justice System Journal, 29(1), 1–23.
Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization science, 8(5), 458-474.
T
The Director’s Guidance on Charging. First edition.
V
Valdés, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G., & Visconti, M. (2011). Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government maturity model in public agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 176–187.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.
Van der Vaart, T., & Van Donk, D. P. (2008). A critical review of survey-based research in supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(1), 42–55.
Vanpoucke, E., Boyer, K. K., & Vereecke, A. (2009). Supply chain information flow strategies: An empirical taxonomy. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 29(12), 1213–1241.
Velicogna, M. (2007), Judicial Accountability in the US State Courts Measuring Court Performance. Utrecht Law Review, 3(1), 129–147.
Venkatesh, V., Chan, F. K. Y., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2012). Designing e-government services: Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1–2), 116–133.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Chan, F.K. and Hu, P.J.H. (2016), Managing Citizens’ Uncertainty in E-Government Services: The Mediating and Moderating Roles of Transparency and Trust, Information Systems Research, 27(1), 87–111. Verma, R. (2000). An empirical analysis of management challenges in service
factories, service shops, mass services and professional services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(1), 8–25.
Vial, G. (2019), Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.
Victorino, L., Field, J. M., Buell, R. W., Dixon, M.J., Goldstein S.M., Menor, L.J., Pullman, M.E., Roth, A.V., Secchi, E., & Zhang, J.J. (2018). Service operations: what have we learned? Journal of Service Management, 29(1), 39-54.
Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011). The dark side of buyer-supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 561–576.
Voets, J., Van Dooren, W., & De Rynck, F. (2008). A Framework for Assessing the Performance of Policy Networks. Public Management Review, 10(6), 773–790. Voets, J., Verhoest, K., & Molenveld, A. (2015). Coordinating for Integrated Youth Care: The need for smart metagovernance. Public Management Review, 17(7), 981-1001.
Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. The Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155–174.
Voss, C. A., & Hsuan, J. (2009). Service Architecture and Modularity. Decision Sciences, 40(3), 541–569.
Voss, C.A., Roth, A.V. and Chase, R.B. (2008), Experience, service operations strategy, and services as destinations: Foundations and exploratory investigation, Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 247–266.
Voss, C.A., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.
W
Wang, Y., Wallace, S. W., Shen, B., & Choi, T.-M. (2015). Service supply chain management: A review of operational models. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(3), 685–698.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wemmerlöv, U. (1990). A taxonomy for service processes and its implications for system design. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1(3), 20–40.
Wenjing, L. (2011). Government information sharing: Principles, practice, and problems-An international perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 363–373.
West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.
Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: transaction cost economics and supply chain management. Journal, 44(2), 5–16.
Wong, C. Y., Boon-Itt, S., & Wong, C. W. Y. (2011). The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 604–615.
X
Xiao, C., Wilhelm, M., Van Der Vaart, T., & Van Donk, D. P. (2019). Inside the buying firm: exploring responses to paradoxical tensions in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 55(1), 3–20.
Y
Yang, T. M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164–175.
Yeow, A., Soh, C., & Hansen, R. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 43-58.
Yin, R. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and methods, Sage Publications, London. Yin R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Z
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W. (2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer-supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 318–328.
Zhang, X., van Donk, D. P., & Van Der Vaart, T. (2016). The different impact of inter-organizational and intra-inter-organizational ICT on supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(7), 803– 824.
Zhang, X., Van Donk, D. P., & Van der Vaart, T. (2011). Does ICT influence supply chain management and performance? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(11), 1215–1247.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W., & Yeung, J. H. Y. (2011). The impact of internal integration and relationship commitment on external integration. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1–2), 17–32.
Zuniga, R., & Murillo, R. (2014). Draining the judiciary bottleneck : A quasi-experiment in improving a government service. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1267–1276.
Introduction
Citizens of countries across the globe rely on their respective criminal justice system for safety and security. Such criminal justice system consists of criminal justice organizations, like police, public prosecution, and court, that work together and ensure the rule of law and good governance in a country. Given the impact of crime on individuals and society, a sustainable and trustworthy judicial system is crucial. Essential to criminal law enforcement is the seamless and effective exchange of information across criminal justice organizations. Reaching this requires criminal justice organizations to collaborate and align their processes. One of the potential difficulties in achieving collaboration and alignment relates to the multiple, sometimes contradicting, performance objectives the different criminal justice organizations have to reach. A second difficulty concerns the need for collaboration in the criminal justice setting that is used to rely on judicial as well as organizational independence. Governments and criminal justice organizations are looking for ways to improve their criminal law enforcement. In doing so, they face challenges in dealing with multiple performance aims and seeking improvement through collaboration. Politicians and criminal justice managers seek improvement solutions through applying supply chain management principles that are known for improving collaboration between organizations, streamlining activities and processes across organizations, and reaching shared performance aims. This thesis is motivated by the lack of managerial and theoretical understanding of supply chain management principles in criminal justice settings. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to explore how supply chain management –in particular, integration– is applied in criminal justice. We focus on the interactions between the police, public prosecution service, and court; core criminal justice organizations involved in the detection, investigation, and jurisdiction of high-impact crimes.
Theoretical foundation
Investigating the management of criminal justice supply chains involves multiple, related streams of literature. It is at the crossroads of three related fields; two sub-fields of operations management, i.e., supply chain management and service operations management, as well as the field of public management. Within the field of operations management, supply chain management focusses on the management, design, and improvement of inter-organizational processes, while service operations management focusses on the management, design, and improvement of service processes. Public management focusses on the distinct, context-specific, characteristics, and principles of public organizations and how these public organizations are managed, designed and improved. Each of these three streams provides relevant elements, i.e., principles and insights, that together provide the backbone for understanding and studying the management and integration of criminal justice supply chains as presented in Chapter 1. While the fields of supply chain management, service operations management, and public management provide useful insights for understanding and studying criminal justice supply chains, important research gaps can be identified for each of the research streams.
Supply chain management scholars have proven that supply chain management practices ensure supply chain performance improvement in for-profit settings (e.g., Leuschner et al., 2013; Van der Vaart & Van Donk, 2008). Organizations and supply chains that are motivated by equity and not-for-profit objectives would be expected to develop unique practices relative to for-profit ones (Pagell, Fugate, & Flynn, 2018). However, these practices are hardly understood and investigated in the public context (e.g., Pagell, Fugate, & Flynn, 2018). In essence, the current supply chain management theory provides an incomplete foundation for understanding the management and integration of public supply chains like criminal justice. Accordingly, as emphasized by some initial studies in public service supply chains (Dobrzykowski, 2019; Gualandris & Klassen, 2018; Harland, Telgen, Callender, Grimm, & Patrucco, 2019; Pullman, Longoni, & Luzzini, 2018), extending our theoretical and practical understanding is much needed.
Service operations management scholars acknowledge that in integrating service processes one has to take into account the professional (public) service characteristics. Also, service operations management scholars do acknowledge the inter-organizational nature of service delivery. Still, despite a widely acknowledged relevance, inter-organizational integration for adequate service delivery (Ellram, Tate, & Billington, 2004; Baltacioglu, Ada, Kaplan, Yurt And, & Cem Kaplan, 2007) and adequate professional service delivery (Fu, Flood, Bosak, Morris, & O’Regan, 2013; Lewis & Brown, 2012; Brandon-Jones, Lewis, Verma, & Walsman, 2016; Harvey, 2016), are hardly investigated. Additionally, despite the profound impact of public services on individuals and society, the public context is under-exposed in traditional service operations management research (Ostrom, Parasuraman, Bowen, Patricio, & Voss, 2015; Victorino et al., 2018).
Public management scholars focus on both political and economic objectives (Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow, & Tinkler, 2006; O’Flynn, 2007; Voets et al., 2008), but, little guidance has been provided with regards to organizational mechanisms supporting such performance within public service chains (Radnor and Osborne, 2013). In addition, despite the inter-organizational and interactive nature of public services, public management literature still has an intra-organizational focus (Osborne et al., 2013). Therefore, more research regarding the potential and the role of integration mechanisms like applying inter-organizational ICT is much needed. So far, little studies have focused on applying an inter-organizational focus, despite the calls for such focus.
In sum, as becomes evident from the research gaps, but also from recent calls for research into the management of public supply chains (Gualandris & Klassen, 2018; Johnson, Dooley, Hyatt, & Hutson, 2018; Pagell et al., 2018; Pullman et al., 2018; Rodriguez, Giménez Thomson, Arenas, & Pagell, 2016), scholars have largely ignored the importance of understanding the management of public supply chains like criminal justice.
Empirical studies
As provided in Chapter 1 the overall aim of this thesis is to explore how supply chain management –in particular, integration– is applied in criminal justice. We broaden and deepen the understanding of supply chain management by analyzing the application, design, and evolution of supply chain integration mechanisms in the context of criminal justice. We conducted three studies that together served the overall aim.
Application of integration in criminal justice supply chains
Literature has extensively discussed if and how public organizations differ from private ones. Publicness theory argues that four dimensions, i.e. ownership, funding, goal setting and control structure, determine the degree of publicness of an organization. However, these theoretical ideas have not been extended to the inter-organizational level so far. Such further research is needed as echoed in the sustained debate on applicability of for-profit management approaches in public contexts and supply chains. Consequently, the study presented in Chapter 2 investigates if supply chain integration, as understood in private settings, is applicable in pure public supply chains like criminal justice; and if integration is used for similar purposes. As a starting point for analyzing the criminal justice context and integration in criminal justice supply chains we used preexisting conceptual ideas from the publicness theory as well as from literature on supply chain integration and the specific criminal justice context. Publicness dimensions including ownership, funding, control structures and goal setting are known to affect management practices. In this study we consider specifically supply chain integration as the management practices of interest. Supply chain integration is conceptualized using existing – for-profit – supply chain integration insights, as a starting point for data collection and analysis. Based on 49 interviews, numerous documents, field visits and observations performed in three regional criminal justice supply chains in the Netherlands, we find that laws and regulations do not only serve to define the rules for criminal law enforcement, but also formalize the relations between criminal justice organizations. Criminal justice chains require integration mechanism to complement the laws, procedures and regulations in managing the interactions organizations. We find that integration mechanisms enabling informational integration, e.g. coordination of information transfer, collaborative communication and supporting technology aimed at sharing data and information, are extensively used. The same holds for operational integration, e.g. joint work processes and coordinated decision making. Relational mechanisms, e.g. establishing strategic connections characterized by trust, commitment and long-term orientation, are hardly used. Although similar integration mechanisms are used compared to for-profit supply chains, the mechanisms in criminal justice chains serve a different role; dealing with tensions stemming from the specific goal setting and stakeholders. Tensions are stemming from laws and regulations, the different performance aims, and the multiple stakeholders involved in the supply chain. Laws force intense corporation between criminal justice organizations like
the police and public prosecution service. However, at the same time, laws prohibit specific contacts between criminal justice organizations like courts and the public prosecution service. Differences in performance objectives across the criminal justice supply chain are aimed to serve the different stakeholders’ interests. Accordingly, the criminal justice system balances the individual rights of citizens and the societal needs for safety and justice, while it provides challenges to the cooperation between criminal justice organizations. We find that integration is used to maintain tensions related to laws and conflicting performance aims while mitigating these by (1) having extensive contact on the planning and decisions to be made in individual criminal cases, while avoiding the need for formal authority (e.g., between the police and the public prosecution service); (2) using shared procedures, formats and guidelines on information processing and sharing on a supra-criminal case level, while maintaining professional autonomy and independence in decision-making on the content of individual criminal cases (e.g., between public prosecution service and probation service); and (3) integrating in specific areas only, for example integrating planning-related information and processes to safeguard delivery time, while maintaining judicial independence (e.g., between public prosecution service and courts).
Design of ICT in criminal justice supply chains
In studying the use of integration mechanisms, as presented in Chapter 2, we observed that criminal justice organizations increasingly use information and communication technology (ICT) as an integration mechanism. Despite the potential benefits of using ICT in public service settings, appropriately designing and implementing these technologies has shown to be rather difficult. Up till now, research on the use of ICT in public services has mainly focused on digitizing information exchanges between public organizations and citizens and, thus, has largely ignored inter-organizational public settings. To improve understanding on how criminal justice supply chains redesign their information flows into digital ones, we performed a multiple case study, presented in Chapter 3. This multiple case study involves 36 interviews, numerous documents, field visits and observations conducted in four European criminal justice chains, focused on digital information exchange between police, public prosecution service and courts. We used the foundational work of Roth and Menor (2003) on service delivery design elements in combination with insights from current literature on factors influencing inter-organizational ICT and public service supply chain characteristics as initial starting point for this study. First, we find that there are two main possible approaches towards redesigning criminal justice supply chains into digital ones, i.e., digitization and digitalization. Digitization involves converting physical flows of information into digital ones, mainly focused on redesigning the mode of information, i.e. from paper-based to digital. Digitalization involves redesigning processes, procedures and practices supported by digital technologies. Based on the findings from the four European criminal justice chains investigated, it can be concluded that not being fully digital might be an appropriate solution for criminal justice supply chains. Second, we find that decisions related to using inter-organizational ICT
and applying integration mechanisms are distinct and therefore differently affect the configuration of the digital design. Using ICT across criminal justice organizations does not directly result in changes related to integration between these organizations. In addition, our findings show that the relationship between the use of ICT and performance is not straight forward as integration might play a mediating or moderating role.
Evolution of ICT in criminal justice supply chains
Currently, maturity models mainly build on the assumption that digital transformation is a result of an ongoing, progressive and stepwise process towards advanced, fully integrated digital systems. However, as also shown in Chapter 3, digitization in public supply chains involves appropriate organization of the service delivery process. Up till now, research has given little attention to the alignment of strategic and technological imperatives involved in digitizing public service supply chains like criminal justice. Therefore, Chapter 4 presents our study concerning the evolution of ICT in criminal justice supply chains over time. This study is built upon a literature review discussing maturity and strategic alignment models as well as a longitudinal case study concerning the digitization of information flows between police, public prosecution service and courts in England and Wales. This involved 17 interviews, 6 focus groups, numerous documents, observations and field visits. With this study we find that the evolution from paper-based to digital supply chains is an unpredictable process where organizational strategies and technological structures tend to mirror each other over time through a process of alignment. In addition, we show that this evolution involves multiple trajectories that are required to cope with institutional and operational barriers, instead of the often-assumed single progressive trajectory.
Conclusion
As specified in Chapter 5, the insights obtained in this thesis result in both theoretical and managerial insights as well as future research directions. The main contributions are to the fields of supply chain management, service operations management and public management.
We have three main contributions to the field of supply chain management. First, this thesis contributes to a broader and more in-depth understanding of supply chain integration. We provide a broader understanding as we conclude that well-known for-profit supply chain integration mechanisms are used in the criminal justice context. We provide a more in-depth understanding to supply chain integration as we find that the intensity and purpose of supply chain integration are influenced by the context and the nature of the supply chain. Second, we contribute to the understanding of supply chains by providing insight into the tensions that public supply chains encounter and how these tensions are dealt with. We show that integration mechanisms help to support justice, quality, and timeliness. We also show that tensions in supply chains do not always need to be
