Public Private Partnerships In Egovernment

Ensuring Project Success in Public-private Partnerships in e-government

A Pilot Study of Bygga Villa

Presentation atOffentliga Rummet 2007 www.offentligarummet.se

May 31, 2007

Robin [email protected]

Stockholm School of Economics

Inkeri [email protected]

Helsinki University of Technology

Teigland & Ruuska

2

Project and presentation overview

• We have a relatively poor understanding of the dynamics of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and in particular of triple helix partnerships in e-government

• In order to improve our understanding, we performed a pilot study of the e-government project, Bygga Villa, from May to October 2006, financed by Vinnova

• We found that triple helix partnerships are faced with significant challenges to success due to the potential for conflict from several sources

• However, this conflict can be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes by moving beyond project management to collective competence management

Teigland & Ruuska

3

We conducted relevant background research

• Review of academic literature– Public-private partnerships (PPPs)– Alliances and inter-organizational partnerships– Project management– Power

• Review of practitioner literature– EU documents on PPPs– World Bank documents on PPPs

• Interviews– Interviewed In-service Trainee for EU Commission General

Directorate for Regional Policy involved in PPPs

Limited understanding of the dynamics of public-private partnerships and in particular of partnerships focusing on

knowledge-based services

Teigland & Ruuska

4

UniversityBusiness

firm

Government

From PPPs to triple helix partnerships

•Public-private partnerships do not necessarily contain both government and university actors in addition to business actors•We prefer the term, Triple Helix Partnership, to represent the presence of all three actors and focus on innovation

Triple Helix Partnership (THP)•Limited understanding of triple helix partnerships•Limited understanding of partnerships with knowledge-based outcomes

Teigland & Ruuska

5

We conducted a pilot study of the project - May to September 2006

• Purpose– To develop a portal for all information and services that are

required for “Family Andersson” to effectively plan, build, and live in their house over time

• Consortium led by six partners from THP sectors– Lantmäteriet, Boverket, Sveriges Kommuner och

Landsting, Tekis AB, WM Data AB, Högskolan i Gävle

• Partially financed by Vinnova– Total ~15 MSEK for 2005-2008 (6.5 mln from Vinnova)

• More information at www.byggavilla.org

Teigland & Ruuska

6

www.mittbygg.seBeta test January to September 2007

Teigland & Ruuska

7

To improve our understanding, we focused on two research questions

1. What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships?

2. How can these challenges be overcome?

Teigland & Ruuska

8

We collected data primarily through interviews

• Ten ~2 hour interviews with individuals from partner organizations – Steering group

• Decerno/Tekis • Högskolan i Gävle• Lantmäteriet x 2 • Nacka kommun/Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting• WM-data

– Project management & project team• Decerno/Tekis • Högskolan i Gävle• Lantmäteriet x 2

• Secondary data in form of publicly available information on Bygga Villa

Teigland & Ruuska

9

Our research questions

• What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships?– Organizational conflict– Individual conflict

• How can these challenges be overcome?

Teigland & Ruuska

10

THPs are characterized by high conflict potential stemming from three primary sources

Organizational conflict

Taskinterdependence

Scarcity ofresources

Different goals

Adapted from Pfeffer 1981

Teigland & Ruuska

11

Government•To improve public services

•Greater public good•Electorate

Business•To realize profits

•Market opportunities•Shareholders

University•“To publish or perish”•Quest for knowledge

•Global academic community

Government, university, and business have differing underlying interests, purposes, and stakeholders

THP

Teigland & Ruuska

12

A closer look reveals even further differences…

• Differences within sectors– Government – From local to national actors– University – From theory to practice focus– Business – From service to product firms

• Different time horizons– From short term to long term

• Different nature of good produced– From private to public good

Teigland & Ruuska

13

… leading to a high diversity of underlying goals

Time horizon

Good produced

Private Public

Short

Long

Productfirm

Localgovt

Nationalgovt

Servicefirm

Theory

Practice

Teigland & Ruuska

14

We live in different worlds – researchers focus on creating new knowledge/

publications while companies want to develop products that can be sold. And it’s difficult to achieve real cooperation even if

you understand one another.

There are always culture crashes when researchers meet people from

the public and private sectors…it takes time to build bridges between

the different worlds.

Teigland & Ruuska

15

Required resources may have different levels of scarcity in the partner organizations

What leads to resource scarcity?

•Size of organization•Importance/priority of project to organization and business

Teigland & Ruuska

16

The higher the interdependence of the actors, the higher the potential for conflict

Pooled Sequential Reciprocal

HighLow

InterdependenceInterdependence

Thompson 1967

Teigland & Ruuska

17

Differences in how the partners view the project: Where is the project in the matrix?

Low visibility/importance

High visibility/importance

Open-endedsolution

Concretesolution

Briner, Hastings & Geddes, 1996

Occasional

Government actor

Business actor

Teigland & Ruuska

18

In addition to organizational level conflict, conflict may also arise at the individual level.

Organizationalconflict

Adapted from Pfeffer 1981

Individualconflict

Taskinterdependence

Scarcity ofresources

Different goals

Teigland & Ruuska

19

Diversity is one source of individual level conflict

• Surface diversity– Ethnic background, age, gender

• Structural diversity (deep-level)– Different training/educational and occupational backgrounds

• Learning histories, i.e., own patterns of information acquisition and use

• Perspectives on analyzing and solving problems • Example: Basic researcher vs politician vs salesperson

Teigland & Ruuska

20

The participants have quite different understandings of the project’s goals. So,

it’s really important to talk through everything and make sure that the right persons are there. And it’s important to

remember that the right organization does not necessarily mean the right person.

Teigland & Ruuska

21

Our research questions

• What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships?

• How can these challenges be overcome?

- Or how can conflict be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes?1. Project management

2. Collective competence management - Moving beyond project management

Teigland & Ruuska

22

1a. Develop a clear project charter

• Spend sufficient time specifying– What are the vision, purpose, and goals/objectives?– What are the “rules of the game”? – How are decisions to be made?– How are conflicts to be resolved?– How are resources to be supplied?

Teigland & Ruuska

23

The project was quickly on its way into the ditch. The members had not

spent enough time in the beginning talking through things.

Teigland & Ruuska

24

Reducing complexity to

something manageable

Identifying priorities and importance, sequence of

activities

Highlighting interdependenc

ebetween actors

and tasks

Creating a common language

My view….

Making views explicit

Why spend the time?

Teigland & Ruuska

25

1b. Select project manager with appropriate skills and competence

A networked host and politician• Ability to understand and

respect all stakeholder interests (individual and organizational)– Experience in different

organization types aligned with project focus

• Generalist as opposed to specialist

• Good communicator and contact maker

Steering Group

Project Team

Project Manager

Teigland & Ruuska

26

Our project leader really understands the different worlds of the project since he has

worked both as a practitioner and as an academic. He is good at networking and

communicating with everyone.

Teigland & Ruuska

27

1c. Align the project with the development phase

Basic research

Applied research

Marketintroduction

Marketgrowth

Product/service development phases

Project plan

Flexible “Set in stone”

Involvement & decision making authority

Academia Industry

Teigland & Ruuska

28

Our research questions

• What are the challenges to project success in triple helix partnerships?– Organizational conflict– Individual conflict

• How can these challenges be overcome?

- Or how can conflict be turned into creative conflict for successful outcomes?1. Project management

2. Collective competence management - Moving beyond project management

Teigland & Ruuska

29

What is collective competence?

Group’s ability to work together to solve problems and achieve common goals

Shared normsShared routines

Shared languageShared understanding

Created in the course of joint action and problem solving

Teigland & Ruuska

30

Collective competence

It’s really important to get a collective perspective in order for everyone to

understand the project’s core and to develop the project’s goals and outcomes…a critical point is when everyone is on the same page

and is able to look at the project with the same ”set of eyeglasses”.

Teigland & Ruuska

31

2a.Ensure continuous awareness of conflict sources

• Goals– How do the long term and short term goals differ? – How should the goals be defined?– How can a mutual understanding of the goals be reached?

• Resources– What resources are necessary for the project?– Where are they located in the partner organizations?– Are these resources secured for the project both in the

short-term and long-term?• Interdependence

– Which partners are dependent upon one another throughout the project?

– How are their tasks interdependent?

Teigland & Ruuska

32

2b. Conduct joint problem solving tasks

• Ensure participation by all partners in joint tasks from the very beginning of the project– Example: Development of project objectives

• Use boundary objects to facilitate understanding

Teigland & Ruuska

33

2c. Ensure continuous communication of overall picture by project manager

• Balance and respect partner interests– All partners’ interests important

• Link “big picture” with “little picture”– Balance long-term vision with

everyday operations – Avoid parochialism resulting from

partners receiving different information due to division of labor

• Communicate timely and continuously

Steering Group

Project Team

Project Manager

Teigland & Ruuska

34

2d. Create trust through open, balanced communication

Provide open forum for discussion between all partners, e.g., virtual project space

Teigland & Ruuska

35

We started to draw pictures for one another. ”Let’s make a simple sketch, what should the website look

like?” We started by drawing something on the computer, something visible around which we could

discuss. And then we had 3-4 workshops and invited a reference group to which we presented the

workshop results. It was important to get commitment and feedback and to ensure that the reference group had the same picture as we did.

Teigland & Ruuska

36

Creating collective competence on both project levels

1a. Develop clear project charter1b. Recruit appropriate project manager 1c. Align project plan with development

phase

2a. Develop continuous awareness of conflict sources

2b. Conduct joint problem solving tasks2c. Ensure continuous communication

of overall picture by project manager2d. Create trust through open, balanced

communication

Steering Group

Project Team

Project Manager

Teigland & Ruuska

37

What is project success?

Two types of project outcomes

1. Objective – Fulfillment of objectives on budget and on time

2. Subjective - Satisfaction with project by

partners

Leverage differences among participants to produce innovative and synergistic solutions

Teigland & Ruuska

38

Some questions for consideration

• What is the role of academia in triple helix partnerships?– To what degree should academia be involved?– In what phase(s) should academia be involved?

• What are the criteria for project selection?

• How do e-government partnerships differ from other kinds of triple helix partnerships?

Teigland & Ruuska

39

For more information…

• Presentation found at slideshare.net

• Madeleine Siösteen-Thiel, Vinnova– [email protected]

• Patrik Ottoson, ByggaVilla Project Leader (Lantmäteriet)– [email protected]

• Inkeri Ruuska, Helsinki University of Technology– [email protected]

• Robin Teigland, Stockholm School of Economics– [email protected]

Teigland & Ruuska

40

An international research duo

Robin Teigland, Ph.D.

• Assistant Professor, Stockholm School of Economics

• Teaching and research interests: Creation and diffusion of knowledge in networks of practice and the impact on a firm’s competitive advantage

• Doctorate in International Business, Stockholm School of Economics

• M.B.A. in Operations and Production Management in Multinational Organizations, The Wharton School

• M.A. in International Studies, University of Pennsylvania

• B.A. in Economics, Stanford University• Seven years of full-time international

business experience at organizations such as McKinsey & Co. and Esso

• Personal homepage: www.knowledgenetworking.org

Inkeri Ruuska, Ph.D.

• Associated Researcher, Stockholm School of Economics

• Teaching and research interests: Intra- and inter project learning, competence and knowledge management

• Doctorate in Work Psychology, Helsinki University of Technology

• Master of Law, University of Helsinki• Seventeen years of management and

consulting experience at organizations such as Merita Bank (Nordea) and Talent Partners Oy