Enterprise Systems in the Public Sector: Driving Forces and a Conceptual Framework

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an understanding of the driving forces in enterprise systems (ES) implementation in the public sector. The data in this multi-case study were collected in semi-structured interviews of City Hall employees in Poland, representing diverse levels of experience and authority. Based on these data, we identify six key concepts in ES public sector implementations and propose a conceptual framework to serve as guidance for implementation projects and provide a foundation for further research.

KEYWORDS:

• enterprise systems
• ES
• enterprise resource planning
• ERP
• driving forces
• public sector
• socio-economic development

Introduction

Enterprise systems (ES) are complex application software packages designed to support multiple functional areas of an organization and allow for comprehensive integration of organizational data. ES may greatly benefit an organization by reducing transaction costs and increasing efficiency and effectiveness (Chou & Chang, 2008), yet many ES implementations have fallen short of expectations or vastly exceeded the projected budget and delivery time. This uncertainty, together with the significance of ES for modern organizations, has resulted in ES implementations to receive much attention in academic research. However, most of this research has focused on the private rather than the public sector.

The public sector is an important (Fernandez et al., 2017) component of the economy, as its mission is to serve the populace by providing societal infrastructure. This includes legislative bodies, police and military services, public healthcare, public education, and public transportation. In essence, public sector organizations are organizations that serve the public purpose.

For over two decades, many organizations in the public sector have been adopting ES (Thomas & Jajodia, 2004), which in many cases have led to improved operational efficiency, better and more timely access to data for public decision makers, and more reliable information for the wider community, thus substantially impacting socio-economic development. ES also constitute an important platform for electronic government (Wagner & Antonucci, 2009), defined as the use of various information technologies to provide government services (Carter & Belanger, 2005). Electronic government (or e-government) can advance socio-economic development by furthering increased transparency and thus reducing corruption, and by facilitating a higher level of political control over public administration (Grönlund & Horan, 2005).

However, there is a scarcity of research on ES focusing specifically on the public sector, and the existent reports are fragmented, incomplete, and inconsistent (Alves & Matos, 2013; Spano et al., 2009). In particular, very little is known about the driving forces related to ES implementations. This lack of a reliable body of knowledge to back ES implementations in the public sector provides the motivation of our research. Though ES have evolved considerably over time, with new technologies increasingly adopted, the basic definition of ES remains the same, as discussed in the following background section. Thus, our focus is not on specific technologies, but on any large-scale enterprise-wide systems.

Research findings from the private sector cannot always be transferred to the public sector (Kumar et al., 2002). One very important difference between the public and private sectors is the availability of resources and their disposal options, as the private sector is less restricted and less regulated in acquiring and spending financial resources. In addition, in the public sector, larger information systems, such as ES, are acquired through public tender, and preparing a public tender requires specifying the system needs in detail, leaving less flexibility in the implementation process.

Another feature which differentiates many public agencies both on a local and national level from private organizations is a complex organizational structure with disconnected responsibilities and rigid requirements established by broad regulations and internal authorities. All these factors severely limit implementations of ES to follow typical commercial solutions, and the critical success factors for ES implementations in the public sector may differ significantly from the critical success factors for ES implementations in the private sector.

To address this research gap, our main objective in the current research is to identify the most important driving forces that affect ES implementations in the public sector, where driving forces are defined as any factors that provide impetus behind the processes and decisions that bring about the ES realization. To this end, we pose the following research question:

What driving forces are instrumental in the implementation of an enterprise system in the public sector and what are the relationships between these driving forces?

To answer our research question, we use an exploratory case study approach. Data collection is via semi-structured interviews and archival document analysis. The results from six organizations in the public sector are then used to construct a conceptual framework, to help organize our observations and show relationships between various factors or concepts.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The next section presents background information on ES in the public sector, including a working definition of the public sector, as well as a brief review of the current landscape of ES research in the public sector. Following this, we describe our research approach. Then, after presenting and discussing the results of our investigation, we propose a conceptual framework, which discerns the most important factors that may drive ES implementations in the public sector. We conclude our paper by summarizing our contribution to the existing body of knowledge and proposing several promising avenues for future research.

Background

Enterprise systems

ES are complex application software packages that support the operation of the whole enterprise and integrate multiple functional areas. Frequently, the terms Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and ES are used interchangeably, however ES more generally refers to large enterprise-wide systems, including ERP systems as well as CRM (customer relationship management) and SCM (supplier change management) systems along other large integrated systems. Essentially, an ES is a comprehensive database that collects, stores, and provides data across the whole organization (Davenport, 1998). The main advantage of this enterprise-wide database approach is that data needs to be entered only once and can be retrieved and used across various functional departments and business units, including, for example, data provided to managers for organizational decision making (Bingi et al., 1999).

Since the 1990s, ES have increasingly been employed as replacements for various department specific legacy systems (Holland & Light, 1999). ES consist of multiple modules, such as financials, human resources, operations and logistics, sales, and marketing (Davenport, 1998), and can be tailored to accommodate the specific needs of a given organization (Esteves & Pastor, 2001). ES allow for the seamless integration of all information flows in an organization, such as financial and accounting information, human resource information, supply chain information, and customer information (Davenport, 1998). Ideally, implementation of an ES will allow an organization to reduce transaction costs and improve productivity and client satisfaction (Beheshti & Beheshti, 2010; Tsai et al., 2010).

Notwithstanding its potential, ES implementations are highly risky projects and frequently exceed schedules and budgets (Parr & Shanks, 2000). Implementation of an ES is a big effort that puts much strain on the organization (Koch & Mitlöhner, 2010; Zeng & Skibniewski, 2013), and though many ES implementation projects start with great anticipations, they often do not meet these expectations. Qu et al. (2014) suggest that ES implementations may improve organizational flexibility but have a negative effect on process flexibility. While many enterprises have experienced substantial improvements in their operations and an increase in productivity, there have also been many less than successful implementations that, in some cases, have led to the total abandonment of the system and even to bankruptcy (McNurlin & Sprague, 2002). Some authors estimate that the failure rate for ES projects ranges from 40 to 60% (Liang et al., 2007). Though ES have evolved over time with new technologies becoming available, the basic premise for ES as to benefits and risks seems to have remained the same. Mullins and Cronan (2021) more recently suggest that many organizations “continue to struggle” while implementing ES.

Thus, considering the potentially great benefits of ES adoption together with the high risk involved, it is not surprising that ES implementation has attracted much attention by academic researchers. However, most of this research has been conducted in the context of the private sector, whereas published research on ES in the public sector is comparatively scarce.

Public sector

The public (or state) sector consists of public services and public owned enterprises. The public sector’s primary purpose is to provide services that are deemed essential for the well-being of society (privacysense.net, 2016). Public services may include national defense, law enforcement, public transportation, public education, public health care, and physical infrastructure, such as public roads, water supply, electrical grids, and telecommunications, as well as administration, i.e., government itself. Public owned enterprises are state or community owned organizations, but different from public services, they are largely self-financing and operate much like private sector businesses, though often with more government regulation. Using Lane’s (1993) extensive discussion on the concept of the public sector, we adopt the following definition: The public sector comprises all organizations that are controlled or funded by the government and which exist to provide specific services to society, where government may be at the local, regional, or national level.

Organizations that are not part of the public sector are either part of the private sector or the voluntary sector. The private sector is composed of organizations that are not owned by the government and that are mainly intended to earn a profit for their owners. Private sector organizations are expected to compete effectively in the market (Murray, 2021). The voluntary sector, also called the third sector or nonprofit sector, consists of non-governmental, not-for-profit groups and organizations whose purpose is to benefit and enrich society(privacysense.net, 2015). The voluntary sector provides specific services to sections of society, and includes charitable organizations, nonprofit private schools and universities, nonprofit private hospitals, etc.

Rainey et al. (1976) point to the differences in the external environments of the public and the private sectors. These include less exposure to the market, more legal and communal constraints, and strong political influences for organizations in the public sector. Public sector organizations are also faced with definite expectations, as the general populace demands more accountability, fairness, honesty, and responsiveness (Rainey et al., 1976). Since many of the organizations in the public sector are fully or partially financed by tax revenues, they generally undergo considerable scrutiny from the community. In general, managers in the public sector have less flexibility in hiring, reassigning, and removing employees. They also have less discretion in setting compensation level of their employees. Because of public scrutiny and the highly regulated organizational environment in the public sector, not following proper or approved procedures may lead to disciplinary or even criminal penalties. However, success in a public sector organization is likely to only result in relatively modest rewards for the responsible actors. Thus, it may be expected that managers in the public sector are more risk averse than managers in the private sector.

Enterprise systems implementations in the public sector

As stated earlier, published research on ES in the public sector is relatively scarce (Alves & Matos, 2013). However, the modest existing repository of literature dealing with ES in the public sector indicates that there are noteworthy differences between ES implementations in the public sector and in the private sector (e.g., Kumar et al., 2002; Seres et al., 2019; Sommer, 2011). Since ES in the public sector commonly require public tender, specifics of the desired system need to be documented in advance. Thus, organizations in the public sector do not have the luxury to start the implementation project with only rough planning, and then adjust expectations and resource allocations as needed with the progress of the project. The whole public tender is under public scrutiny, and vendor selection must be thoroughly documented. Public sector organizations are generally limited to using only vendors that participated in the public tender, limiting choices.

ES implementation projects are also affected by the specific culture in public sector organizations (Kumar et al., 2002), as employees in the public sector have different expectations and viewpoints regarding organizational commitment, incentives and job satisfaction, and business processes. Blick et al. (2000) state that small business teams that are focused on meeting business process requirements are central to the organizational structure in the public sector.

In the earlier phases of ES popularity, a key motivation for implementing ES in the private sector has been obtaining and maintaining competitive advantage (Zmud et al., 2004). Nowadays, ES have become a necessity for businesses just to survive in the market. In the public sector, competitive advantage or even competitiveness is of less concern, as public sector organization typically do not compete directly against other organizations. Frequently, in the public sector, ES are implemented for primarily technical reasons and are viewed as technology-driven projects (Kumar et al., 2002). Based on public data of 46 accounts on ERP implementations in the public sector, Raymond et al. (2006) investigated what motivates public sector organizations to adopt this technology. The results of their study indicate that public sector organizations implementing ERP systems fall into three categories: those primarily motivated by improving process efficiency, those motivated by integrating diverse existing technologies, and those driven by strategic perspectives.

Several authors agree that top management support, effective project and change management, clear goals and missions, sound knowledge and competences within project teams, effective communication, and solid training enable successful ES implementation (Al-Harthi & Saudagar, 2020; Ziemba & Oblak, 2013). However, the study by Seres et al. (2019) points out the difference in importance of these factors in the public sector as compared to the private sector.

There is disagreement as to the significance of re-engineering of business processes, where Allen et al. (2002) claim it to be a key factor, while Al-Harthi and Saudagar (2020) found it to have only modest or non-existent impact. The importance of vendor support is also contended, with Al-Harthi and Saudagar (2020) and Bukamal and Abu Wadi (2016) proclaiming it a critical success factor that notably affects ES implementation, while a previous study by Crisostomo (2008a) did not find any significant relationship between vendor involvement and ES implementation success. Sommer (2011), investigating the role of middle management in public ERP implementations, surmises that one of the reasons that many ERP implementations do not result in the expected improvements to the bottom line is due to the requirement for consensus-based decision-making and the lack of individual decision-making authority by managers in the public sector. Sommer asserts that the role of middle management is much more critical to the success of public sector ERP implementations than in corresponding private sector efforts. Sommer also found that public sector project managers at all levels seem to be quite unprepared to deal with the complexities of ERP and do not fully understand the close association between the underlying business process architecture and the business transactions executed by the software.

Despite many past studies having focused on identifying critical success factors of ES implementation, no consensus has been reached, and further research in this area is called for. Also, not much research has been published specifically on the driving forces that may affect ES implementations in public organizations, as opposed to critical success factors. Al-Harthi and Saudagar (2020), among others, suggest to also direct further research toward investigating the interrelations among drivers affecting ES implementation.

Methodology

As the main methodology of this research, we followed a case study approach. As recommended by Yin (2014), we used multiple sources of evidence, viz interview transcripts and archival documents. Case study research focuses on understanding the dynamics of processes (Eisenhardt, 1989), such as in ES implementations, and is particularly useful in developing theory. Since our objective is to build a conceptual framework, the multiple case study approach seems particularly suitable, as it allows for wider exploration of the research questions than a single case study. An important driving force identified in one case, and then confirmed in other cases, provides for a stronger empirical grounding in the construction of our conceptual framework. Our research question guided us to approach specific organizations in the public sector that had implemented or were in the process of implementing ES. Figure 1 summarizes the main phases of our study.

Figure 1. Research Phases.

The first phase of our research project consisted of reviewing the existing literature for relevant concepts or driving forces in the implementation of ES systems in the public sector.

In the second phase we build an interview scenario and prepared a set of questions. The intention of these questions was to confirm or disprove the validity of concepts identified from the existing literature and possibly identify additional influential factors or drivers. The interview questions were designed to correspond to the information sought for answering our research question. Thus, the main directions of the interview questions deal with identification of drivers in ES implementations and their interrelationships, as well as good implementation practices, perceived by the interviewees as significant to a successful ES launch. The list of interview questions is included in Appendix 1.

The third phase was our primary data collection. In May 2019 we conducted a pilot study in one of the City Halls (or City Administration Offices/in Polish: Urzędy miasta) in Poland, which had implemented a large ES several years prior to our study and agreed to participate in our research. During the pilot study, we conducted and recorded 11 interviews. The pilot study confirmed that our question set was appropriately designed, and only minor changes were needed. We also used the experience gained from the pilot study to refine our research strategy and decided to contact five additional City Halls.

In the following three months, between June and August 2019, we conducted and recorded a total of 27 additional interviews in four City Halls in Poland. We intended to conduct interviews with only one person at a time, however on one occasion, as we were interviewing one person, another employee working at the same City Hall spontaneously joined in the conversation and interview process. Thus, one of the 27 interviews conducted in the four additional City Halls included two interviewees. In total, 27 interviews in four City Halls provided input from 28 employees.

In the fifth City Hall that we contacted, the IT managers were concerned with our recording of the interviews, however they expressed support for our research and asked us to provide them with written questionnaires including all our interview questions. They then distributed these questionnaires among their employees and IT specialists working under contract and asked them to respond in a written form. In total, written responses from 11 respondents were returned to us.

Overall, including the pilot study, we conducted 38 semi-structured interviews (one interview with 2 interviewees) in five City Halls, and we received 11 written responses from respondents who preferred to be not recorded. Thus, altogether we received input from 50 employees working in various positions at six City Halls and representing various levels of authority, such as vice-presidents of the cities, mayor’s proxies, various directors, deputy directors, head of departments, IT managers, IT staff, and general ES users.

In the fourth phase, the interviews were transcribed and systematically analyzed to identify major emerging concepts. Details of the interviewed persons, including the City Hall at which they were employed (City Hall A, B, C, D, E, F), type of position held, form of obtained information, and the duration of the interviews can be found in Appendix 2. The transcribed material was further analyzed with the use MAXQDA,¹ a software program designed for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis. MAXQDA can assist with organizing, managing, and analyzing large quantities of text data collected in interviews (Lewins & Silver, 2014). Conducting open coding, a process of identifying and labeling concepts that emerge from in-depth analysis of data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), we arrived at an initial list of codes representing influential factors in ES implementation, such as financial incentives, financing of trainings, promotions, and self-motivation (see Appendix 3 – coding tree developed in MAXQDA).

In the fifth phase, we applied axial coding to identify the relationships between the codes and combine the initial codes into categories. For instance, the initial codes financial incentives, financing of trainings, promotions, and self-motivation were combined into the category employee motivation. Subsequentially, selective coding was applied to define, develop, and bring categories together to create and select meta-categories and provide a story. Consequently, the categories political leadership, employee motivation, commercial base, financial resources, government regulations, and vendor quality resulted in the meta-category driving forces of ES implementation (see Appendix 3 – coding tree developed in MAXQDA). Thus, in essence, in the fifth phase we transformed the initial list of conceptual labels into larger categories that became the building blocks of our conceptual framework, the six driving forces for ES implementation. In the actual process of constructing our conceptual framework we roughly followed the methodology proposed by Jabareen (2009). However, we had to modify Jabareen’s approach, as we constructed our conceptual framework not only based on the literature, but primarily based on our interviews.

The sixth phase was focused on identifying relationships between the driving forces (key concepts) and their effects on ES implementation. To that effect, in coding of our interview transcripts in MAXQDA, we searched for evidences as to how these six concepts influence each other as indicated by the interviewees. The results of the sixth phase represent the connections between building blocks of our conceptual framework that will serve as guidance for future ES implementation projects in the public sector as well as provide a foundation for future research.

The objective of the seventh phase, not conducted yet and to be covered in a follow-up project, is validating, and refining the preliminary conceptual framework. To this effect, a survey instrument will be developed. This instrument or questionnaire will be tested with a small focus group of various stakeholders of an ES system in one of the City Halls previously targeted. Furthermore, a database of City Councils that have implemented ES and pertinent contact people will be compiled. After pilot testing, validating, and possibly modifying the initial survey instrument, potential respondents included in the database will be contacted and asked to participate in the survey. The objective of this phase is to collect about 400 valid responses from Information Technology specialists and end-users of an ES from a minimum of ten City Councils. Data collected via the survey will be analyzed using conventional data analysis as well as techniques such as explanatory factor analysis.

Results

Using the methodology described in the previous section, using open coding and grouping the identified labels into broader themes, we arrived at six distinct concepts (or six major driving forces) affecting ES implementation. We labeled these six concepts, which came up in many of the interviews and appeared to be especially important to our interviewees, as political leadership, employee motivation, commercial base, financial resources, government regulations, and vendor quality. These concepts are further explained in the following sub-sections.

Political leadership

Political leadership can be described as the exercise of authority over activities and concerns of individuals or groups. This political leadership is carried out by elected or administratively appointed persons, or other individuals equipped with the tools necessary to affect the behavior of those under their responsibility. For our purpose, we define political leadership as a group of people associated with local authorities, exercising their authority over the actions and affairs of entities in a public organization. One of the interviewees stated:

… support from top management is important for ES implementation, and I would like to make that clear here, even if [management] changes after an election. (…) on the one hand this just sounds like a slogan, but until a situation arises in which the new political leaders, to put it gently, do not support the decisions of the previous authorities, it is not obvious that this is an element that may be so critical for a successful implementation process. Also, [it is important] for the provisions of the contract, or for attempts to modify the contract. It is also obvious that all attempts [to change a contract] must also be accepted by the other party. (…) When the change of authority happens in a smooth manner, that is, when the political views of the new president or the new government concur with the previous ones, there is no such contentious tendency to renounce these works or just to cancel them. (Interviewee 32)

The high impact, both in extent and sway, of current local political leadership on ES implementation at the City Hall arose in many of the interviews. Often, high-ranking city officials were pushing for adoption of new ES, and often, appointed representatives were directly overseeing the ES implementations. Examples of interviewee responses are:

When the idea to implement the system arose, there was a presidential agreement to do so (…) [the president] appointed people responsible for this implementation. The director of the department and the City Secretary were strongly involved. A meeting with all governors, directors, and heads of departments or divisions was organized in each district, during which the project (…), its assumptions, and the schedule were presented. (Interviewee P1)

Support and commitment from the top were always [present], yes. Well, we cannot imagine the implementation of a system that people would want to use if they do not see any sense in it. (Interviewee P6)

… the [ES implementation] team consisted of the employees of the department here, headed by the President’s proxy. (Interviewee P9)

The ES project manager is the secretary of the City Hall. Also, here people from high positions in the local government hierarchy are involved. (Interviewee P38)

However, in two out of the six City Halls (A and C) some interviewees stated that when the city president considered to implement a key ES or additional significant system functionality, decisions to implement were undertaken collegially by a special committee consisting of the highest-ranking City Hall officers, including among others, politically involved city president’s advisers, the directors of the IT service department, and possibly external experts.

… we have such a structure at the management, strategic, strictly principal level, i.e., we have a steering committee. (Interviewee P2)

When it comes to the Integrated Education Management System, there was a team that emerged from the public tender procedure team. (…) we had an external company, an external project manager. They certainly made a huge and substantive contribution [in managing the ES implementation] (Interviewee P28)

The deputies to city presidents often wielded immense influence. City presidents often viewed ES implementation as part of their political agenda. They have the authority to decide whether to implement the ES or not. Nevertheless, in practice, not every proposal to implement an ES system comes directly from an individual political leader. Rather, it can result from internal initiatives and the needs of the City Hall, while the political leadership still holds a decisive influence on the direction of the project implementation.

It’s not that the conception always comes from the president. The president is listening, and he is ready to take note, to see how it [the ES] works. He says, “Okay, keep doing that.” (…) Then the report is prepared (…) and we wait. There may be comments, or there may be no comments. Truth? When there are no comments, [we assume] acceptance, we move on (…) We have to keep proving to the authorities that what we are doing is useful, that [the system] makes sense, and it is worth using. (Interviewee 25)

It is also quite possible that the local political leadership itself is influenced in their decisions by political party executives, national governmental bodies, international organizations and/or multinational corporations.

Employee motivation

Many interviewees expressed the conviction that motivation is vital in ES implementation. We define employee motivation as the desire and commitment of individuals in an organization to do their job well. This includes willingness to follow directions from supervisors as well as personal enthusiasm for their work activities. Employee motivation may be extrinsic, fueled by external rewards, or intrinsic, doing an activity for its inherent satisfaction. Both types are considered important. During our interviews, on one hand self-motivation and faith in the mission of their work (serving the community) were raised as important issues related to work in the public sector in general. On the other hand, incentives, including financial ones as well as receiving training for new technology, were mentioned as being likewise important. Some of the interviewees stated:

For me, the biggest factor for success was the people. (…) I think that if it weren’t for those people who were on the team, I don’t know if we would have succeeded. How were we motivated? Probably some of the people who were on this working team positively influenced others. We also provided some financial incentives and some kind of acknowledgments. (Interviewee P3)

… we were motivated by the fact that we are doing something new. (…) we felt internally on the project team that it would simply lead to good changes inside the organization … (Interviewee P10)

We, as a team, [tried to] motivate others, not from the team itself, but from the City Hall, because we also needed information from them. We also had to implement the ES for them so that they could perform their functions on this system. But financial resources were also a motivation. (Interviewee P30)

… I can tell you what works. Monetary rewards are not the best; motivation in the form of paying for training is much more effective. (Interviewee P2)

Frequently, the advantages of the new system and the reasons for implementing it were presented at numerous meetings before and during the actual implementations. This was perceived as a way to convince those employees most resistant to change of the opportunities offered by the ES. This issue was very clearly expressed in several responses from interviewees at the City Hall A, as the excerpt below shows:

The meetings organized by the director of the Organization Department were aimed at familiarizing us with this project (…), informing us about the benefits to us and also about the value added (…) It was also presented in a very positive light, in the context of [the success of other City Halls ES implementations]. (Interviewee P1)

Commercial base

In line with Roztocki and Weistroffer (2016), we define the commercial base as the sum total of business activities in a locality. Several interviewees stated that the size of the city together with the opportunities offered by the commercial base, exemplified by recorded enterprises and their economic capabilities, brings higher inflows for the city’s budget, both from the businesses directly, as well as from people employed by these entities and living within the city boundaries. The interviewees perceived this issue as follows:

… when any [new] functionalities were introduced, so that the City Hall is to operate uniformly, (…) the departments had to adapt to the operation of the [new] system. Often, we said that we (…) needed something in a specific way. But that had to be agreed on by all of City Hall. (…) On the other hand, if the finance department said that something should be (…) in the contract, it was forced on all departments. It does not change the fact that (…) [the vendor] did not always want to do what we wanted because other cities wanted it different. (…) often because (…) [city C] is big, they [the vendor] did what they asked them to do. Because we always have specific issues. (Interviewee P31)

I think that now there are also greater demands from our clients. And that is why there is an attempt to meet these requirements somewhere, and here is probably where the role of our President’s proxy comes in, who will want to somehow make the City Hall respond to the needs of clients [businesses and residents]. (Interviewee P31)

To summarize, a stronger commercial base provides opportunity to collect more taxes and fees, issue bonds, and receive loans and subsidies, and thus may result in higher levels of financial resources.

Financial resources

In many interviews it became very apparent that City Halls with a higher level of financial resources were in a much better position to pursue ambitious projects. In simple terms, financial resources are defined as the funds available to an organization for spending. This includes any assets that can be turned into cash. In public tenders, cities with better financial resources were able to attract more vendors to participate in the public tender and thus had more choices, allowing them to be more selective.

… the possibilities of the project budget are not that flexible, after all it results from the city budget. A certain amount is allocated for this, and [depending on] this amount, we must complete this task with a cheaper or more expensive system. Often the type of system you get depends on how much money you have. It’s not like we want the best system because we have unlimited budget options. I am afraid there is no such city in Poland (…) (Interviewee P5)

Funds, if available in the budget [allow implementation of the needed system]. I think that with their [the funds] proper commitment, creating and implementing any system will bring the effects anticipated by everyone. (Interviewee P8)

In many cases, the magnitude of financial resources is related to the commercial base, but additional funds from central government or international organizations may supplement the available financial resources.

Government regulations

We define government regulations as any rules prescribed by high-level authorities to manage and restrain the way something is done, or the way people behave. Government regulations control the way organizations can operate and define the bounds of permissible behavior. This includes directives and protocols that impact information systems in the public sector.

New regulations or initiatives may force implementations of new information systems. For example, during the time of our interviews, the Polish government was in the process of implementing a program called “Rodzina 500+” (In English “Family 500+). This program went into effect on 1 July 2019 and provides child support in the amount of 500 polish zloty per child. There are no income criteria and children up to the age of 18 are eligible. Since a large number of applications was expected, a portal was created to make sure that the applications were handled in an efficient manner. Thus, the City Halls at which our interviews were conducted had little choice but to comply with this new government regulation and to find the most effective and efficient way to implement a new system. In response to the question why the new system was implemented, interviewees stated:

… those were requirements from acts of law. It was a bit of an ordeal imposed on local governments in Poland that this management control was introduced here. (Interviewee P7)

First and foremost, the [implementation of ES] was imposed by an act of law. (Interviewee P11)

Vendor quality

Some vendors seem to be more supportive than others. In many interviews it became very apparent that vendor quality is a central concern. We define vendor quality as the ability of a supplier to deliver goods or services that satisfy the customer expectations. A dedicated vendor who understands the limitations and needs of the public sector is invaluable for the project. High vendor quality results from experience in delivery of ES in the public sector, experience in updating software because of changes in the regulations, being familiar with administrative procedures and functioning of the public organizations, recommendations prepared by previous public sector clients, and especially their opinion in terms of further post-implementation support. It was emphasized that experience by the vendor in delivering ES to a public organization was required in the specification of the public tender.

Additionally, interviewees from all City Halls agreed that vendors should be not only involved just in delivery of the ES, but also in providing additional services before, during and after ES implementation, such as trainings of staff and offering ongoing support. If these services are not provided by a vendor, the vendor’s quality should be assessed as poor. Some of our interviewees stated:

… if we create something new, and we do not buy an already complete product (…) there is always a risk of [inferior] integrity, performance, [and less] contractual flexibility [with respect to the vendor] … (Interviewee P6)

These are definitely two routes [for support after ES implementation], the first, the technical route, is the company which signed a contract for the maintenance of this application with us. If the errors are really technical, that something does not work, the person can report directly to the company via their website. In some case [second route], we as a department are involved in solving the problems and I think that we can help technically and substantively as the top administrators. (Interviewee P9)

Conceptual framework

The six concepts we identified as major driving forces in ES implementation in the public sector answer the first part of our research question. To deal with the second part of our research question, in coding of our interview transcripts as indicated in the Methodology section (sixth phase), we searched for possible relations between these six concepts. The relationships between the driving forces are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Relationships between Driving Forces.

Relationship	Description
Political Leadership → ES Implementation	Political leadership has vast decisive power: it may bring about or simply terminate an ES implementation
Employee Motivation → ES Implementation	Employee motivation has a huge effect on ES implementation as employees that are not motivated may wreck any large project
Governmental Regulations → ES Implementation	Governmental regulations have an enormous effect on ES implementations as changes in regulations may necessitate new systems and render existing systems obsolete
Vendor Quality → ES Implementation	A dedicated vendor may be extremely helpful by committing appropriate resources and efforts
Financial Resources → ES Implementation	The size of the budget determines the range of options
Political Leadership → Employee Motivation	Political leadership can offer incentives to employees and maintain a positive work environment
Political Leadership → Commercial Base	Political leadership can encourage or hinder local business activities by providing incentives or enacting restrictions
Commercial Base → Financial Resources	The economic power of the local commercial base determines the level of tax revenues
Financial Resources → Vendor Quality	A stronger budgetary position allows for higher limits on tenders, resulting in more proposals, and permits a greater degree of selectivity in choosing a vendor

As shown in the table, five of the six identified driving forces directly influence the process of ES implementation. These are political leadership, employee motivation, government regulations, financial resources, and vendor quality. We found that the commercial base only indirectly influences the process of ES implementation. As mentioned earlier, a stronger commercial base provides opportunity to secure more financial resources by collecting taxes, imposing fees, issuing bonds, receiving loans, and obtaining subsidies, but the commercial base in itself is not a major driving force.

As described earlier, local political leadership has vast decisive power in ES implementation. High-ranking city officials can push for adoption of new ES, and appointed representatives may directly oversee the ES implementations. Local Political leaders often view ES implementation as part of their political agenda, and they have the authority to give the go-ahead or to stop an ES implementation. Besides being a direct driving force for ES implementation, political leadership also has indirect impacts. Employee motivation may be affected by incentives and the quality of the work environment over which local political leaders have control. And local political leadership may have a strong impact on the commercial base, as local businesses operate within an environment of restrictions and incentives prescribed by city officials.

Employee motivation has a huge effect on ES implementation as described earlier. Self-motivation and faith in the mission of the work (serving the community) are important concerns in the public sector in general. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation fueled by incentives, including financial ones, are also of significant consequence.

As detailed earlier, ES implementations are subject to government regulations, which may be limiting on new implementations but may also drive new developments. New or updated government regulations may require changes to existing information systems or necessitate entirely new systems.

Also as discussed earlier, a knowledgeable and dedicated vendor has an immense impact on the success of an ES implementation. The quality of the vendor affects the project from its inception to way beyond the system implementation, as ongoing maintenance and training may be required. The quality of the vendor that may be selected though depends in part on the available financial resources. More funding allows more options and flexibility in choosing a specific ES and vendor.

Besides having an impact on vendor selection, financial resources also more directly affect the pursuit of ambitious ES implementation projects by City Halls. Financial resources, in turn, are often determined by the commercial base, as discussed above. The resulting conceptual framework, showing the driving forces and the relationships between them, is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework.

Key findings, limitations, contribution, future research, and conclusion

While the extant literature till now has focused more on finding specific critical success factors affecting ES implementations in the public sector, this study has identified what we call the main driving forces for ES implementations in public institutions as well as the relations between them. Though the conceptions of key success factor and driving force seem to overlap, they are in fact different. Whereas critical success factors refer to elements necessary for an ES project to achieve its mission, we define driving forces as factors that provide impetus behind the processes and decisions bringing about the ES realization. Where the former is a required element to avert failure of the project, the latter provides push, stimulus, and momentum to the endeavor.

We constructed a conceptual framework showing six driving forces in ES implementation in the public sector, viz. political leadership, employee motivation, government regulations, vendor quality, financial resources, and commercial base. Among these, local political leadership stood out as being by far the most important.

The importance of leadership, often equated with top management commitment and support in ES implementation, has been shown to be a key success factor by multiple previous studies (Bukamal & Abu Wadi, 2016; Crisostomo, 2008b; Ziemba & Oblak, 2013). However, rather than investigating the characteristics of top managers that benefit ES implementations, our research determined the importance of political leadership as a driving force.

Political leadership in the public sector is in some ways equivalent to ownership in the private sector. As reported in a study about business process management (BPM) initiatives in transition economies, organizational ownership has paramount sway, yet it is a frequently overlooked factor in ES implementation research (Gabryelczyk & Roztocki, 2018). In many cases it is not the top management that initiates organizational transformation such as by introducing BPM, for example, but the shareholders or private owners. The importance of ownership is particularly noticeable when there is a change in ownership and the new owners become visible driving forces for substantial restructuring efforts. Likewise, to changes in organizational ownership in the private sector, changes in political leadership after elections may have substantial effects and alter the composition of driving forces in ES implementations in the public sector.

Though, as stated above, the conceptions of success factors and driving forces are different, we notice that our finding that employee motivation is a strong driving force for ES implementation seems to align with previous findings that related factors, like involvement of users in ES implementation activities or effective communication within the organization, are considered key success factors (Seres et al., 2019).

We also identified the commercial base as an important driving force, albeit indirectly, based on multiple interviewee responses. According to the best of our knowledge, this has not previously been acknowledged as a major factor in ES implementation in the public sector.

The importance of government regulations and financial resources in ES implementation has been previously recognized in the literature. Thus, for example, Ziemba and Oblak (2013) indicated that government regulations often lead to delays in ES purchases and implementations. And financial resources have been frequently identified as impacting ES implementations in the private sector (Alaskari et al., 2012), but only a few authors have addressed this issue also in the context of public organizations (Ziemba & Oblak, 2013). Government regulations and financial resources do not seem to have been previously determined to be driving forces for ES implementation, though.

As to vendor quality, there is no agreement in the current literature on its impact on ES implementation. Our identification of vendor quality as a driving force for ES implementation seems to align with the findings of Al-Harthi and Saudagar (2020) and Bukamal and Abu Wadi (2016) that identified vendor support as a critical success factor, but contradict the findings of Crisostomo (2008a) who found no significant bearing of vendor support.

Our framework also shows the interrelationships of these driving forces, besides their direct impact on ES implementation. Accordingly, political leadership directly impacts ES implementation, as it has vast decisive power. Moreover, political leadership may further influence ES implementation indirectly, as its actions have a direct impact on employee motivation and the commercial base. Our framework does not show a direct relationship between political leadership and financial resources, as local political leaders, though responsible for preparation of budgets, have limited direct influence on the level of generated public revenues. Commercial base is indirectly related to ES implementation. When the local commercial base is highly developed, it is more likely to generate large inflows to the local budget, which ultimately increases the options for choosing reliable vendors (vendor quality in the framework) that are able to deliver expensive ES and provides the financial resources for the ES implementation. The local commercial base can be expanded by competent political leadership by surmounting existing economic, social, and environmental limitations. Political leadership is responsible for creating the appropriate conditions that attract businesses to locate in a given region. Furthermore, political leadership is instrumental in enabling appropriate employee motivation by sustaining effective performance management practices.

Our research described in this paper was conducted in the public sector in Poland, a transition economy, that is, an economy that has recently transitioned from a centrally planned system and one-party rule to a more open society with a market driven economy. Transition economies differ from established market economies like the USA or Germany in organizational and management culture (Roztocki & Weistroffer, 2015), thus our findings may not be transferable to more mature societies with a longer tradition of democracy. As indicated in our methodology section, we did not complete the final phase of our proposed research, that is, the validation and refining of the conceptual framework proposed in this paper. A possible approach, and thus a future research opportunity, is to validate our framework by other methods besides interviews, such as surveys or observations. Our own, already planned follow-up project is to validate our framework using primarily surveys. A different research opportunity may be to replicate our case study in a different country, perhaps in a country with a mature market economy and long tradition of democracy.

Also conducting research more at an individual level may be very interesting. In particular it would be very interesting to investigate how individual employees view the driving force of employee motivation. A different research opportunity is to explore how various stakeholders perceive success of an ES implementation in the public sector, as there seems to be no universal definition of what makes any information system successful.

The current study and our framework contribute to practice in that they offer managers and other decision-makers involved with public sector ES implementations a better understanding of the driving forces to be monitored in these types of undertakings. Overall, our work also contributes to the academic body of knowledge by providing a sound foundation for further research on the topic of ES implementation in the public sector. To conclude, we are positive that our research and our ideas will inspire other scholars and our conceptual framework will be a driver for future research.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the employees at the City Halls who dedicated their priceless time and shared their experiences for this study. This work was supported by the Polish National Science Centre, Poland, Grant No. 2018/29/B/HS4/02578. An earlier version of this study was presented at the pre-ICIS workshop of the AIS Special Interest Group on Global Development (SIGGlobDev) in Austin, Texas, in December 2021. We thank the workshop participants for their valuable comments and suggestions for improving the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Polish National Science Centre, Poland [2018/29/B/HS4/02578].

Notes on contributors

Narcyz Roztocki

Narcyz Roztocki is professor in the Department of Accounting at Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland and professor in the School of Business at the State University of New York at New Paltz, USA. His research interests include IS/IT investment evaluation, IS/IT productivity, and IS/IT investments in transition/emerging economies. He has published in numerous journals including European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Strategic Information System, Journal of Computer Information Systems, as well as in numerous conference proceedings such as AMCIS, HICCS, and ECIS. He is a senior editor of the journal Information Technology for Development and the journal Information Systems Management.

Wojciech Strzelczyk

Wojciech Strzelczyk is assistant professor in the Department of Accounting at Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland. His research interests include IS/IT use in public sector organizations, IS/IT productivity, performance management and measurement using modern technology tools. He has published in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal and Public Performance & Management Review, Information Systems Management, and in proceedings of EAA and AMCIS, among others.

Heinz Roland Weistroffer

Heinz Roland Weistroffer is professor emeritus in the School of Business at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia, USA. His research interests include information technology for development, systems analysis and design, and computer assisted decision-making. He has published in Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Information Technology for Development, Information Systems Management, and Decision Support Systems among other journals, as well as in numerous conference proceedings such as AMCIS, DSI, HICCS, and ECIS. He is an associate editor of the journal Information Technology for Development and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Economics and Management.

Notes

1. https://www.maxqda.com.

Appendix 1.

Interview Scenario

The estimated time per interview is 45 minutes. Interviews are recorded.

Imprint:

Position … … … … … … … .

Function/role in the implementation of ES … … … … … … … .

Female/Male … … … … … … … .

Name of department/office. Division … … … … … … … .

Initial Questions

• (1) What kind of ES does the City Hall operate and what is the scope of the operation?

• (2) What was the reason for the implementation of the integrated system?

• (3) How was the system selected?

• (4) How was the final decision about the choice of the system and the procedure for its implementation made?

• (5) How was the purchase and implementation of the system financed? How flexible was the budget in this regard?

Implementation of the ES

• (6) What was the system implementation process like?

a. Was a project team formed and what was its composition?

b. Were team meetings organized? If any, how often?

c. Did the project team set deadlines for implementing the system?

d. Did you have a formalized action plan?

e. Were the system implementation schedule and costs monitored?

f. Was the scope of the project defined in detail?

g. Where and how did you get motivated by decision makers?

• (7) Could you indicate the factors that determine the effectiveness of the system implementation?

• (8) Were the employees trained before implementing the system?

  1. What was the way of training and knowledge exchange like?

  2. Do you propose any changes to the training method?

• (9) Did the implementation of the system require any changes (redesign) of procedures in City Hall? What were these changes?

• (10) Was it necessary to standardize the processes inside City Hall in order to implement the system? What was the standardization process?

• (11) Has the system been integrated with the existing internal and /or external systems? Please describe what this integration was about?

• (12) Was the system implemented on time, in line with the budget and the expectations of the awarding entities?

• (13) Are the users satisfied with the system?

Implementation Effects

• (14) Please describe what, in your opinion, the implementation of the system in City Hall contributed? (To what extent has the system improved the City Hall operations?)

• (15) Did the implementation of the ES have an impact on the residents’ satisfaction with the services provided? What is your opinion?

• (16) Do you have any advice for other City Halls regarding the implementation of the ES?

Use of Information and System Capabilities

• (17) How is the information provided by the ES used at the following levels?

  1. Managing staff (e.g., president, vice-presidents, directors, managers, chiefs)

  2. System users

• (18) Could you indicate the factors that determine the use of information from the system?

• (19) Do you think that the current system is adequate?

• (20) Do you have anything to add?

Appendix 2.

Data Collection Details.

~TC~

Data Sources
Total Interviews, N = 39
Profiles of employees interviewed	Interviewee Codes	City Hall Codes (Date)	Duration
Head of the Delegation of the Administration and Civic Affairs Office (City District A)	P1	A (May 2019)	55 min
Deputy Director of the IT and Information Processing Office	P2	A (May 2019)	63 min
Deputy Director in the Accounting and Countersignature Office	P3	A (May 2019)	45 min
Senior Specialist in the Exploitation Department in the Debt and Debt Restructuring Office	P4	A (May 2019)	32 min
Director of the IT and Information Processing Office	P5	A (May 2019)	42 min
Senior Specialist in the Risk Department in City President Office	P6	A (May 2019)	62 min
President’s Proxy for Risk Management, Deputy Head of the Risk Department in City President Office	P7	A (May 2019)	68 min
Senior Specialist in the Exploitation Department in the Debt and Debt Restructuring Office	P8	A (May 2019)	16 min
Senior Specialist in the Risk Department in City President Office	P9	A (May 2019)	53 min
Secretary of the City Hall in City President Office	P10	A (May 2019)	29 min
Head of the Delegation of the Administration and Civic Affairs Office (City District B)	P11	A (May 2019)	16 min
Deputy President of the City	P12	B (June 2019)	33 min
Director of the IT and Telecommunications Service Office	P13	B (June 2019)	66 min
Deputy Director of the IT and Telecommunications Service Office	P14	B (June 2019)	41 min
Senior Specialist in the and Telecommunications Service Office	P15	B (June 2019)	38 min
IT Specialist in the and Telecommunications Service Office	P16	B (June 2019)	23 min
Inspector in the and Telecommunications Service Office	P17	B (June 2019)	15 min
Director of the Organizational and Administrative Department	P18	B (June 2019)	20 min
Head of the City Road Administration/Traffic Control Department	P19	B (June 2019)	43 min
Head of the Finance Department	P20	B (June 2019)	20 min
Head of the Intelligent Transport Systems Department	P21	B (June 2019)	20 min
Director of Internal Audit Team	P22	C (June 2019)	53 min
Senior Inspector in the Department of Strategy, Planning and Monitoring of Investment	P23	C (June 2019)	27 min
Inspector in the Department of Strategy, Planning and Monitoring of Investment	P24
Deputy Director of the Department of Strategy, Planning and Monitoring of Investment	P25	C (June 2019)	81 min
Senior Specialist in the Department of Organization and Supervision	P26	C (June 2019)	32 min
President’s proxy for the Development of the IT System, Department for Development of the GMK IT System	P27	C (June 2019)	51 min
Director of the IT Department	P28	C (June 2019)	57 min
Head of the Information Society Division in the Department of Organization and Supervision	P29	C (June 2019)	61 min
Senior Specialist in the Department of Organization and Supervision	P30	C (June 2019)	55 min
Head of the Application Management Division in the IT Department	P31	C (June 2019)	39 min
Director of IT Department	P32	D (July 2019)	70 min
President’s proxy for Smart City, Head of Digitalization and Cybersecurity Office	P33	D (July 2019)	17 min
Head of the Financial Department	P34	D (July 2019)	26 min
Director of the Budget and Controlling Department, Deputy City Treasurer	P35	D (July 2019)	59 min
Head of the Procurement Division of the City Hall Service Department	P36	D (July 2019)	48 min
Senior Inspector in the City Hall Service Department	P37	D (July 2019)	38 min
The Acting Director of IT Department	P38	E (August 2019)	90 min
Senior Specialist in the IT Department	P39	E (August 2019)	36 min
Total written responses, N = 11
Deputy Director of KSAT Department, Service and Administration Department	P40	F (August 2019)	NA
Director of SAP Department, Service and Administration Department	P41	F (August 2019)	NA
Senior Specialist in Public Finance Division in Accounting Department	P42	F (August 2019)	NA
Senior Specialist in Public Finance Division in Accounting Department	P43	F (August 2019)	NA
Head of Public Finance Division in Accounting Department	P44	F (August 2019)	NA
Head of IT Department at the IT Services Centera	P45	F (August 2019)	NA
IT Administrator at the IT Services Center	P46	F (August 2019)	NA
Senior IT Administrator at the IT Services Center	P47	F (August 2019)	NA
Senior IT Administrator at the IT Services Center	P48	F (August 2019)	NA
Senior IT Administrator at the IT Services Center	P49	F (August 2019)	NA
Deputy Head of IT Department at the IT Services Center	P50	F (August 2019)	NA

a IT Services Center is a publicly owned organization established by City F to outsource the IT services for the City Hall and other communal units. IT Services Center was created to build a highly professional IT organization, bringing together high-class specialists to support City Hall and all linked public units, which was difficult to implement in the City Hall with limited budget for staff salaries.

Appendix 3.

Partial Coding Tree Developed in MAXQDA for Meta Category Driving Forces of ES Implementation.

Table

Categories	Codes	Illustrative Quotations (Examples with Interviewee Identifiers)
Political leadership	Directives	P1: When the idea to implement the system arose, there was a presidential agreement to do so (…) [the president] appointed people responsible for this implementation.
	Commitment and support	P5: Support and commitment from the top were always [present], yes. Well, we cannot imagine the implementation of a system that people would want to use if they do not see any sense in it.
	Tenure and continuity of political party	P32: … support from top management is important for ES implementation, and I would like to make that clear here, even if [management] changes after an election. (…) on the one hand this just sounds like a slogan, but until a situation arises in which the new political leaders, to put it gently, do not support the decisions of the previous authorities, it is not obvious that this is an element that may be so critical for a successful implementation process.
Employee motivation	Financial incentives	P3: We also provided some financial incentives and some kind of acknowledgments. P30: But financial resources were also a motivation.
	Financing for training	P2: … I can tell you what works. Monetary rewards are not the best; motivation in the form of paying for training is much more effective.
	Self-motivation	P10: … we were motivated by the fact that we are doing something new. (…) we felt internally on the project team that it would simply lead to good changes inside the organization …
	Regular meetings with leaders	P1: The meetings organized by the director of the Organization Department were aimed at familiarizing us with this project (…), informing us about the benefits to us and also about the value added (…)
Commercial base	Size of the city	P31: Often, we said that we (…) needed something in a specific way. But that had to be agreed on by all of City Hall. (…) On the other hand, if the finance department said that something should be (…) in the contract, it was forced on all departments. It does not change the fact that (…) [the vendor] did not always want to do what we wanted because other cities wanted it different. (…) often because (…) [city C] is big, they [the vendor] did what they asked them to do. Because we always have specific issues.
	Customer pressure	P31: I think that now there are also greater demands from our clients. And that is why there is an attempt to meet these requirements somewhere (…)
Financial resources	Availability of financial resources	P8: Funds, if available in the budget [allow implementation of the needed system]. I think that with their [the funds] proper commitment, creating and implementing any system will bring the effects anticipated by everyone.
	Budget flexibility	P5: … the possibilities of the project budget are not that flexible, after all it results from the city budget. A certain amount is allocated for this, and [depending on] this amount, we must complete this task with a cheaper or more expensive system. Often the type of system you get depends on how much money you have. It’s not like we want the best system because we have unlimited budget options.
Government regulations	Chsanges in regulations	P11: First and foremost, the [implementation of ES] was imposed by an act of law.
	Primacy of country regulations	P7: … those were requirements from acts of law. It was a bit of an ordeal imposed on local governments in Poland that this management control was introduced here.
Vendor quality	Contractual flexibility	P6: … if we create something new, and we do not buy an already complete product (…) there is always a risk of [inferior] integrity, performance, [and less] contractual flexibility …
	Vendor support	P9: [for support after ES implementation] the technical route is the company which signed a contract for the maintenance of this application with us. If the errors are really technical, that something does not work, the person can report directly to the company via their website.