Sharon S. Dawes - CTG Anthony M. Cresswell - CTG Laura Black - MIT David F. Andersen - RC George P....

Sharon S. Dawes - CTGAnthony M. Cresswell - CTGLaura Black - MITDavid F. Andersen - RCGeorge P. Richardson - RCLuis F. Luna - RCIgnacio J. Martinez - RC

Generic Structures that Guide the Implementation of IT‑Based Innovations

in the Public Sector

Agenda

• The opportunnity

• How the idea was depeloped

• The group modelling session– Pre-meeting activities– Meeting activities– Post-meeting activities

• What is next

The Opportunity

• Past fall, MIT students visit to Albany – Laura Black presented to us her work with technology and Cross-Boundary Collaboration

• The Center for Technology in Government at the University at Albany, – worked since 1993 to study just this process through

implementation of Technology‑Based Innovations in the Public Sector

– Gateways to the Past, Present, and Future: Practical Guidelines to the Secondary Uses of Electronic Records

How The Idea Was Developed

Jan/2001DFA starts talking with potential participants – Paper proposal

Mar/13/2001Meeting with Tony Cresswell (CTG) – Group modelling approach

Mar/20/2001Meeting with all the KDI team – Initial interest in the project

Mar/29/2001Meeting with modeling group – HIMS project selected / session scheduled

Apr/13/2001First modeling meeting – More than a paper

Modelling Session

Pre-meeting Activities

• Create Script (Richardson and Andersen, 1995)– Roles

• Facilitator DA• Modeler/Reflector GR• Process Coach GR• Recorder LL / IM• Gatekeeper AC

• Get CTG approval• Create Concept Model• Complete logistics

Meeting Activities

8:30 · Review Agenda for the day· Purpose, discussion and clarification· Concept Model: a fast overview of final product· Boundary Clarification – stakeholders, actors, sectors in the model, key variable (especially stocks) elicitation, key variables and the reference mode

10:20 BREAK 10:30 · Stock mapping

· Feedback loop mapping· Modeler Feedback· Next steps and future tasks

The Modelling Group

David Andersen Rockefeller CollegeDonna Canestraro Center for Technology in GovernmentMeghan Cook Center for Technology in GovernmentAnthony Cresswell Center for Technology in GovernmentMark LaVigne Center for Technology in GovernmentIgnacio Martinez Rockefeller CollegeTheresa Pardo Center for Technology in GovernmentGeorge Richardson Rockefeller CollegeFiona Thompson Center for Technology in GovernmentLuis Luna Rockefeller College

Concept Model

Tasks to doFinished

workProgress rate

People

People on project

Peopleproductivity

Fraction of peopleassigned to project

TrustTrust building

rateTrust erosion

Trust built per taskaccomplished

Time for trust tobreak down

Concept Model

Project and Trust Progress

600

450

300

150

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Time (Day)

Tasks to do : Final1 TaskFinished work : Final1 TaskTrust : Final1 Task

Concept Model

Tasks to doFinished

workProgress rate

People

People on project

Peopleproductivity


Projectdefinition

Fractionremaining

TrustTrust building

rateTrust erosion



Effect of trust overproductivity

R

B

Concept Model


600

450

300

150

0

0 18 36 53 71Time (Day)

Tasks to do : Trust Normal TaskFinished work : Trust Normal TaskTrust : Trust Normal Task

Concept Model

Tasks to doFinished

workProgress rate

People

People on project

Peopleproductivity


Projectdefinition

Fractionremaining

TrustTrust building

rateTrust erosion



Effect of trust overproductivity

R

Concept Model


600

450

300

150

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Time (Day)

Tasks to do : Normal TaskFinished work : Normal TaskTrust : Normal Task

Key Variables Elicitation

• Number of interactions or meetings

• Level of the people involved

• Trust– Providers role to the state

– Providers trust to Bob and CTG

– Providers trust among them

– Individual trust

• Feedback from work (evidence of listening)

• Percent of HIMS developed• Level of engagement (at

meetings) – Ownership• Level of leadership • CTG involvement amount

and role• Providers appreciation

about the value of HIMS to themselves

Boundary Clarification

Structure Elicitation

Feasibleprototype

components

Commonunderstanding ofwhat and how

componentgrowth

CTG involvement

Use of SMARTIT tools


Feasibleprototype

components


Collaboration

Capacity tocollaborate

Willingness tocollaborate

Trust

LeadershipProvider

Engagement

componentgrowth

Responsibiliy forcollaboration

CTG involvement



Feasibleprototype

components


ExpectationsDemonstrated

results

Collaboration



Trust

LeadershipProvider

Engagement

Personal priorexperience

componentgrowth


CTG involvement

Opportunity to act


Pressure to beaccountable

Welfare reformpressure

Bob activity


Feasibleprototype

components


ExpectationsDemonstrated

results

Collaboration



Trust

LeadershipProvider

Engagement

Personal priorexperience

componentgrowth


CTG involvement

Bob usednegative

experience

Opportunity to act


BHS and QAengagement

Role ofcorporate

partner

Pressure to beaccountable

Welfare reformpressure

Bob activity

Reflector Feedback

Uncommittedproviders

Committedproviders

Gainingcommitment

Loss ofcommitment

Reflector Feedback


Committedproviders

Gainingcommitment

Loss ofcommitment

Involvement ofproviders

Involvement of theState (BHS, QA)

Involvement ofCTG

PerceivedPotential

Perceivedthreat

Level ofcommitment

of thecommittedBuilding Eroding

Positive word ofmouth

+

+

-

+

+

++

+ +

R1

Reflector Feedback


Committedproviders

Gainingcommitment

Loss ofcommitment



Involvement ofCTG

PerceivedPotential

Perceivedthreat

Level ofcommitment



+

+

-

+

+

++

+ +

R1

Collaboration

FeasiblePrototype

Components

++

+

+Satisfaction in

demostrated results

Positive priorexpectations

(process)

Negativeexpectations

(process)

+

+-+

R2

+/-

+/-

-

+ +

Reflector Feedback


Committedproviders

Gainingcommitment

Loss ofcommitment



Involvement ofCTG

PerceivedPotential

Perceivedthreat

Level ofcommitment



+

+

-

+

+

++

+ +

R1

Collaboration

FeasiblePrototype

Components

++

+

+

Perceivedvalidity of

the process

Satisfaction indemostrated results


(process)


(process)

+

+-+

+

+

+

+R2

+/-

+/-

-

+ +

Reflector Feedback


Committedproviders

Gainingcommitment

Loss ofcommitment



Involvement ofCTG

PerceivedPotential

Perceivedthreat

Level ofcommitment



+

+

-

+

+

++

+ +

R1

Collaboration

FeasiblePrototype

Components

++

+

+

Perceivedvalidity of

the process

Satisfaction indemostrated results


(process)


(process)

+

+-+

+

+

+

+R2

+/-

+/-

-

+ +

CommonUnderstanding

Vision

Opportunity/pressureto actInfeasible

PrototypeComponents- +

+

+

+

-+

+

+

+

Trust

Involvement ofCorporate Partner

+

What Is Next

• Formulate the Model

• Second Meeting on May, 8th

• Poster in Atlanta Meeting

• Paper in SD Review or other Journal

• Obtaining funding to model other CTG projects

• Dissertation

Sharon S. Dawes - CTG Anthony M. Cresswell - CTG Laura Black - MIT David F. Andersen - RC George P....

Documents

Transcript of Sharon S. Dawes - CTG Anthony M. Cresswell - CTG Laura Black - MIT David F. Andersen - RC George P....