Technology level barriers to knowledge sharing

5 Discussion

5.2.3 Technology level barriers to knowledge sharing

At the technological level, few barriers confirmed Riege’s (2005) model. Mainstream research identifies that most of the knowledge sharing barriers at the technological level include:

• The lack of knowledge in relation to a new technology and its adoption in the workplace (Attewell 1992),

• Technology that is incompatible to work routines (Santos, Soares & Carvalho 2012) and • Reluctance to adopt existing technologies (Ardichvili 2008)

However, of the barriers that were identified included the lack of technical support and inadequate hardware systems. Table 5-3 tabulates the results at the technology level.

Table 5-3 Technology barriers to knowledge sharing outcomes

Technology barriers (Riege 2005) Confirmed Not

confirmed Project impact

Lack of integration of IT systems and processes impedes on the way people do things

Lack of technical support (internal or external) and immediate maintenance of integrated IT systems obstructs work routines and communication flows

Communication, scope creep and de-motivation

Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can do and cannot do

4 Lack of compatibility between

diverse IT systems and processes û

Mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and integrated IT systems and processes restricts sharing practices

ü Productivity and work routines

Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience

with them

113 7

Lack of training regarding employee familiarisation of new IT systems and

processes

Lack of communication and demonstration of all advantages of

any new systems over existing ones

5.2.3.1 Lack of technical support

From the analysis of data, it was made clear that there were several issues stemming from the provision of technical support, such as that offered by the VPS’s shared services agency (SSA). Since the 1990s, the private sector in particular has adopted the shared services model for efficiency and cost saving purposes (Mccomiskie 2010). This arrangement has stimulated the public sector into action and follow suit and in the mid 2000s, “more than two-thirds of government agencies in western countries were using shared service” (McComiskie 2010, p. 65). According to Ulbrich (2006), the services offered by SSAs differ and are dependent on their objectives (Schulz et al. 2009). For example, they can take on a number of functions including centres of excellence. Under this umbrella, core efforts are concentrated on advisory and professional services as well as providing expertise on specific tasks (Ulbrich 2006).

5.2.3.1.1 Change management

Usually, when creating an SSA or a centre for excellence, existing experts or specialists from various departments are centralised into one common unit (Quinn, Cooke & Kris 2000; Ulbrich 2006) to promote efficiency, provide better value, enhance services, improve the management of knowledge and cost savings for internal customers of the parent organisation (Bergeron 2003; Janssen & Borman 2010; Cheung 2014). This was acknowledged in the study as several colleagues of participants working within the same department were transitioned to the VPS’s SSA. Scholars note that the resulting implementation of a SSA requires major upheaval (Mcivor, Mccracken & Mchugh 2011) and in doing so, an effective change management model is required to aid and realise the endeavour (Mccomiskie 2010). Although not the scope of this enquiry, it is nonetheless a matter that helps to contextualise and explain certain narratives and themes emerging from the data.

The concept of organisational change or change management can be defined as “…a state of transition between the current state and a future one, towards which the organisation is directed” (Cummings 1985, p. 15) and primarily impacts people and processes (Salminen 2000). The types

114 and methods of change differ and are dependent on the organisation’s strategic intent (Dervitsiotis 2003). From this perspective, Lycke (2003) posits that change can involve the modification of structures, cultures, rules and regulations, procedures and technology; all of which were present during the creation of the VPS’s SSA. In the case of the public sector, complexities of change run high due to the nature of governance and complex patterns of interaction and thus, such initiatives ought to consider self-governance, ambiguity and unpredictability (Karp & Helg 2008).

5.2.3.1.1.1

Resistance to change

Implementing an SSA within an ICT context necessitates changing behaviours within the provider since functions usually transition to a customer driven approach (Couto et al. 2002). Participants explained that during the transition process, there were “heated debates and confrontations…in the office” as a number of people across departments were made redundant or their contracts were not renewed. Emotions run high and resistance to change heightens as it entails a sense of loss and frustration (Carr 2001). Public sector employees are very much used to bureaucratic habits, particularly procedural regulation and introducing change to transform these habitual and mechanical ways of working steadily increases resistance levels amongst individuals (Doherty & Horne 2002). Although data showed that participants did not exhibit this level of behaviour, it seemed to resonate with their colleagues with whom they were required to engage on a regular basis. What’s more, from an operational level, resistance to change can introduce cost overruns and in particular, substantial delays (Waddell & Sohal 1998). Result from the study indicated that from a project level, key contacts for technical support matters were lost, adding substantial delays to resolve desktop issues and onsite deployment milestones.

5.2.3.1.2 Introduction of new process

A major challenge for organisations facing change is achieving a standardised process between business units, especially when they are dispersed across different geographical regions (Mcivor, Mccracken & Mchugh 2011). Previously, most ICT infrastructure matters, whether for projects or for business as usual activities, were managed locally within departments. It was explained that, depending on the issue and the severity of its nature, requests were outsourced to external suppliers. As participants were well acquainted with this process, it seemed to be the preferred method to support projects as “it was simple and straightforward back then…it made it easy to liaise with people and get the job done” and “conditions were clear”. Since the SSA was perceived to function “as an outside entity” and internal processes had been replaced, its impact caused several concerns for projects including losing key personal contacts, excess project work and de-motivation of team members. In addition, technical support issues were a less onerous

115 exercise. Back office functions such as administrative tasks share the brunt when organisations decide to create a SSA (Mcivor, Mccracken & Mchugh 2011). Hagel and Brown (2005) further suggest that if an organisation has an established and unified IT structure, any changes including the creation of an SSA run a risk to internal processes that work. However, research also suggests that an SSA model inherits a high volume work routine (Cheung 2014), which further explains why some requests to the SSA were left unanswered or were not timely responded.

5.2.3.1.3 Role clarity

Results of this study concluded that when engaging with technical staff from the SSA for advisory matters, participants felt that there were unclear expectations of the roles and responsibilities. Literature tells us that this often occurs when there is lack of information on responsibilities and existing processes within the organisation (Kahn et al. 1964). In addition, major organisational change causes temporary interruption to established processes, which can often lead to an imbalance between the expectations of employees and the SSA (Cooke 2006).

Srikanth and Jomon (2013) opine that “role ambiguity can be understood in terms of the outcome expected from individuals and the clarity of the behavioural requirements that need to be fulfilled to meet those outcomes” (p. 107). D'ortenzio (2012) defines it to be “a continuum between absolute certainty at one end and absolute uncertainty at the other end” (p. 202). Under these circumstances, performance is hampered with undesirable outcomes for the organisation hindering project expectations (Fried et al. 1998; Tan & Hunter 2002; Yun, Takeuchi & Liu 2007). When the ambiguity of roles is high, interpretation of an individual’s understanding is somewhat convoluted, leaving room for a flexible and multiple interpretation of a given set of tasks (Yun, Takeuchi & Liu 2007). In such circumstances, specific standards are not met and performance is significantly diminished (Marginson 2006). This explains why some “onsite deployment milestones” were not achieved for many of the participants. The notion of role ambiguity is not an uncommon phenomenon transpiring in various fields including sporting (Bray & Brawley 2002), automotive (Srikanth & Jomon 2013) and in particular, the IT industry (Ganesh & Gupta 2010).

These arguments confirm Riege’s (2005) second technological barrier “lack of technical support (internal or external) and immediate maintenance of integrated IT systems obstructs work routines and communication flows” (p. 29). As the VPS’s SSA was the main provider of ICT infrastructure services, its creation and continued operation and support for ICT projects limited participants’ capability to adequately manage projects. Relationships and roles were unclear, the rate of knowledge sharing and the flow of communication were found to be slow and impacted project milestones.

116

5.2.3.2 Mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and integrated IT

systems

As it was previously highlighted, technology was predominantly used to coordinate project work and the use of applications and social media facilitated knowledge sharing activities. Although imperative for project work, participants were mainly concerned about the issues arising from using dedicated technology in the workplace, specifically departments’ “outdated” desktops. As a result, systems “would freeze” and at times “lag” whilst running several applications at once, impacting the efficiency of work and slowing down the communication process with stakeholders. This attestation substantiates the presence of Riege’s (2005) fifth technological barrier “mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and integrated IT systems and processes restricts sharing practices” (p. 29). If productivity and project performance are important aspects in ICT PM, sufficient technology that is capable of meeting the needs of employees are of critical importance to enhance communication and realise project benefits (Riege 2007).

The VPS as a whole is recognising the challenges that lay before them and as such, have introduced a Victorian Government Information Technology Strategy 2016-2020 (Jennings 2016). The author Gavin Jennings (Special Minister of State), on behalf of Department of Premier and Cabinet, underlined the need for the VPS to reform its technology to pursue effectiveness for public sector employees. He states that to ensure the improvement of technology, “…the government is rethinking its workplace. Government ICT systems should be robust and allow employees to easily use the systems they need to do their job through establishing…operational models” that support “…the best available technology” (p. 6). To achieve these benefits, Jennings (2016) suggests that public servants need to be equipped with the “the tools they require to collaborate, communicate and connect with each other” (p. 8). This is another testament of the Victorian Government further acknowledging and reinforcing the public discourse on the changes needed to promote cohesion between employees and adequate technology.

The current state of ICT systems across the VPS reflects that they are at different phases in their life cycles and it is up to relevant departments and agencies to develop a convincing business case to support investments or a technology refresh (Jennings 2016). Certainly, the results of this study strongly indicate a push for this motion, which also has the potential to inform a convincing case towards such investments. The report concedes that “…many employees are hampered by out-of- date government systems” (p. 26) and the government is developing a set of standards “to meet the needs of a modern, Agile workforce” (p. 26).

117 The Australian Government (i.e. APS) appears to be optimistic with regard to new measures as they relate to technology. A Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), an agency that sits within the Prime Minister’s portfolio, was established to aid ICT transformation agendas. Currently, the DTA has commenced on a number of projects to advance ICT capabilities across departments and agencies and hopes to make available relevant lessons to all levels of government. This will support capability of public servants to explore current ways of working and challenge existing business models. However, it is recognised that such measures will take time.

“To…replace [current systems]… with new ones can’t simply happen overnight. There are challenges and constraints with this level of work. Like in our department for example, there are more than seven thousand users…to even implement…[requires] months just for planning…the solution will take…years” (PM11)

All in all, technology presented minimal barriers to knowledge sharing. The study did, however, confirm Riege’s (2005) second technological barrier “lack of technical support...” (p. 29) and the fifth technological barrier “mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and integrated IT systems” (p. 29). It was revealed that much of the concerns raised by participants in this study have already been brought to the attention of and are recognised by key departments and agencies across the VPS. Consequently, specific measures were crafted to mitigate the possible issues relating to ICT.

118

In document Exploring barriers to knowledge sharing in temporary organisations and their implications on project success: the case from the Victorian Public Service (Page 112-118)